Photography as a Device to Gather Sociological Knowledge

It is a rather difficult task to precisely define the rules of photography use in visual social research because different approaches might often overlap. As Howard Becker stated (2004: 193), "Anthropologists and sociologists have been using photographs ever since the beginnings of both disciplines, but have never been able to agree on just how these images should be used or to what ends." Defining and identifying various forms of scientist's approach to photography in social research might be as indistinct and vague as boundaries of visual branch of social sciences. Typology of different forms of photography use in social sciences is certainly not uniform. Moreover, many classification attempts are limited to mere enumerations of types of the analytical and the empirical practice. Thus the question is: How can we research through the photography? What are the boundaries of visual research? Does it engage other senses? Focusing on active use of photography as a device to gather social data, I will show what is the potential and what are the limitations of use of this specific medium in contemporary empirical visual research. In this essay, I will firstly outline history of visual research typology to show the particulars of different approaches and to draw a distinction between the active photographic research and other approaches. That might give us a base to show the disappearing boarders between these. Secondly, I will show where do the different approaches overlap. Thirdly, I will focus on current trends in approaches to active visual research. Ultimately, drawing on a case study, I will try to reveal some practical problems that might be rose during practical work in the field.

Looking back into history, Douglas Harper was ...

... middle of paper ...

... engage other senses, in our case, the sense of hearing. No matter how is the researcher adapted to own role, some problems might occur or he may encounter some limitations during the investigation, for instance, antipathy of potential participants towards camera or, in simple terms, own fear to address strangers. Moreover, it is encouraged to prepare a consent form for participants however it cannot be taken as safety guaranty. This brings us to the question of ethics of which we should think in two related ways: contextual and time dimension. More precisely, it is necessary to think about the roles of researcher and participant and their relationship. The relationship surely develops through the time, however, speaking about the time dimension, the researcher should not take in consideration only the development of the relationship but also writing and audiencing.