Anthrovision 6790

Anthrovision
Vaneasa Online Journal

8.1 | 2020
Collaboration, Mediation, and Comparison
Picturing the Group: Combining Photo-elicitation

and Focus Group Methods
Vincent Walstra
Electronic version
URL: https://journals.openedition.org/anthrovision/6790
DOI: 10.4000/anthrovision.6790
ISSN: 2198-6754
Publisher
VANEASA - Visual Anthropology Network of European Association of Social Anthropologists
Electronic reference
Vincent Walstra, “Picturing the Group: Combining Photo-elicitation and Focus Group Methods”,
Anthrovision [Online], 8.1 | 2020, Online since 29 July 2022, connection on 28 May 2023. URL: http://
journals.openedition.org/anthrovision/6790 ; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/anthrovision.6790
This text was automatically generated on 28 May 2023.
All rights reserved

Picturing the Group: Combining Photo-elicitation and Focus Group Methods 1
Picturing the Group: Combining

Photo-elicitation and Focus Group
Methods
Vincent Walstra
I would like to thank the GroenGoed foundation for participating in my research, and the five
gardeners of this focus group for their active participation, openness, musical coverage of the
train nuisance, and insightful discussions during the session. The Food Citizens? project has
received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 724151).
Introduction
1 As an anthropologist, I have been trained in ethnographic research methods, which
emphasize participant observation and interviewing as principal techniques. In this
paper, however, I show the value of focus groups in ethnographic research, by
reflecting on my own experience in organizing a focus group amongst community
gardeners in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. More specifically, I discuss the value of
organizing a photo-elicitation focus group (PEFG). I argue that the PEFG method allows
the researcher to better understand the diversities and consensus of perspectives
within existing groups, through their shared or different interpretations of signs. I use
Webb Keane’s concept of “semiotic ideology” (2018) to explain how combining photo-
elicitation with group discussions generates specific data on individual and group
positionality.
2 The data and analyses discussed in this paper are based on fieldwork focused on
collective food procurement (CFP) networks in Rotterdam, conducted between
February 2019 and August 2020. For one-and-a-half years, I participated with up to 13
CFP initiatives ranging from social dinner initiatives to craft food markets, collective
farming, food policy networks and community gardens. The research was part of a
larger comparative research project across three European cities: Rotterdam, Gdańsk
Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

and Turin. It was conducted within a general project framework that aimed to
“critically engage with the notion of ‘food citizenship’” (Grasseni 2016: 3). In the initial
project proposal, principal investigator Cristina Grasseni (2016) included the
techniques of focus groups and elicitation in the common methodology framework.
Focus groups were meant to contribute with insights into internal diversity and
nuanced interpretations of solidarity (Grasseni 2016: 10), whereas elicitation had the
purpose of reflecting with participants on their own expertise and skills (Grasseni 2016:
11). This paper discusses how these suggested methods were implemented in the field
by combining them into a photo-elicitation focus group session. The experiences on
which this paper builds its argument were taken from two PEFGs, of which one,
conducted with five community gardeners, will be the case study of this paper. The
PEFG with the community gardeners took place in August 2020, the final month of that
particular fieldwork period.
3 The PEFG was held in a community garden called Vredestuin [literally: Peace garden],
one of eight community gardens managed by the GroenGoed [GreenGood] Foundation
in northern Rotterdam. At the time of the PEFG, I had conducted a year of fieldwork
amongst the gardeners, participating weekly in several of the GroenGoed community
gardens, including the Vredestuin. Activities consisted of weeding, seeding, harvesting,
and chatting during lunch and coffee breaks. Therefore, at the time of the PEFG, I had
enough data on the purposes, activities and organization of the Vredestuin and
GroenGoed. Equally, I had gotten an understanding of individual purposes from most of
the volunteers that participated in the PEFG. What was lacking, however, was an in-
depth perspective on internal diversities and nuances concerning common topics and
beliefs amongst the gardeners. As a collective, the gardeners often followed a common
consensus when it came to sociopolitical issues relating to activism, gentrification or
the purpose of gardening. Individual interviews, nevertheless, showed the existence of
internal diversities. For instance, one of the participants, Das, had expressed to me his
concern about GroenGoed receiving subsidies from the municipality. He was afraid it
would endanger their autonomy as a grassroots organization. From the initiators of
GroenGoed, Rutger and Daniël, I would learn that autonomy was also important to
them, but subsidies ensured the continuity of the project. I got to know both
perspectives, but was more interested in how they communicated these concerns
towards one another. Whereas this example plays into internal differences, I was also
curious about the gardeners’ collective perspective on the garden community. The
gardeners often mobilized against inequality, like eviction in marginalized
neighborhoods. But how did they relate their own socioeconomic positions and
aesthetic preferences for self-grown or craft food to processes of neighborhood
regeneration and gentrification? The goal of organizing the PEFG, therefore, was to
orchestrate group discussions that would tap into such nuanced differences and
reflections.
4 During the two-and-a-half hour PEFG session, I combined individual photo-elicitation,
group mind mapping, group photo-elicitation, and group discussions. In the paper, I
reflect on the main element of the PEFG, which was the synergy between photo-
elicitation and group discussions. The PEFG was based on researcher-generated
photographs that I had gathered throughout my fieldwork. Choosing researcher-
generated photographs instead of participatory photography originated in the goal of
the PEFG, which was to reflect on topics that had emerged from my own observations
through long-term participant observation. By choosing researcher-generated

photographs, I was able to elicit discussions about topics of my own interest. I argue
that applying photo-elicitation in this way makes the PEFG a tool for increasing
analytical depth in longitudinal fieldwork typical for ethnography.
5 The next section gives a short theoretical introduction to both the methods of focus
groups and photo-elicitation in relation to ethnographic research, as well as introduces
Keane’s concept of semiotic ideology. Thereafter, I introduce my method of setting up a
PEFG session. Next, I discuss in the empirical section how the PEFG method combined
with a semiotic analysis provided me with new analytical observations about the
community gardeners. Throughout the paper, I make use of various photographs and
video fragments from the PEFG. The paper finishes with a conclusive remark about the
potential of PEFG in ethnographic research.
Literature Review
Photo-elicitation & Focus Groups
6 Combining photo-elicitation with a focus group is not an entirely new technique. Dona
Schwartz (1989) applied this combination of techniques during her research in an
Iowan farmer community in the United States. Although not trained as an
anthropologist, she conducted ethnographic fieldwork and combined it with her
profession as a photographer. In her article, she explains in detail how photo-
elicitation got her to understand local intimate relationships in a way she would not
have been able to without photo-elicitation. Interestingly, Schwartz pays little
attention to the other technique she used, which is that of the focus group. Her article
clearly focuses on the photo-elicitation method, but at the same time she states that if
possible, she conducted the interviews in groups (Schwartz 1989: 126), because:
‘[I]n group viewings, photographs elicit extended personal narratives which
illuminate viewers' lives and experiences. (…) [T]he social interactions surrounding
the activity of looking at photographs provide an arena for studying the meanings
viewers attribute to aspects of their everyday lives.‘ (Schwartz 1989: 122)
7 Schwartz thus believes that the group setting evokes an ‘extended personal narrative’
because of the social setting in which participants give meaning to the photographs. In
this paper, I dwell on Schwartz’s analysis by further delving into the effects of group
settings on the use of photo-elicitation. First, however, let me give a brief introduction
to the two different methods of focus groups and photo-elicitation.
8 Focus group sessions is a common technique in qualitative social sciences. According to
Krueger and Casey (2015), the method distinguishes itself by several characteristics. In
particular, I wish to highlight two such characteristics: 1) the sessions consist of people
who are selected based on a common characteristic, and 2) they are aimed at discussing
a specific topic of interest (Krueger and Casey 2015: 26). Unfortunately, even though
there exist several practical guides, few social scientists have written about their
experiences with focus groups. One explanation for this is given by Erminia Colucci
(2007), a cultural psychiatrist with a background in visual anthropology. Colucci gives
an overview of the use of focus groups in the field of social sciences, showing that after
some initial skepticism, the method was picked up by qualitative social sciences from
the 1980s onwards. After a publication by Morgan and Spanish (1984) introducing focus
groups as “a new tool for qualitative research”, several major guidebooks were released

explaining how to conduct focus groups (see for instance Morgan and Krueger 1998;
Krueger and Casey 2000). These guidebooks typically explain in detail how to set up a
focus group. Colucci, however, argues that the method has far from reached its full
potential. Her main argument is that “too often focus groups in fact resemble
individual interviews done in group settings” (Colucci 2007: 1423). Therefore,
continuing on the work of Krueger (1998) and Krueger and Casey (2000), Colucci
proposed looking for unconventional methods to further engage participants in focus
group sessions.
9 One way to engage participants in a focus group is through photo-elicitation. Schwartz
recognized the value of photographs as “data generators” (1989: 119) by seeing them as
a medium for interaction:
‚The viewing process is a dynamic interaction between the photographer, the
spectator, and the image; meaning is actively constructed, not passively received.‘
(Schwartz 1989: 120)
10 In other words, with the photograph as a medium, the photographer and spectator
construct the meaning of what is in the photo. This way of viewing photo-elicitation
links to how Douglas Harper (2002) describes John Collier’s ( 1957) first publication
about photo-elicitation in the journal American Anthropologist. According to Douglas
Harper (2002: 14), who writes about the history of photo-elicitation in social sciences,
when Collier (1957) first introduced the method, it was used to overcome verbal
limitations for defining categories in surveys. Words were replaced by photos as
indicators in the survey, and in the follow-up interviews, the photos were
acknowledged for their capability of eliciting comprehensive and non-repetitive
interviews (Harper 2002: 14). Just like in Schwartz’s observation, photo-elicitation
proved to be a way of activating and engaging the interviewee.
11 Contemporary examples of reflections on photo-elicitation as a qualitative method can
mainly be found in the sociology literature, where it is especially well represented in
studies concerning minors. Marisol Clark-Ibañez (2004), for instance, uses photo-
elicitation to enter children’s worlds by discussing pictures they took at home. One
participant had taken 38 pictures of her kitten, which initially seemed useless to Clark-
Ibañez. Yet, in the end the elicitation session proved to be meaningful beyond what the
researcher could have initially imagined (Clark-Ibañez 2004: 1513). Another example is
research by Leonard and McKnight (2015), who studied teenagers’ perceptions of
ethnoreligious divisions in the urban landscape of Belfast. During their photo-
elicitation session, discussions predominantly revolved around the interpretation of
objects that were in the photos. For instance, the participants would respond to a
photograph of a building by commenting on the flag on top of it, nearly invisible to the
unknowing outsider. The flag, apparently, bore significant symbolic value and was
therefore pointed out by the participants who were sensitive to its symbolic meaning
(Leonard and McKnight 2015). What is notable, is that in both cases the participants’
interpretations of the objects in the photographs stood central in the discussion that
unfolded. In my PEFG, I encountered similar situations where discussions would
revolve around specific objects in the photograph, like graffiti or murals, for which I
turned to the field of semiotic anthropology to understand the photo-elicitation
sessions. In the next subsection, I dwell on this idea of semiotics in relation to photo-
elicitation in a focus group setting.

Semiotic Ideologies
12 One way of looking at photo-elicitation is that participants are asked to interpret

objects, people, places, or activities in a photograph, which allows the researcher to
study how the participants derive meaning therefrom. I use such a semiotic approach
to photo-elicitation to explain how photographs can mediate debates within a focus
group. Elizabeth Mertz (2007), writing about the contemporary meaning of semiotic
anthropology, describes semiotics as the study of signs and how they carry meaning.
Webb Keane, an anthropologist who has published multiple articles on semiotics,
proposes adding an extra dimension to the study of signs by developing his concept of
“semiotic ideology” (Keane 2018). The concept of semiotic ideology extends the study
of signs with an ethical and political dimension:
‘The concept of semiotic ideology draws our attention to the many ways (ranging
from tacit to fully explicit) in which assumptions about what signs are contribute to
the ways people use and interpret them, and on that basis, form judgments of
ethical and political value.‘ (Keane 2018: 67)
13 Semiotic ideologies, therefore, help the ethnographer to distinguish between “what
kinds of agentive subjects and acted-upon objects might be found in the world” (Keane
2003: 419). In other words, they can be used as a conceptual tool to distinguish between
the different meanings and significances people give to their social and material
environment through the use and interpretation of signs. In this paper, I use the
concept of semiotic ideologies as such, by explaining how the focus group setting
allows for evoking exactly this layer of moral judgment to the individual
interpretations of signs elicited with photographs.
Figure 1 A photograph of a mural used in PEFG.
With this mural, I was hoping to elicit discussions about class differences. I took this picture in such a
way that the construction sites in the gentriﬁed neighborhood Katendrecht were clearly visible in the
background.
Photo by Vincent Walstra

14 The concept of semiotic ideology can be split up into four different elements. First, the
standard semiotic analysis considers interactions between the ‘sign vehicle’, the
‘object’, and the ‘interpretant’ (Mertz 2007: 338). A fourth element is added by Keane in
the form of the ideology, which I refer to as the ‘judgment’ (Keane 2018: 67). In
researcher-generated photo-elicitation, the sign vehicle is the ethnographer’s photo –
the ethnographer's gaze captured in the frame of a photograph – like the example in
figure 1. This photo, the sign vehicle, communicates between the object, that what the
ethnographer captured in the photo, and the interpretant, the participant giving
meaning to what is in the photo. In the case of figure 1, I meant to capture the mural
and the construction sites in the Rotterdam neighborhood Katendrecht. These are the
objects communicated by the ethnographer’s photograph as the sign vehicle. Because I
presented the photos to the participants individually in the form of a photo exhibition
without photo captions, the PEFG participants became the interpretants. This
particular photo was interpreted by one of the participants, Vlada, as symbolizing
inequality. She wrote in her personal notes:
‚I’ve cycled past this a lot over a year but never stopped to look at it. It speaks of
inequality to me. The person is drowning while supporting and working hard to
support “the thinker”. The thinkers are people in offices typing and counting
numbers.‘
15 After revealing her interpretation to the group, I started a discussion about where we
would put ourselves in the mural: as the figure on its head underwater, or the figure
thinking? What followed was a discussion about privileges and disadvantages in
society. It is here that an extra layer of ideology is elicited where we discuss the written
down, individual interpretations in a group discussion. An “ethical and political value”
(2018: 67) as Keane would put it, is given to the sign. I show in this paper how the focus
group setting is especially suitable for revealing this extra, ideological layer since
individual judgments are disputed and/or endorsed amongst the various participants
who are each an expert in the field and therefore sensitive to the object of study.
16 In what follows, I reflect on the main methodological considerations I made when
setting up the PEFG. In the section thereafter, I use visual representations to further
discuss the outcome of the PEFG sessions.
The Setup of the Photo-elicitation Focus Group (PEFG)

17 The PEFG was held on a very warm afternoon in August 2020 in the Vredestuin
community garden. Two weeks earlier, I had shared an invitation with about 60
volunteers who are members of the Vredestuin WhatsApp group. It was both in Dutch
and in English – there are many internationals in the group – and invited people to a
‘Garden discussion evening’. In the invitation, I indicated the agenda for the evening,
including the photo-elicitation and group discussion. In the end, five gardeners showed
up: Hilde, Daniël, Ellen, Das and Vlada. Except for Vlada, who has Russian roots and
grew up in England, all the participants were Dutch. We communicated in a Dutch-
English hybrid, in which I proposed to be the translator. Daniël and Hilde are two of the
four paid garden coordinators, Daniël being one of the two initiators of the GroenGoed
garden project. Ellen and Das are two of my main contacts in the garden and
passionate, long-term volunteers at the Vredestuin. I had already interviewed Ellen and
Das individually and knew that for them the garden was more than simply a place to

volunteer. In fact, the garden community had become a significant component of their
social lives beyond the gardening itself. The same could be said about Hilde and Daniël.
I knew less about Vlada, but during the evening she shared that she had been a
volunteer at the garden for about one-and-a-half years, but on a different day than
when I would participate. The group, therefore, consisted of five people with an
average to high level of experience in the garden and who all knew one another quite
well.
18 In both photo-elicitation and focus groups, researchers have made different
considerations when creating the research setting. Based on existing studies and my
case study, I propose four relevant considerations each researcher should make when
setting up a PEFG:
19 - Preparing visual material
20 - Creating a focus group setting
21 - Group dynamics between participants and with the researcher
22 - Collecting data
23 In this methodological section, it becomes clear that the group intimacy and rapport
between the PEFG participants and the researcher were fundamental to the entire PEFG
setup. In the next four subsections, I discuss the abovementioned four components of
setting up a PEFG. Thereafter, in the next section, I turn to the empirical data and
analyze the PEFG session.
Figure 2 The setup of the PEFG.
Pinned to the greenhouse on the left are the photos in the photo exhibition. The picnic table on the
right is the table where we held the PEFG. At the front is a buffet that I prepared. Also in the photo are
various tools to record the session, including a camera, tripod, and an audio recording device.

Preparing Visual Material
24 It is important to consider the stage of the fieldwork when selecting photos for
elicitation. Like other scholars (Leonard and McKnight 2015: 631; Pink 2021: 110),
sociologist Clark-Ibañez (2004: 1509) distinguishes between photographs that are taken
by the researcher and those by the research participant. The main difference, she
points out, concerns researcher-generated photos that are selected with the purpose of
being relevant to the research topics. In contrast, photos produced by the participants
provide a more inductive approach, emphasizing the participants’ interests. Indeed, as
Leonard and McKnight (2015: 631) argue, one is not obliged to choose one or the other,
as a combination of both might in some cases be most beneficial. I argue that the
decision should be made based on the stage of the research. Because the PEFG with the
gardeners took place after one-and-a-half years of ethnographic fieldwork, the
inductive work had already been done. Therefore, I chose researcher-generated
photographs with the purpose of discussing specific topics that had emerged from the
field like enskilment, activism, and gentrification.
Figure 3 Photo used for photo-elicitation.
Note the fact that it is written in English instead of Dutch, which already implies that the branding is
aimed at an international audience.
25 When using researcher-generated photographs, one should be aware of their

subjectivities. The photos I used were made to capture an ethnographic observation,
not necessarily to be used for photo-elicitation. The photos were thus shaped by the
ethnographer's gaze, or as visual anthropologist David MacDougall would put it:
“Framing people, objects, and events with a camera is always "about" something” 1
(MacDougall 2006: 3). Therefore, photos taken from an ethnographer’s perspective say
something about their interpretation of the field. For instance, figure 3 shows high-rise
office buildings with a branding slogan in front of a construction site. The purpose of

taking the photo was to show urban regeneration and city branding within the context
of a changing urban landscape. This photograph had the purpose of evoking
conversations about this changing urban landscape and elaborating on the gardeners’
positionality in relation to these changes. Following this logic, I chose 16 photographs
each aimed at evoking discussions about different themes, ranging from Do-It-Yourself
enskilment to food production, seasonality, demonstrating, urban regeneration, waste
and more.
Creating a PEFG Setting
26 A second preparatory consideration is to create the right setting in which to conduct

the PEFG session. Jocelyn Hollander (2004) writes that when conducting a focus group,
the researcher should be sensitive to both the social and physical context in which
focus groups take place. What Hollander calls the “associational context” (2004: 614)
refers to “the common characteristic that brings the participants together” and “if the
physical surroundings are related to the associational context, they may affect the
participants”. Hollander gives an example of how the physical context of the workspace
in her study created a social context in which participants were “accustomed to talking
about work-related topics, not personal experiences and feelings” (Hollander 2004:
614). Whereas mimicking the associational context negatively influenced Hollander’s
focus group session, in the PEFG it contributed to staging an ordinary setting in which
the participants would relate to one another like they would normally. Inspired by the
monthly potluck meetings that were held at the Vredestuin garden, where gardeners
would bring food and drinks to the garden and convene around a bonfire, I organized
the PEFG in the social space of the garden and prepared food and drinks for the
participants. By creating a cozy, informal environment, I hoped the gardeners would
feel comfortable enough to speak up as they would on any given potluck evening.
Moreover, reproducing the ordinary environment contributed to observations about
existing group power relations. For instance, one of the initiators of the GroenGoed
foundation and Vredestuin garden Daniël naturally received authority in the
discussion. However, an equally interesting observation was that he seemed reluctant
to share his thoughts immediately, and would often wait until the end of the discussion
to express himself. Both his authority and cautious attitude informed me about
hierarchy and how it is anticipated in the garden setting.
Group Dynamics
27 The example of hierarchy brings us to a third important aspect of focus groups, which
are the group dynamics. Here we can highlight two particular dynamics. One is that
between the researcher and the participants, and the other is amongst the participants
themselves (Hollander 2004: 604). First, the relation between the researcher and the
participant has to do with power relations. In this regard, Leonard and McKnight
observed that photo-elicitation can reduce power imbalances in the participant-
researcher relationship:
‚The photograph can become the focus of the encounter, a neutral third party,
lessening the discomfort that can arise from maintaining eye contact, thus diluting
the presence of the interviewer‘ (Leonard and McKnight 2015: 630).

28 In this way, photo-elicitation can serve as a “can opener” (Leonard and McKnight 2015:
630) in interviews, taking away the pressure of direct interaction between the
researcher and those being researched. Besides, showing a photo of a situation familiar
to the participant empowers them as the “expert”, writes Sarah Pink (2021: 110). In her
research, Pink was shown how to take pictures by her participants who corrected her
way of photographing a bullfight. In this example, the photograph mediates the
breaking of a researcher/researched hierarchy by inverting the role of the expert.
29 A second group dynamic to take into account is that between the participants. It is an
often-heard critique of focus groups that the more dominant participants might
overrule the shyer ones (see for instance Hollander 2004: 610; Leonard and McKnight
2015: 636). Here, the rapport established during the ethnographic fieldwork proved to
be beneficial. Due to the long-term participant observation preceding the PEFG, I had
already established rapport with all but one of the participants and could therefore
navigate the discussion to make sure everyone was included in the conversation. A
limiting factor in the focus group, however, was the language. Not all participants
seemed comfortable with speaking English. Consequently, those who spoke English
more fluently dominated the discussion, which created an unwanted imbalance in the
participation.
30 Taking all these group dynamics into account, it becomes all the more important not to
lose the individual’s perspective during the photo-elicitation. One way to navigate this
is by asking participants to first write down their own interpretations of the photos,
before engaging in the group discussions (Leonard and McKnight 2015: 636). In my
focus group, I therefore set up a so-called ‘photo exhibition’ where the participants
could first jot down their thoughts for each photo. By doing so, the participants were
initially forced to contemplate individually what the pictures meant for them before
articulating their interpretations in the group discussion. I discuss the photo exhibition
further in the empirical section.
Collecting Data
31 The final consideration before setting up a PEFG is how to collect your data from the
session. During the session, the researcher is occupied with moderating the group
discussion and too busy to write down notes or take pictures of the group. Therefore, it
is important to think about what kind of data will be generated, and how to accurately
record them. Besides the conventional way of audio-recording the session, I used two
other methods.
32 First, I chose to record the session with a video camera. The decision to film the session
turned out essential for analyzing the PEFG. For instance, at one point, one of the
participants makes a joke to which the others respond with mixed feelings. For privacy
reasons, I leave out the details, but being able to look back at the material multiple
times allowed me to review how each participant responded to this particularly
sensitive moment. Knowing that the session is recorded allows the researcher to
entirely focus on moderating the discussion instead of having to lead the session and
observe the participants’ behavior. At the same time, the camera cannot record
everything. As becomes visible in the next section, Ellen and Das had their backs to the
camera, with Das often blocking Hilde and/or Daniël. Consequentially, I was often
unable to record the facial expressions of all the participants. Therefore, my advice is

to think carefully about the positioning of the camera. Also, for ethical reasons and to
avoid unwanted on-the-spot withdrawals from the session, participants should be
informed beforehand about these modes of visual recording.
33 Second, I collected the personal jot notes courtesy of Das’s suggestion. Although
initially they were only meant to provide the participants with a record of their
personal thoughts, Das asked me if I wanted his when he left halfway during the
session. The others followed his example and these personal notes proved invaluable
afterward for their purpose of checking participants’ conformity and other personal
associations.
34 In the next section, I engage with some empirical examples from the focus group
session. Using photographs and footage from the video records, I discuss the potential
of this method to study group dynamics within a collective.
Experiences From a Photo-elicitation Focus Group

35 In this empirical section, I show how the photograph functions as a “can opener”
(Leonard and McKnight 2015: 630) for thematic discussions with field participants. By
selecting photographs with certain themes in mind, the ethnographer can choose
which ‘can’ to open. I use empirical examples to show how the concept of “semiotic
ideologies” (Keane 2018) – the moral judgment connected to sign interpretation – can
help understand the value of a PEFG and vice versa, and how the PEFG proved a suitable
tool for a semiotic ideology study. First, I show how the combination of jotting down
personal notes and reading them out to the group elicited the interpretation of the
photograph and personal judgment of associated themes. Second, I show how group
discussions evolved around these judgments and how they gave me as a researcher
insight into how the gardeners endorse or dispute one another about certain themes.
Personal Associations
36 When entering the community garden for the PEFG session, the participants were
asked first to take some time to look at the photos in the photo exhibition. The
participants were given a pen and a piece of paper and were instructed to answer the
following questions: ‘What do you see?’ and ‘What does the photo make you think of?’.
In the phrasing, we can already see the hint towards not only interpreting the object
but making associations as well. In figure 4, we see how one of the participants, Das, is
writing down his jot notes for the various photographs I chose to include in the
exhibition (see figure 6). In figure 5, we see that Das’s jot notes clearly reflect the two
different questions of ‘What do you see?’ and ‘What does it make you think of?’ For
instance, for picture three, he wrote ‘Fuck juppen’ on the left, indicating that what he
saw in picture three was the graffiti text ‘Fuck juppen’. On the right, he writes,
translated: ‘Hofbogen. Do we want culture, social or are we going to let the capital fill it
in?’. The Hofbogen is the building in the picture which is a two-kilometer long building
that has become an entrepreneurial hub and symbolizes the local neighborhood’s
transition towards becoming an attractive neighborhood for middle-class residents.
Das, with his comment, is questioning whether this transition should facilitate cultural
and social development, or be taken over by commercial businesses who can pay the
highest price for the Hofbogen building’s spaces. It relates to his observation on the

‘Fuck juppen’ graffiti, which shows contestation against processes of gentrification in

the neighborhood by young urban professionals (In Dutch: yuppen).
Figure 4 Das jotting down personal notes at the photo exhibition

Figure 5 Personal jot notes made by Das
It clearly shows the answer to the question ‘What do you see?’ on the left, and ‘What does it make you
think of?’ on the right.

Figure 6 Photo exhibition
The 16 photos that were included in the photo exhibition in numerical order. However, 16 photos
proved to be too many. For a group of ﬁve people, +/- 8 photographs would have been ideal.
Photos by Vincent Walstra
37 The purpose of having the participants write down individual thoughts was first to
anticipate conformity in the discussion group. Hollander writes: “pressures may lead
participants to adjust their own contributions to match those of others” (Hollander
2004: 610). By initially interpreting the photographs individually, I hoped to increase
the chances for an open discussion afterward. In the case of Das, he answered the two
different questions quite directly. Other participants wrote down only a few words or
sentences for each photograph. However, what Das’s notes show are the two different
stages of sign interpretation as per the semiotic ideologies concept. In the left column,
Das gives his interpretation of the object communicated by the photograph. In the right
column, he adds his judgment, in this case rhetorically asking whether ‘we’ want the
Hofbogen building to become a socio-cultural hub or a commercial place. I use the term
‘rhetorically’, because knowing Das already for over a year by the time of the PEFG,
gives me as a researcher the intimacy necessary for interpreting his words. Also, as we
will see in the next subsection, Das gets to explain his notes which gives the words
more context confirming his critique on the gentrification of the Hofbogen. Before,
however, I want to turn to the expression of personal associations with the
photographs.
38 Whereas the above example shows how personal associations are jotted down on paper,
the next step was for the participants to express themselves within the group. In most
cases, the participants would read out loud what they had written down, after which
they would add something to explain what they meant by it. In clip 1 below, we see
Vlada responding to a photograph of a compost heap in the Vredestuin.

This media file cannot be displayed. Please refer to the online document http://
39 journals.openedition.org/anthrovision/6790
Video link: https://vimeo.com/726032901
40 In her personal notes, Vlada had jotted down:

‚Compost, the circle of life. Also a way to discard things. We humans are easy to
throw things out when we are done. It’s in our nature. It’s fine, just things are now
made of things that don’t decompose.‘ (Vlada)
41 At first, Vlada starts reading out loud what she had written down, adding a few words
in between [00:24-00:36] to give examples of what she means. Her notes already contain
her interpretation of the compost heap as the circle of life and also a judgment about
humanity and how it should become more circular. When Vlada finishes talking [00:48],
she finds three people, Daniël, Hilde, and myself, gesturing by nodding approvingly.
She immediately picks up where she left, feeling encouraged to continue after which
she expresses a second judgment:
‚What we are doing now, is not working. And this shows to me that yeah, we can
throw out a huge amount of stuff, that’s fine, because this doesn’t harm
anything.‘ (Vlada) [01:03-01:17]
42 In her second judgment, Vlada contrasts the compost heap with a discarding culture
which she critiques for ‘not working’. By doing so, she frames the Vredestuin as
morally superior to contemporary society for which the standard is to throw away
decomposable things. Hence, the photograph of the compost heap has led Vlada to
express her judgment of the Vredestuin as a place where things are better than in
general society with regard to circularity. So, complementing the personal
considerations jotted down on paper in the first instance, the group discussion setting
creates a place where the participants can further articulate what they mean by their
personal association with the photograph.
43 After Vlada, we see Daniël endorsing Vlada’s statement by sharing his own experience
with non-compostable trash in the garden. Here we see the topic of the next subsection
emerge, which is how the group setting can generate responses to each participant’s
interpretations of the photographs.
Group Analysis
44 After the participants of the PEFG expressed their interpretations and judgments of the
photographs, the group setting evoked discussions either endorsing or disputing one
another's perspectives. In the previous subsection, we have seen how personal
associations were jotted down which helped to circumvent conformity in the
participants’ interpretations of the photographs. Besides, sharing these associations
with the group already provided the participants with the chance to add examples or
judgments to their written down notes. In this subsection, I discuss what happens when
participants are able to comment on one another’s interpretations.
45 During the PEFG, I was hoping to trigger conversations about activism within the
group. I knew that many of the gardeners saw themselves as activists and had
affiliations with climate marches, squatters’ communities, and activist groups like
Extinction Rebellion. Also, some proclaimed gardening itself could be seen as a form of

demonstrating. By including pictures two and three in the photo exhibition (see figures
7 and 8), I intended to prompt the topic of activism by framing graffiti with protest
texts and a climate march in Rotterdam. In the end, we discussed the two photos for
about 18 minutes. Even though the gardeners generally agreed on the content of what
was protested against, the mode of expression and involvement became a topic of
dispute. Below, I analyze this discussion with the use of video fragments and photos.
Figure 7 Photo of Hofbogen arch galleries used in PEFG
On the left, 'Fuck juppen'; The decorated arch gallery in the photograph houses a craft coffee roaster.

Figure 8 Climate march in September 2019 in Rotterdam.
46 The photograph in figure 7, already discussed in the previous subsection, was aimed at
the topic of gentrification in Rotterdam Noord2. One of my observations is that the
Hofbogen building is becoming a symbol of gentrification in the northern district of
Rotterdam and I wanted to see what the gardeners, of whom many live in Rotterdam
Noord, think of this development. Interestingly, three of my interviews with the
gardeners had taken place in this or a similar craft coffee place in the Hofbogen
building, each time as proposed by the interviewee. Therefore, and because the
Vredestuin is located at the foot of the Hofbogen building, I was also curious about how
they would relate it to the garden.
47 In the photo, we see one of the Hofbogen arch galleries used by a craft coffee roaster.
Although for an outsider it would not be obvious, the participants immediately
recognized the coffee roaster’s place. What further stands out are the colorful murals
and the ‘Fuck juppen’ graffiti, accompanied with a (mirrored) squatters symbol. Ellen,
Hilde, and Das each wrote down ‘Fuck juppen’ in their personal notes. Vlada, not
understanding ‘juppen’ for its typo (it should be ‘yuppen’), noted the palm trees next to
the coffee roaster’s entrance, and the air-conditioner at the front of the picture. Both
Vlada and Hilde connected the photograph to human-nature relationships, Vlada by
referring to ‘human control over nature’ and Hilde mentioning ‘greenwashing’. Daniël,
who had joined the session later, did not have any personal associations written down.
In the following clip, we see the gardeners respond to the photograph in figure 7:
Video link: https://vimeo.com/726033000

49 What the clip shows is how a group photo-elicitation can generate a multilayered
interpretation of one photograph. First, Hilde [00:00-00:50] responds and immediately
connects the ‘Fuck juppen’ to the craft coffee roaster by stating that the painted
animals that decorate the arch gallery, which is an aesthetic she connects to ‘juppen’, is
a form of greenwashing. At the same time, she immediately starts doubting her own
interpretation. Vlada then nods and Das agrees: “it is trendy” [het is hip]. The
conversation continues with expressions of doubt about whether it is greenwashing,
and then Das [01:29-01:48] shares his thoughts saying that “capital” is taking over the
Hofbogen. In this first part of the clip, the gardeners endorse one another with
explanations of why the ‘Fuck juppen’ graffiti could be legitimated. However, we also
see a glimpse of the ambiguity of their rejection of ‘juppen’ and the coffee place, when
Vlada pulls a face of shame and admits that “their coffee is actually tasty” [01:21].
50 After Das finishes with his critical statement about the regeneration of the Hofbogen,
Daniël twists the conversation by saying “it makes me a bit sad when I see something like
this”. In what follows [01:50-02:30] Daniël explains that he thinks the ‘Fuck juppen’
graffiti cannot be legitimated at all. He finds it aggressive and violent, and instantly
Vlada, Hilde, and Das endorse this by nodding or saying ‘yes’. Ellen summarizes Daniël’s
argument by saying that graffiti “doesn’t solve anything”. Within a moment, the anti-
gentrification sentiment has moved towards an anti-graffiti sentiment. Das, knowing
the person who did the graffiti, then adds nuance to Daniël’s statement by saying “you
could also see it as a form of protest”, rejecting that it should be seen as violence.
51 By responding to the varying interpretations of the photograph, the gardeners nuance
one another’s judgments and look at the photograph from different perspectives. In
this case, they first endorse one another in their judgment of gentrification as a bad
thing, triggered by the ‘Fuck juppen’ sign. To Daniël, however, the ‘Fuck juppen’ graffiti
was also a sign of violence, after which he judges ‘tagging’ – the act of writing on
buildings – as a non-constructive mode of activism. The others then join him in his
judgment, after which Das adds the last nuance. Here we see the multilayeredness of
the group photo-elicitation, where the group members endorse and dispute one
another’s judgments of the photographs. First, Hilde distances herself from the coffee
place by framing it as a place of gentrification. However, this is disputed by Ellen who
says Hilde should first find out more about it. Also Vlada expresses that she ‘actually’
likes the coffee. Das, however, takes Hilde’s statement a step further and connects the
coffee place to larger scale developments of ‘capital’ taking over the Hofbogen,
connecting the photograph to anti-capitalist sentiments. The whole discussion is
turned upside down when Daniël interprets one of the signs, namely the ‘Fuck juppen’
graffiti, entirely differently. Instead of interpreting the meaning of the words, he has
noticed an act of violence in the tagging. What these different interpretations tell me
about the group is how they position themselves in society. For instance, we can
distinguish the anti-establishment sentiment expressed by Das and Hilde in the first
place, and the anti-violence principles that define Daniël’s association. The next
example continues on this dispute.
52 Another clip, inserted below, shows fragments of the discussion of the next
photograph, displayed in figure 8. It is a photograph of a climate march held in
September 2019 in Rotterdam. I included it because many of the gardeners had
participated in the march and I was curious to know how they related the garden
community and activities to this protest. Some of the gardeners even took part in the

organization of the march and had organized a banner-making event in the garden at
some point. In the following clip, we see several fragments of the discussion arising
from this photograph:
Video link https://vimeo.com/726033164
54 In this clip, my question pushes the conversation towards discussing the relationship
between the garden and demonstrating [00:00-00:30]. After that, Das [00:31-01:35] takes
over from Hilde and formulates a statement saying that the garden should not be afraid
to join forces with activist groups like “Extinction Rebellion, Code Rood (…) and the more
legal Milieudefensie” [00:45-00:56]. After the statement, some other participants respond
with their ideas about demonstrating, Vlada for instance expressing that she is not
fond of mass gatherings. Only after four minutes (which in the fragment is replaced by
a black screen), does Daniël decide to respond to Das’s statement [01:44]. In the clip, I
had just moved on to the next photograph when Hilde notices that Daniël wants to say
something and urges him to speak up. Daniël then responds to Das’s statement in the
previous fragment. A discussion unfolds in which the two dispute each other’s position
about the level of commitment and collaboration the Vredestuin garden and its
overlapping organization GroenGoed should have with activist groups. At some point,
Daniël links his critique of Das’s statement to the ‘Fuck juppen’ [02:21] graffiti discussed
a moment before, saying there is a “balance between positive constructive work and
speaking out against destructive forces” [02:06]. In what follows, Das and Daniël express
their thoughts about this balance. According to Das, the garden should not shy away
from speaking out through protests, whereas Daniël thinks this is not the function of
the garden. They each express their ideas with examples, after which they agree to
disagree.
55 Here we see two different judgments about demonstrating, and two different ways of
contestation. Das, who is a volunteer at the Vredestuin and sympathizes with the
activist groups, believes that openly expressing affiliation to the demonstrations is the
right thing to do for the garden and GroenGoed as an organization. Daniël, however,
being one of the initiators and coordinators of the garden, is more conservative in
joining forces as an organization with outspoken activism because he is concerned
about the strategic position of the garden and GroenGoed in relation to other
institutions. What this shows me as a researcher is that even though Das and Daniël
share their ideological position, being against processes of gentrification, greenwashing
and climate change, they have different ideas about the modes of contestation and how
one brings about change. By reflecting collectively on individual associations elicited
by researcher-generated photos, the PEFG method helped to reveal such nuanced
diversities.
Conclusion
56 In this paper, I set out to share my experiences of combining focus group methods with
photo-elicitation. Based on my experience with organizing a photo-elicitation focus
group (PEFG) amongst community gardeners in Rotterdam, I distinguished four main

considerations to make when setting up a PEFG. I argued that one should pay specific
attention to preparing visual material, creating a focus group setting, managing group
dynamics, and how to collect data during the PEFG. After outlining these
considerations, I turned to the analysis of the PEFG itself. To explain why the PEFG
method is relevant in ethnographic research, I used Webb Keane’s concept of “semiotic
ideologies” (Keane 2018). I used this concept to show how thematic discussions
unfolded around individual interpretations of signs, mediated by the researcher-
generated photographs. To sum up the findings of this paper, the conclusions are
threefold: contextual, methodological, and analytical.
57 First, group composition and the stage of fieldwork turned out to be important
contextual indicators for deciding upon the ideal setup for the PEFG. The rapport
established between researcher and participants through long-term participant
observation fundamentally impacts the purpose and value of the PEFG setting. The
intimacy allows the researcher to anticipate power imbalances and conformity, create a
natural and safe environment for the participants, and decide which activities will
evoke the right discussions. Second, and this conclusion builds on the first one, the
established understanding of the research field and participants allows the
ethnographer to use methods that bring about different conversations than focus
group settings in short-term research. As a result of inductive data gathering during
long-term participant observation preceding the PEFG, I was allowed to tap into a
deeper layer of group understanding by using researcher-generated photographs
eliciting thematic group discussions. Combining individual interpretations of the
photographs with group discussions revealed diversity amongst members of an
ideologically uniform collective. This connects to the third conclusion, which is
analytical. The idea of studying the PEFG outcome by analyzing the participants’
“semiotic ideologies” (Keane 2018), resulted in observed differences in the
interpretation of signs, which reflected group diversity. The example of the graffiti
showed that signs can be interpreted both through sentiments of solidarity with the
tagger or feelings of discomfort with the act of tagging, which revealed the existence of
different ideas about the most effective mode of contestation.
58 The conclusions in this paper are based on the analysis of a PEFG organized with
community gardeners in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The purpose of this paper is to
encourage ethnographers to include focus group methods in their fieldwork, and to
invite them to experiment with techniques like photo-elicitation to evoke group
discussions. Combining long-term research with focus group interviews has proven to
be a success, and the hope is that this paper invites other ethnographers to further
experiment with and write about their focus group experiences.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clark-Ibáñez, Marisol. 2004. Framing the Social World with Photo-Elicitation Interviews. American
Behavioral Scientist 47(12): 1507–1527.

Collier, John. 1957. Photography in Anthropology: A Report on Two Experiments. American

Anthropologist 59: 843–859.
Colucci, Erminia. 2007. 'Focus Groups Can Be Fun’: The Use of Activity-Oriented Questions in
Focus Group Discussions. Qualitative Health Research 17(10): 1422–1433.
Cretella, Agnese, and Mirjam Stella Buenger. 2016. Food as Creative City Politics in the City of
Rotterdam. Cities 51: 1–10.
Grasseni, Cristina. 2016. “ERC Consolidator Grant: Food Citizens? Collective Food Procurement in
European Cities: Solidarity and Diversity, Skills and Scale.” Grant nr: 724151. Leiden University.
Harper, Douglas. 2002. Talking about Pictures: A Case for Photo-elicitation. Visual Studies 17(1):
13–26.
Hollander, Jocelyn A. 2004. The Social Contexts of Focus Groups. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography 33(5): 602-637.
Keane, Webb. 2003. Semiotics and the Social Analysis of Material Things. Language and
Communication 23(3–4): 409–425.
Keane, Webb. 2018. On Semiotic Ideology. Signs and Society 6(1): 64–87.
Krueger, Richard A. and Mary Anne Casey. 2015 [2000]. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied
Research. Los Angeles: Sage.
Leonard, Madeleine and Martina McKnight. 2015. Look and Tell: Using Photo-Elicitation Methods
with Teenagers. Children’s Geographies 13(6): 629–642.
MacDougall, David. 2006. The Corporeal Image - Film, Ethnography, and the Senses. Princeton, Oxford:
Princeton University Press.
Mertz, Elizabeth. 2007. Semiotic Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 36: 337–353.
Morgan, David L. and Margaret T. Spanish. 1984. Focus Groups: A New Tool for Qualitative
Research. Qualitative Sociology 7(3): 253–270.
Morgan, David L. and Richard A. Krueger. 1998. The Focus Group Guidebook. Los Angeles: Sage.
Pink, Sarah. 2020. Doing Visual Ethnography. Los Angeles: Sage.
Schwartz, Dona. 1989. Visual Ethnography : Using Photography in Qualitative Research.

Qualitative Sociology 12(2): 119–154.
NOTES
1. In the introduction to the book The Corporeal Image: Film, Ethnography, and the Senses (2006),
established visual anthropologist David MacDougall writes about how ‘seeing’ is influenced by
personal meaning-giving and sensorial perception. The process of image-making is again
strongly influenced by this ‘seeing’ and therefore a mirror of our subjective corporeal experience
of reality.
2. In my forthcoming dissertation, I write about the link between craft food culture and
gentrification in Rotterdam. Other authors have done so before me. For instance, Cretella and
Buenger write about “food as creative city politics” in Rotterdam, linking emerging food hubs to
the municipality’s desire to attract a new wealthy, middle-class citizenry (Cretella and Buenger,
2016)

ABSTRACTS
The aim of this paper is to address the potential of combining the focus group method with
photo-elicitation in ethnographic research. The paper is based on my own experience with a
photo-elicitation focus group (PEFG) consisting of five community gardeners in Rotterdam, the
Netherlands. In the first part, I discuss which considerations to make concerning 1) the visual
materials, 2) creating a focus group setting, 3) group dynamics between participants and with the
researcher, and 4) collecting data when setting up a PEFG. Thereafter, I use Webb Keane’s (2018)
concept of “semiotic ideology” to describe how the photographs mediate thematic discussions
around the interpretation of signs. For this analysis, photo and video materials are included in
the text. The paper concludes by arguing that the PEFG method helps to understand nuanced
diversities and/or consensus of perspectives within existing groups.
L'objectif de cet article est d'aborder le potentiel qui résulte de la combinaison de la méthode des
groupes de discussion avec la photo-elicitation dans la recherche ethnographique. L'article est
fondé sur ma propre expérience avec un groupe de discussion par photo-élicitation (PEFG)
composé de cinq jardiniers communautaires à Rotterdam, aux Pays-Bas. Dans la première partie,
je discute des considérations à prendre en compte concernant 1) le matériel visuel, 2) la création
d'un cadre de groupe de discussion, 3) la dynamique de groupe entre les participants et avec le
chercheur, et 4) la collecte de données lors de la mise en place d'un PEFG. Par la suite, j'utilise le
concept d'"idéologie sémiotique" de Webb Keane (2018) pour décrire comment les photographies
médiatisent les discussions thématiques autour de l'interprétation des signes. Pour cette analyse,
les matériaux photo et vidéo sont inclus dans le texte. En conclusion, la méthode PEFG aide à
comprendre les différentes nuances dans les diversités et/ou le consensus des perspectives au
sein des groupes existants.
El objetivo de este artículo es abordar el potencial de la combinación del método de grupos

focales con la fotoelicitación en la investigación etnográfica. El artículo se basa en mi propia
experiencia con un grupo focal de fotoelicitación (PEFG) formado por cinco comunidades de
jardineros en Rotterdam, Países Bajos. En la primera parte, analizo las consideraciones que hay
que tener en cuenta en relación con 1) los materiales visuales, 2) la creación de un entorno de
grupo focal, 3) la dinámica de grupo entre los participantes y con el investigador, y 4) la recogida
de datos cuando se establece un PEFG. A continuación, utilizo el concepto de "ideología
semiótica" de Webb Keane (2018) para describir cómo las fotografías median las discusiones
temáticas en torno a la interpretación de los signos. Para este análisis, los materiales fotográficos
y de vídeo se incluyen en el texto. El artículo concluye argumentando que el método PEFG ayuda
a comprender los matices de las divergencias y/o el consenso de perspectivas dentro de los
grupos existentes.
INDEX
Palabras claves: fotoelicitación; grupo de discusión; semiótica; etnografía; mediación; métodos
visuales
Mots-clés: photo-élicitation, groupe de discussion, sémiotique, ethnographie, mediation,
methodes visuelles
Keywords: photo-elicitation; Focus group; semiotics; ethnography; mediation; visual methods

AUTHOR
VINCENT WALSTRA
Leiden University
Vincent Walstra is a Ph.D. candidate of the ERC research team ‘Food Citizens?’ led by Professor
Cristina Grasseni at the Institute of Cultural Anthropology and Development Sociology at Leiden
University. After graduating with a master thesis on urban agriculture in Utrecht, Vincent has
continued studying the anthropology of food in the Netherlands, researching the nexus of food
procurement and citizenship in Rotterdam.
v.r.walstra@fsw.leidenuniv.nl

Anthrovision 6790

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anthrovision 6790

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anthrovision

Vaneasa Online Journal

Picturing the Group: Combining Photo-elicitation

This text was automatically generated on 28 May 2023.

All rights reserved

Picturing the Group: Combining

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

12 One way of looking at photo-elicitation is that participants are asked to interpret

Figure 1 A photograph of a mural used in PEFG.

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

The Setup of the Photo-elicitation Focus Group (PEFG)

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Figure 2 The setup of the PEFG.

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Preparing Visual Material

Figure 3 Photo used for photo-elicitation.

25 When using researcher-generated photographs, one should be aware of their

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Creating a PEFG Setting

26 A second preparatory consideration is to create the right setting in which to conduct

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Experiences From a Photo-elicitation Focus Group

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

‘Fuck juppen’ graffiti, which shows contestation against processes of gentrification in

Figure 4 Das jotting down personal notes at the photo exhibition

Photo by Vincent Walstra

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Figure 5 Personal jot notes made by Das

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Figure 6 Photo exhibition

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Video link: https://vimeo.com/726032901

40 In her personal notes, Vlada had jotted down:

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Figure 7 Photo of Hofbogen arch galleries used in PEFG

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Figure 8 Climate march in September 2019 in Rotterdam.

Photo by Vincent Walstra

Video link: https://vimeo.com/726033000

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Video link https://vimeo.com/726033164

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Collier, John. 1957. Photography in Anthropology: A Report on Two Experiments. American

Pink, Sarah. 2020. Doing Visual Ethnography. Los Angeles: Sage.

Schwartz, Dona. 1989. Visual Ethnography : Using Photography in Qualitative Research.

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

El objetivo de este artículo es abordar el potencial de la combinación del método de grupos

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

Anthrovision, 8.1 | 2020

You might also like