Deptford.TV presentation see slides1 & slides2 (as .pdf files).

AVPhD project

The AVPhD project began October 2005 and we have AHRC funding until September 2008 to consolidate, expand and develop the project UK wide, and develop more national (and potentially international) collaborative connections. Audiovisual practice research PhDs were first accepted little over a decade ago and are now increasingly in demand. Our initiative is the first systematically to address the training needs of this growing community of doctoral students. One of the effects of our work to date has been to reveal the need for students to discuss issues with the (still relatively small) group of experienced supervisors and examiners, and vice-versa.

Our primary objective is to create a sustainable, engaging and lively UK wide training network for all those working towards audiovisual practice research PhDs. We believe this will involve a long term commitment to training, especially as the nature of the PhD is itself long term, and both students and staff will benefit from sustained and continuous networking, both live and online, which of course will help their developing academic careers.

These are our main aims:

1. To sponsor and help organise a series of training events and workshops across the UK, covering the major aspects of embarking on an AVPhD, aimed at current and prospective candidates. The first of these has already happened in Belfast – others are planned for Brighton, Edinburgh, Cardiff, London, Manchester and Bristol. These events will also give doctoral students a chance to see and discuss each other’s work, in a form of a ‘peer review’ process. At least one of them will also afford an opportunity for supervisors and examiners to discuss standards and criteria.
2. To develop an online education pack to compliment the workshops, including (for example) case-studies of universities and their differing approaches to AVPhDs, and methodological publications (perhaps a collection of essays generated by contributions to the training events).
3. Set up and maintain a dynamic, intuitive website that includes a database of examiners, supervisors and students of AVPhDs with their profiles and links, an online forum for ongoing discussions and support, as well as relevant articles and audio-visual works.
4. Collaborate with the Bristol University based ScreenWork initiative – a peer reviewed DVD to be published by Intellect in association with the Journal of Media Practice.
5. To develop a future plan for the website, DVD distribution, and the workshops to ensure long-term sustainability of AVPhD, for example looking into institutional subscription to the scheme.

The AVPhD steering group now comprises:

Ian Christie

Professor of Film and Media History, School of History of Art, Film and Visual Media, Birkbeck

Jon Dovey

Reader in Screen Media, Department of Drama: Theatre, Film, Television, University of Bristol

Tony Dowmunt

Department of Media & Communications, Goldsmiths College (which remains the lead institution) – Senior Lecturer, Media Studies, University of Ulster

Robin Nelson

Professor, Department of Contemporary Arts, Manchester Metropolitan University

Gail Pearce

Lecturer, Media Arts, Royal Holloway, University of London

Al Rees

Research Tutor, Department of Communication, Art and Design, Royal College of Art

Joram Ten Brink

Reader in Film, Head of the PhD programme (practice based), University of Westminster

Rosie Thomas

Reader in Art and Media Practice and Director of Centre for Research and Education in Art and Media (CREAM), University of Westminster

 

The Manchester workshop will focus upon digital media and new media arts and invites current (or recently-completed) PhD students to present their work (see ‘Call for Presentations’) and we ask presenters to foreground issues of methods and methodology. Proposals with other interesting topics and perspectives will, however, be considered.

Though there is considerable interest in ‘practice as research’, the AVPhD project is concerned with all approaches to PhDs in the Audio-Visual media (broadly understood to cover everything from fine art and sonics to social anthropology using sound, video/film as a means of investigation).

AVPhD ‘North’: Regional Workshop

Friday 14th September 9.30am – 6pm, Saturday 15th September 9.45am – 5pm

Geoffrey Manton Building, Manchester Metropolitan University,

Oxford Road, Manchester, M15 6BH

(Organisers – Jim Aulich, Jane Linden, Robin Nelson)

NB There is no charge for this AHRC-funded workshop. Lunch will be provided on both days BUT delegates are asked to register their intention to attend for catering and organisational purposes:

TO:   Cheryl Platt (c.platt@mmu.ac.uk)  BY:    Friday 31 August 2007

Friday 14 September

09.30   Arrival and tea/coffee

10.00  Welcome and Introduction

10.15  Keynote: Charlie Gere, Reader in New Media and Director of Research in the Institute for Cultural Research at Lancaster University.

11.30  Methods/Methodologies (1)

Digital Practices – Applications: Chair – Jane Linden

 (Eunice CHAN, Mike GOLDING, Anne KELLOCK)

13.00  Lunch

14.00  Innovations in publishing PaR (Ric Allsopp)

15.00    a) Examiners workshop – tutors only (Robin Nelson)

b) Introduction and screening: Transfiction

by Johannes Sjöberg + discussion

17.00  Short plenary followed by wine reception

Saturday 15 September

09.45   Arrival

10.00   Keynote: Andrea Zapp, researcher-practitioner and Route Leader for MA Media Arts at Manchester Metropolitan University

11.00   Methods/Methodologies (2)

Lanscapes and Communities: Chair – Jim Aulich

(Veronica VIERIN, Lisa STANSBIE, Adnan HADZI)

 + Summary of issues identified (Jane Linden)

13.00  Lunch

14.00  Workshop: Modes of Writing for PaR PhDs

(Robin Nelson et al)

16.00    Plenary discussion

17.00  Close

Strategies of Sharing: the Case-study of Deptford.TV
Maria Chatzichristodoulou (aka Maria X) presented at DRHA 2007

Web 2.0 is about sharing and networking. Software like wikis and social networking sites have made it possible for anyone privileged enough to enjoy access to new technologies to publish any type of content online and invite everyone else to access, share and process this.

This paper will attempt to explore the ‘strategies’ of sharing, using the project Deptford.TV (http://www.deptford.tv) as a case-study: Initiated in 2005 by Adnan Hadzi, Deptford.TV is an open and networked project that employs methods of commons-based peer production and uses open source software to build a video database for collective film-making. It also is a community project that attempts to collectively document the regeneration process in Deptford (Southeast London). I wanted to know: Who are the Deptford.TV participants? Why do they want to share their work? What kind of work are they prepared to share? Which strategies do they employ in the process of sharing? How do they tackle the challenges such practices involve?

This paper will be based on video interviews with Deptford.TV participants and their analysis, discussing issues of collaboration, authorship, community and documentation within the context of socially engaged Web 2.0 practices.

————————————————-

What was more shocking was the discussion around the shutting down of the ahds and that there is no proper solution for the vacuum to come, as a lot of outcomes from research around new media relies on the ahds as archive.

from the ahds blog

After the AHDS: the end of national support

 

A panel discussion at the opening of the recent Digital Resources in the Humanities and Arts conference at Dartington College of the Arts posed the question what happens after the end of the Arts and Humanities Data Service (AHDS); is this the end of national support?

The Arts and Humanities Data Service is a national service with the primary role to preserve, curate, and provide access to the digital output of the humanities in the UK. The Service is also active in the enhancement and promotion of digital scholarship in the UK as well as internationally. After eleven years of service, the AHDS recently lost its funding from the JISC (Joint Information Services Committee) and the AHRC (Arts and Humanities Research Council). The Service will cease to exist in its present form in March of 2008.

The panel discussion was introduced by the head of the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s ICT in Arts and Humanities Research Programme, Professor David Robey. The other members of the panel were Lorna Hughes, Manager of the AHRC ICT Methods Network, and Professor David Shepherd, Director of the Humanities Research Institute.

Professor Robey stated that the end of the AHDS may be decisive in the history of digital scholarship in the UK as this may be the end of national support. It is national support that has defined digital scholarship in the UK for many years and has helped the nation to become one of the world-leaders in the field. Without a national approach, the field may flounder or return to the dark days of scattered digital scholarship with little coherence or ambitions as a field.

At the present time, the AHDS preserves over one thousand projects in various digital forms, some of which include the Stormont Papers (the complete collection of the parliamentary debates of the Northern Irish Parliament under British rule), and Designing Shakespeare, (a multi-media database of the performances of Shakespeare over a forty year period). The collection of the AHDS is undoubtedly one of the most important digital collections in the world and some of it ‘born-digital’ collections exist in no other location.

The panel discussed some of the problems that may occur after the closure of the AHDS. There is no indication as to what will happen to the collection after the closure, except that the responsibility for preservation of the individual projects may be handed to institutional repositories. Although institutional repositories are responsible for collecting, preserving, and dissemination the intellectual output of universities in a digital form, there are some reservations, as express by David Shepherd, that institutional repositories are up to the task. Preservation requires projects to be prepared in a certain way and is an ongoing process. It also requires the ability to deal with complex data in various forms. There is also the serious problem that not all universities have institutional repositories, ironically including King’s College; London, the principal home of the AHDS. Although institutional repositories may one day be able to handle the tasks of the AHDS, there was great concern, as expressed by all members of the panel, that this was yet some time away. In the longer term institutional repositories may be able to look after complex data, but not now. David Robey also expressed the loss of the AHDS may also mean the end of its integrated catalogue to search the collections under its umbrella.

Lorna Hughes, the Manager of the AHRC Methods Network, stated that the decision to cease funding of the AHDS came at the same time that digital resources had reached a critical mass and access to this was altering the very nature of scholarship across the spectrum. To withdraw funding now may impact upon the ability to reuse this significant resource and to curate and present it in a user-friendly and innovative way in the future.

The program that Lorna Hughes is Manager, the highly inventive Methods Network, also ceases to be funded in 2008. The Methods Network is involved in numerous activities to promote the use of digital technologies in the humanities through workshops and other events. As the name indicates, the Methods Network is active in promoting digital scholarship through connecting individuals across various disciplines through such things as the computational methods that they employ in their work. For instance, scholars may come together through tools (like text mining) or through methods (like visualisation). It is this cross-fertilisation that is vital to the promotion of digital scholarship as a field, not only because of the economic efficiencies that it provides, but also because central to the concept of ‘innovation’ is the sharing of knowledge across disciplinary and institutional boundaries.

Lorna Hughes also lamented that there was a serious dearth of tools available to scholars to properly exploit digital resources; perhaps another activity that could benefit from greater central coordination. One way that this could be achieved is through online resources such as the arts-humanities.net community platform being developed by the Methods Network. It is hoped that this community platform will continue part of the work of the Methods Network in a virtual form and carry on the conversation that will take digital humanities and its methods forward.

David Shepherd discussed what universities can do in this post-AHDS period. His own experience from running the Humanities Research Institute at the University of Sheffield; one of the UK’s premier centres within the Digital Humanities, is that institutional repositories are no where near close to being able to support complex data as made by HRI Sheffield. He made the case that universities have additional responsibilities now that the AHDS is gone, but there is a gap between what they can do and what is needed. 50% of all projects funded by the AHRC in 2006 had some sort of digital output that indicated that we cannot now make a divide between the digital and the posing of research questions.

The demise of the AHDS is a challenging period and institutions need to move quickly to overcome any gaps in the services offered by the AHDS. If they don’t move quickly, there is a danger that some of the digital output of the humanities in the UK will be lost along with the skills needed to preserve and provide access to this data.

this was great! let’s do it again!
http://dorkbot.org/dorkbotlondon/wiki/index.php/DorkCamp07

the programme and abstracts as .pdf file. Deptford.TV as poster presentation.

Media, Communication, Information: Celebrating 50 Years of Theories and Practices
These last fifty years have seen a number of theoretical evolutions and practical advances in the domains which relate media to the inter-or multi-disciplinary field of information and communication. Some of them have emanated from European and Western research centres, others from diverse regions of the world scientific community. These various bodies of research have supplied analytical tools that cover the whole range of the field of media, information and communication, in a global perspective: from the production and the international circulation of news and data, images and texts, to their reception, by a wide range of publics. They have critically examined such issues as public space and democracy, actor networks and agency or technological mediation and its modalities.

New theoretical spaces of development and applications are also emerging, apparent in a number of pioneering works, with original and innovative approaches. Issues such as internet governance and co-regulation of the media resonate with questions on diasporic publics, cultural and trans-cultural diversities. The theoretical contributions of other fields, such as economics, cognition, politics, or urban studies, to name a few, have been facilitating new readings of semiotic processes and media representations, and fostering a deeper understanding of the tensions between genres and gender, minorities and communities, “youth” cultures and subcultures, worldwide. The modifications of the market and the political economy of the media in the context of globalization have cast in new perspectives such issues as cultural goods and services, e-learning industries and media literacies, not to mention sustainable development alternatives via media and new technologies for information and communication.

These developments, old and new, coincide with the areas of inquiry and the directions for research that IAMCR has fully embraced over the past fifty years. In celebration of this anniversary, The IAMCR 2007 conference will try to reflect these tendencies and to test how they intersect with more classical thematic strands such as media history, political communication, political economy, participatory communication, media education, information and ICT policy, etc. Sections and Working groups will analyze in their sessions innovative connections between theory and practice, notably the contribution of empirical work to research, and evaluate new original methodologies, protocols, instruments and indicators. Perspectives and trends for the future will also be delineated, so as to provide new paths for investigation by IAMCR members in the next 50 years.

Website: iamcr.org

It may be free but is it open? A discussion around one of the most current and pertinent issues in the arts, technology and society. The audience is invited to participate in a dabate led by contributors.

lovebytes

Chaired by
Ele Carpenter.
CRUMB, Open Source Embroidery, The Star and Shadow.
http://www.furtherfield.org/displayreview.php?review_id=209
http://www.starandshadow.org.uk/

Contributors include:

Charlie Davies
Ex Features Editor of ‘The Face’ Magazine, founder of the ‘London School of Art and Business’, founder member of ‘Pick Me Up’ and has recently undertaken the project ‘Free Work’.
http://charliedavies.stikipad.com/home/show/HomePage
http://charliedavies.stikipad.com/home/show/
Pick+Me+Up

Ian Anderson
the Designers Republic
http://www.thedesignersrepublic.com/

Dougald Hine
Freelance Journalist, Co-founder of ‘The School of Everything’
http://otherexcuses.blogspot.com/
http://www.schoolofeverything.com/

Simon Blackmore
The Owl Project
http://www.owlproject.com/
http://www.simonblackmore.net/

Adnan Hadzi
Deptford TV: A Film and TV project based on the principles of openess and Sharing.
http://dek.spc.org/
http://www.deptford.tv

Documentation on lovebytes.tv

Communication Technologies of Empowerment

A Postgraduate Conference for the presentation of PhD research on the intersection of power and communication technologies organised by the Institute of Communications Studies (ICS) at the University of Leeds

---

“Andy Warhol said that everyone will have their 15 minutes of fame. The web means that anyone can have their 15 minutes of power.”Abstracts and Bios

Adnan Hadzi (University of London, UK)
Adnan Hadzi is currently working on a practice-based PhD titled ‘The author vs. the collective’ at Goldsmiths, focusing on the influence of digitisation and the new forms of distribution on documentary film production, as well as the author’s rights in relation to collective authorship. This interdisciplinary research project will combine sources and expertise from the fields of media and communication, computer studies and architecture. Adnan is co-founder of Liquid Culture, Deptford TV and http://www.copyleft.cc

Deptford.TV – strategies of sharing
What is Deptford.TV
Deptford.TV is a research project on collaborative film – initiated by Adnan Hadzi in collaboration with the Deckspace media lab, Bitnik media collective, Boundless project, Liquid Culture initiative, and Goldsmiths College. It is an online media database documenting the regeneration process of Deptford, in Sout East London. Deptford TV functions as an open, collaborative platform that allows artists, filmmakers and people living and working around Deptford to store, share, re-edit and redistribute the documentation of the regeneration process. The open and collaborative aspect of the project is of particular importance as it manifests in two ways: a) audiences can become producers by submitting their own footage, b) the interface that is being used enables the contributors to discuss and interact with each other through the database. Deptford TV is a form of “television”, since audiences are able to choose edited “time lines” they would like to watch; at the same time they have the option to comment on or change the actual content. Deptford TV makes us of licenses such as the creative commons sa-by and gnu general public license to allow and enhance this politics of sharing.

minding the gap 

Conference Report by Cathy Baldwin

This training day was set up to bring together the small but growing minority of media practitioners entering higher education to conduct media research through postgraduate study or as part of ‘practitioner’ appointments at academic institutions. It seemed to be a common experience that many found themselves caught out by a series of ‘gaps’ between the intellectual models taken up in analytic studies of media institutions and practices and the practical experiences they brought with them into the academic environment. Furthermore there are evident gaps between the intellectual status of text-based social scientific analyses of the media and practice-based approaches to research through media such as film, photography, audio-documentation and multi-media as legitimate forms of knowledge. Finally, a clear tension is experienced in the separation of the ‘intellectual’ and ‘practical’ in the internal organisation of media faculties in higher education. Prior to this event, there had not been a dedicated symposium where ‘double practitioners’ from across the
industry and disciplinary spectrums were able to voice their concerns and set out a vocational and intellectual agenda towards reconciling these gaps. The aims of the day were therefore just this. The organisers felt that it was vital that the event should target postgraduate students and early career researchers in the first five years of an academic career as
the current generation confronting these problems at the ‘up and coming’ end of media research. The event set out to profile their work and to gauge an overview of how far we have come towards reconciling the ‘gaps’ in the historic progression of the field. The day drew its parameters around work centred on factual, non-fiction-based media that engage with and represent the ‘real world’ through journalistic and documentary formats, and whose products are intended for mass or substantial public circulation. The training day brief also appealed for researchers drawing on a
wide range of theoretical approaches newly associated with media research, such as anthropology, film-practice, legal studies and development studies, as well as the more traditional schools of cultural studies, social psychology, semiotics and literary theory.
The programme was structured around three thematic workshops highlighting different facets of the relationship between theory and practice. The first of these, Workshop 1, dealt with practice in methodology across two panels. The first encouraged discussion on film as a method of research, documentation and the presentation of data. The second looked at practitioners’ uses of their inside experiences of the media to inform their research. Examples of this included drawing upon professional contacts, knowledge of production terminology, roles, codes of conduct and practices to gain access to research subjects and locations, and to interact effectively with them. Two out of five panelists were anthropologists, highlighting the rapid growth in popularity of ethnographic research methods.
The second workshop, Workshop 2, took examples of theory in practice as its topic, reversing the equation between intellectual models of media institutions and practices, to ask how often intellectual models form the basis of media practice. The workshop was split into two panels exemplifying cases from the Western world and the developing world respectively. This was so that the different issues generated by firstly long-established and globally dominant media systems and secondly those still in formation in countries which have yet to reach a plateau of political, social and
economic stability could be given separate consideration.
Workshop 3, the final session, was set up to encourage ‘double practitioners’ to bring to the floor more personal accounts of the challenges – personal, ethical, political and practical – facing those whose careers combine the media industries and academia. The intention was that presentations in this session would tie together the issues raised by the explorations in the first two sessions of practice brought into the academic world and intellectual models taken up in the media industries.
In keeping with the aims of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network of providing peer support and networking and learning opportunities, it was decided that all the organizational and academic preparations should be carried out by postgraduates for postgraduates. Given the range of practice specialisms in broadcast, print and online
journalism, and filmmaking that the event sought to engage with, and the scattered location of researchers with an industry profile, the organizational team was recruited from universities across Britain (plus one in Denmark). Cathy Baldwin, a D.Phil student in Social and Cultural Anthropology at the University of Oxford and a former BBC World Service and Radio 3 /4 reporter, received over 40 emails and phone calls from individuals interested in participating. She recruited the team below to compliment the work of the small team in Oxford comprising herself, Paddy
Coulter (Reuters Institute) and Andres Schipani-Aduriz, an M.Sc student at St Antony’s College, University of Oxford, also a media studies graduate and print journalist with the Observer as well as a variety of international publications.
The other team members were Lizzie Jackson, a PhD Media Studies student at the University of Westminster and BBC New Media editor and consultant; Dafydd Sills-Jones, a PhD Media Studies student and lecturer in Media Production at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, and a former documentary development producer; Catherine Joppart of The Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research, who also works as a freelance journalist for Associated Press Television and as a fundraiser and researcher for the One World Broadcasting Trust; John Sealey, a PhD by Film Practice student and lecturer at the University of Exeter and award-winning filmmaker specialising in cultural identity and the African diaspora; Line Thomsen, a PhD Anthropology student at the University of Aarhus, Denmark and ITN/Channel 4
news reporter; and Venkata Vemuri, a PhD Media Studies student at the University of the West of England (UWE) and former print and television journalist and executive producer, Aajtak News Channel, New Delhi, India.
The training day was hosted by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford, a new research centre within the Department of Politics and International Relations which opened in November 2006. It builds on the long-
running Reuters Foundation Fellowship Programme (Green College). Its broad aims are: to become the focus within the University for the study of the role of journalism in modern societies; to consider the ethical basis, the practice and the development of journalism; and its public policy implications; to pursue impartial scholarship of the highest standard in the study of journalism as it is practised on all media platforms at an international, national and local level; to offer an academic analysis of long term issues, but also to respond in a timely way to the emerging agenda created by the media in their daily operations, and to provide an independent forum for exchanges between practitioners and analysts of journalism, and all those affected by it. http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/ Media research is a new and emerging tradition at the University of Oxford and is currently being consolidated through a number of other units and programmes across the university including Oxford Internet Institute, the Programme in Comparative Media Law at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (Wolfson College), and Oxford Media and Communications Seminar Programme.
Additional support in kind was obtained from The Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research (London). The Centre is closely affiliated and receives institutional support from the Annenberg School of Communication at the
University of Pennsylvania and collaborates closely with partners such as City University, the London School of Economics, Central European University and Oxford’s Programme in Comparative Media Law. It was developed to provide a forum for open dialogue and scholarship related to media law and policy around the world.
Stanhope is particularly keen in developing and working with student researchers, often acting in an advisory role and engaging MA and PhD students on media policy related projects. www.stanhopecentre.org Delegates from a range of institutions from around Britain and Europe attended the training day. Presenters represented the following institutions: Goldsmiths College, Bournemouth University, London South Bank University, University of Westminster, SOAS, University of Aarhus (Denmark), University of Wales (Aberystwyth), University of Edinburgh, Institute of Education, University of London, University of Oxford, University of Vic (Barcelona, Spain), LSE, University of Worcester, University
of Exeter and University of the West of England (UWE). Additional institutions represented by non-presenter delegates included University of Cardiff, University of Loughborough, Trinity College, University of Wales and City University.
The event was opened by Cathy Baldwin and Paddy Coulter, who welcomed delegates and explained the origins and aims of the event. Cathy stated that it was her personal experiences of the difference between media studies and working as a
radio journalist that motivated her to initiate the conference. Paddy, currently Director of Studies at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and a Fellow of Green College, Oxford, has had a prolific career as a television producer (formerly Director of the International Broadcasting Trust) and a journalist specialising in international development issues. He pointed out that getting journalists and media academics together was the main goal of the Reuters Institute, and that the training day was the very first conference to have achieved this at Oxford University. He outlined the difficulties that have already emerged in mediating between the two sets of professionals, with the timescales of research in journalism and academia being vastly different and also the differences between the conceptual frameworks of the
two arenas.
The keynote speech, entitled ‘If it Bleeds it Leads….’: Modes of Inquiry in a World of Sensation, was delivered by Professor Brian Winston, award-winning documentary maker, renowned media academic and journalism commentator, and currently Dean of the University of Lincoln. He laid out the similarities between journalism and academia, particularly the underlying rationale for carrying out reporting and research, and the nature of the problems with both pursuits. He opened the debate of why greater academic attention is not afforded to journalism. He illuminated the
contradiction between the status of journalism in society as ‘powerful and important’ and its relatively low status as a subject of study on the elite intellectual agenda. He suggested that the roots of the problem lay in a ‘constant schizophrenia’ directed towards journalists by academics, that ‘practice’ was not respected as ‘research’ and there was a suspicion of and hostility towards journalists among academics. He put this down to academic snobbery! Delegates found him a dynamic, provocative and involved speaker, and he raised many a laugh and smile with his animated delivery
and performance-like manner.

The first of the day’s three workshops began with a presentation by Adnan Hadzi of Goldsmiths College, who opened panel 1 – Sound and Image: Alternative Methods of Research and Presentation – with a description of his research project on collaborative film entitled ‘Deptford TV’. This comprises an online media database documenting the regeneration process of Deptford in South East London. He explained how it functioned as an open, collaborative platform that allowed artists, filmmakers and people living and working around Deptford to store, share, re-edit and redistribute the documentation of the regeneration process. His contribution closed with a screening of several clips depicting local residents taking part in the project.
Trevor Hearing of Bournemouth University briefly introduced and screened his 15- minute reflective film that considered how he might develop the documentary film form into a method of ‘writing’ with video to articulate a more complex
understanding of the world. He outlined the importance of two strands in his practice as a film-maker: the meaning of evidence in the use of documentary video and the value of documentary video as a creative academic research tool.
Dr Charlotte Crofts of London South Bank University talked through the challenges of legitimating and gaining accreditation for film as a form of research within higher education, particularly among funding bodies. She explored the point that practice research differs from professional practice mainly in the way in which it is framed and reflected upon within a research context. She screened a short research film which used “pro-sumer” technology to document and reflect on the effect of emergent digital technologies on mainstream cinema production from image acquisition, post production and delivery to film preservation and archiving.
Finally, Tony Dowmunt of Goldsmiths College outlined what he described as his ‘research journey’ during the production of a video-diary based film – A Whited Sepulchre – which drew on the stories of his great-grandfather’s account in his
diaries of his posting to Sierra Leone as a soldier in the 1880s and his own video diary of a trip to Africa made in December/January 2004-5, where he explored his position as a White man in a Black environment. He also investigated the ‘authenticity’ of the more personal/confessional mode of the video diary in contrast with the formal written tone of the Victorian written diaries. The presentations were introduced by Cathy Baldwin and responses were given and
the discussion chaired by Dr Charlotte Crofts who stood in for filmmaker and Film Studies lecturer, John Sealey who was sadly unable to attend due to illness.
Lizzie Jackson from the University of Westminster/BBC chaired the second panel of the workshop, entitled: Bringing Work to School: Industry Experience in Media Research.
Somnath Batabyal from the Department of Film and Media at SOAS gave a paper that clearly illustrated how his academic career had been enhanced by having had a career in journalism. As he said in his paper, ‘However much time a researcher spends in a newsroom, one can never really be a part of the newsroom dynamics.’ He made the case that journalists in academia have the advantage of being able to bring their professional experience to bear on research taking the newsroom as a locale of study. He reflected that had he not had a career in journalism, his research would have been approached differently and the results would have differed. In turn, if it were not for his fledgling academic career, he would not have been able to conceive of his project.
The second paper was given by Ole J. Mjos from the School of Media, Arts and Design at the University of Westminster. Ole demonstrated how he considered a deconstruction of empathy and sympathy for journalists to be important. He showed how research findings have shown that journalists often occupy a detached position.
Ole suggested that this could assist in the development of training for journalists who might arrive at the scene of an incident looking for comment, and who by lack of awareness of the impact of their tone of voice or their actions might inadvertently distress victims.
Line Thomsen from the Institute of Information and Media Studies at Aarhus University talked through her thoughts prior to her doctoral observation of a small selection of newsrooms, including the BBC newsroom. She deconstructed participant observation and observation, picking out ways of approaching the contact time with journalists as a researcher. Her paper carefully listed many of the classic problems and risks, but also the potential benefits of the methodology.
The fourth paper was delivered by Dafydd Sills-Jones, lecturer in media production at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. He gave examples, taken from his field work with television history producers, of oft-used uncritical and celebratory language exemplifed by the constant and un-defined use of the word ‘big’. He noted that whilst such uncritical useage could be a barrier to scholarly study, he also believed it was important to engage with what he referred to as the ‘big discourse’. In order to outline the advantages and pitfalls of such an approach, Dafydd offered three provocative ‘confessions’ as to his methods, and ended by inviting the audience to reflect on their own methodological ‘sins’.
In the final paper, Dr Dorota Ostrowska of the Department of Film Studies at the University of Edinburgh covered a wide area, including the benefits of partnerships between academics and industry, through the learning extracted by both parties in the setting up of a major film festival, the UK Festival of Chinese Cinema. She noted the cultural benefits to Edinburgh and its residents, and also the benefits to the university through the availability of experts from China over the period of the festival. She presented a useful business model in action, proving the importance of bringing together the joint experience of academics and practitioners.
After a networking lunch where delegates mingled and chatted, the afternoon sessions began. Dr Charlotte Crofts briefly outlined the aims of the MeCCSA Practice Session and encouraged delegates to get involved. The first panel of Workshop 2 entitled Theoretical Models in Mass Media Practice: Perspectives from the West, was chaired by Lizzie Jackson (Westminster) and Line Thomsen (Aarhus).During this panel, Gavin Rees of Bournemouth University reflected upon the fact that journalists in the UK receive scant formal training on how to interview, and that emotional interactions between interviewee and interviewer were subject to little professional or theoretical analysis. Drawing on his research talking to news organisations about the trauma training given to reporters, such as in situations of war, mental illness, bereavement or violent crime, he examined why the emotional interactions of the interview space remained under-explored. In particular he concluded that empathetic listening skills need to be taught both for ethical reasons and to improve the quality of journalism and its ability to engage audiences.
Jo Henderson of the Institute of Education, University of London, focused on the BBC’s Video Nation, in which ‘ordinary people’ are invited to represent themselves through the creation of self-filmed monologues to camera: video diaries. She located her research within an exploration of the implications of the notion of ‘the citizen producer’ in the particular climate of the BBC news and factual programming departments. Her paper revealed that the ‘Amateur video’ tag enabled broadcasters to distance themselves from low production values and subjectivity. Maxwell Boykoff of the University of Oxford presented the findings of his research examining the application of journalistic norms in the coverage of human
contributions to climate change in the US and UK. An analysis of the output of numerous news organisations and print media led him to the realisation that some news sources have significantly diverged from the consensus view in climate science.
The need for ‘balance’ in reporting has created bias when reporting a scientific concensus such as the role of humans in climate change. Cristina Perales García and Mon Rodríguez Amat from the University of Vic, Barcelona reflected upon the importance of managing new and constantly evolving modes of communications, specifically a new approach to the growth area of e- journalism. Their particular concern was the creation of an appropriate and non- traditional theoretical model that would serve to study this new communicative sector.
In the final paper, Patrice Holderbach from the University of Oxford considered the investigative nature of journalism which can propel media practitioners and their products into sensitive environments that are prone to judicial scrutiny, including judicial penalties for refusal to disclose sources. She focused on the pros and cons of a controversial bill considered in 2006 by the US Senate to create a federal shield law protecting media practitioners from disclosure and the wider implications for journalists and the general public, particularly ‘bloggers’.

The second panel, Theoretical Models in Mass Media Practice: Perspectives from the Developing World, was chaired by Catherine Joppart of the Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research and Venkata Vemuri (UWE). Sarah Kamal’s paper looked at how media reconstructions form a natural space for investigating media theory. She examined the concept of ‘media development’ as practice and theory in post-Taliban Afghanistan, problematizing the reciprocal relationship of media theory and the development context to pinpoint lessons for media theory in reconstruction
and in the West.
Nina Bigalke of Goldsmiths College scrutinised the operations of Al Jazeera English, the latest English-language 24-hour news channel which made headlines prior to its launch in November 2006, as a noticeable example of an institution that effectively incorporated long-standing academic debates into its policy and brand identity.
Dr Carolina Oliveira Matos, also of Goldsmiths College, discussed her research methods when investigating the relationship between the democratization process that occurred in Brazil in the last two decades and the role played by the media. She also reflected upon the difficulties that many academics and journalists have in combining theory with practice and the misunderstandings that exist on both sides.
Dr Xin Xin of the China Media Centre at the University of Westminster set out to explain the complexity of journalistic practices in different social contexts by focusing on the case of China. She analyzed the causes, dynamics and consequences of the negotiations between political, economic and socio-journalistic interests in journalism practice. She also aimed to clarify confusion regarding the coexistence of investigative journalism and ‘paid journalism’ during China’s media transformations.
Two papers were delivered in the final workshop, Double Vocations: Media Practice and Theory, as the third contributor, John Sealey, had to withdraw due to illness. The session was chaired by Dafydd Sills-Jones and responses were given by Cathy Baldwin. Maureen Matthews from the Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology at the University of Oxford discussed the cross-cultural nature of media practice using the example of a recent documentary project broadcast on Canadian radio which debunked the popular ecological stereotype of ‘Mother Earth’ found in the cosmology of Native Canadians. She drew parallels between journalism practice and anthropological concerns over ‘reflexivity’ during field research, postulating that journalists would benefit from attention to the latter. She also outlined how they could improve their practice through taking up anthropology’s ethical stance towards the representation of its subjects.
To close, George Nyabuga of the University of Worcester drew upon his personal experience as a journalist with The Standard, the oldest newspaper in Kenya, to explain how professional journalistic ethics and press freedom in that country were under threat both internally within the media establishment and externally by representatives of the state and business sectors. He revealed how objectivity and unbiased accounts of events intended to enlighten people and provide a forum for exchanges of information and views were being sacrificed for the sake of vested interests and financial gain.
Professor Winston rounded off the day’s academic discussions with some summary remarks. He warned the delegates against the danger of treating the gaps outlined across the discussions in an ahistorical manner, reminding them that he had experienced them throughout the course of his career. He was optimistic at the rise in the number of practitioners in research, lamenting that 30 years ago, the numbers were considerably lower. He also defended the arena of media research in the light of many delegates having expressed a concern with a perceived general misunderstanding of practice. He recalled that when media research was launched as an academic discipline, figures from the media industry were disconcerted by the critical analyses presented by himself and his colleagues from the Glasgow Media Group! He concluded by suggesting that journalism could be improved through a closer engagement with academia, and inversely that the climate for journalism studies is much better today than in the early years of his career, with greater
receptivity within academia and more opportunities to obtain funding.
Paddy Coulter then brought the event to a close by leading Brian Winston and all delegates in an open evaluation discussion where points were taken from the floor.
The feedback was resoundingly positive, and aspects praised included the breadth of media forms and theoretical approaches discussed, the frank and candid tone of the day set up in the opening speeches, the friendly and informal atmosphere, the small scale which enabled delegates to converse with a wide range of people in intimate surroundings, the splendour of the conference venue at 13 Norham Gardens, the internationalism of the delegates, and the choice of keynote speaker. Constructive criticisms raised were the short length of the event, a general consensus that its high
quality merited two days, and frustrations were expressed at the restricted time for the development of prolonged discussions due to the tight schedule.
Delegates finished the day with a wine reception at Reuters Institute, a meal at the Pizza Express in Oxford and drinks at the pub afterwards where discussions went on late into the night!
Due to the popularity of the event and the excitement that it generated, several postgraduates from the Media and Anthropology departments at SOAS and Goldsmiths College have proposed to repeat it next year at either university over a two-day period. As media research is in its infancy at the University of Oxford and the concentration of staff and postgraduates working on media topics is still growing, the organizers have fully endorsed and encouraged this proposal. The envisaged title of the second event is ‘Mending the Gap’, with an aim of building on the agenda of concerns set up by this first event and moving forward to look for concrete ways of addressing them.

Our grateful thanks are due to all the ‘Minding the Gap’ delegates, both presenters and non-presenter audience members for bringing their enthusiasm and passion for the topic to the lively and productive discussions that took place. Special thanks are owed to Paddy Coulter for his tremendous support and dedication throughout the preparation process, and to Professor Brian Winston for his inspirational address and generous input into delegates’ discussions and keen engagement with the issues facing young researcher-practitioners today. We would also like to thank Professors
Marcus Banks and Harvey Whitehouse of the Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology (ISCA), University of Oxford, and the Art Design Media Higher Education Academy Subject Centre (ADM-HEA) for funding the event, and Oxford
University Anthropological Society for support in kind. Thanks are also due to Nicole Stremlau for linking the project with the Stanhope Centre and to Peter Bailey and Jennie Turner for their valuable input in the coordination of the day. A debt of gratitude is owed to Andres Schipani-Aduriz for assisting with the production of the event and for turning out to register delegates in spite of illness. Additionally, we are grateful to Dr Charlotte Crofts of the MeCCSA Practice Section for standing in as a chair at the last minute. Last but by no means least, I would personally like to thank my colleagues at
MeCCSA Postgraduate Network for encouraging me in the running of the event within a university that is a new collaborator for the MeCCSA network, and in particular the current chair, Kaity Mendes for compiling delegates’ feedback. Finally, without the commitment and high quality input of the postgraduate organising team and chairs,
the event could not have taken place.

Cathy Baldwin, MeCCSA Postgraduate Network Executive Committee University of Oxford, 3rd June 2007.

The research “the author vs. the collective” was presented at HotDocs documentary film festival in Toronto, Canada. See slides (as .pdf).

“The Documentary Auteur is a dead duck in the digital water.”

quoted from http://www.nfb.ca/filmmakerinresidence/blog/?cat=2&paged=2

That’s what 6 people debated, 3 for and 3 against, on stage at Hot Docs, during the third real-life instalment of DocAgora. A clap-athon from the audience was to determine the winner.

FIR friends Peter and Amit, co-founders of DocAgora, clearly set up this false dichotomy to get people thinking deeper about the shifting roles of authorship and the digital collective. But at times the discussion was painful, until finally, Adnan Hadzi on the “pro-side” finally wisely reframed the argument: its not authorship that’s dead, but its copyright and ownership that’s dead.

But it was too late in the game, and the documentary world’s Simon Cowell, Nick Fraser of the BBC, wrapped-it up for the “con” side by trashing the whole debate, trashing the notion of Auteur: “Could we please use a proper Anglo-Saxon word for it,” then evoking the spirit of Torontonian Marshal McLuhan and (after trashing him) proclaiming the authorial duck alive and well by saying: “Quite simply, works made collectively are boring”.

The clap-athon swung in favour for the con-side. Only then did the really interesting aruguments for the collective emerge. Montrealer Sylvia Van Brabant stood up from the audience and pointed out: “What about the Native storytelling traditions… who are the authors in that!?” Sanjay, another documentarian, criticized the “hyper-individualism of the west and its notions of authorship.” And later in tha hallway, Marc Glassman, complained to me he hadn’t gotten a chance to speak because he’s bald and wears glasses. He wanted to desperately say “What about Jazz, guys?”

Luckily, no real ducks were hurt in the making of DocAgora, as Peter is also one of the co-founders of the Greencode, a movement to green the doc industry.

Btw, FIR is an alumni of DocAgora, as Gerry and I both presented at the inaugural DocAgora in Amsterdam.

Meanwhile, FIR had two presentations at Hot Docs, including one for Doc U, to university students all intent on becoming filmmakers. They later told their mentor, Sarah Zammit, who told me, “I want to do what FIR does!” and some even said, “I want to be her!” Scary.

quoted from documentary.org

Author? Autheur? by Marc Glassman

DocAgora, a nonprofit organization created to make the digital world comprehensible and useful to the documentary community, is the virtual brainchild of Peter Wintonick, co-director of the definitive profile of Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent; Israeli-Canadian producer Amit Breuer (Checkpoint, Sentenced to Marriage); and American “webjockey” and director Cameron Hickey (Garlic and Watermelons). In ancient Greece, the agora was the crossroads where a marketplace was established and public debates would occur. Using classic forms of communication—debates, panel discussions and lectures—DocAgora is bringing a new marketplace of ideas to documentary festivals around the world. A self-styled “gypsy caravan” of practical philosophers, DocAgora has been plying its trade for a year now, in festivals ranging from IDFA to Silverdocs to Hot Docs.

Joining Breuer and Wintonick as core members of DocAgora is a trio of distinguished individuals. Fleur Knopperts brings marketing and financing expertise to the group. The former director of IDFA’s FORUM, where scores of documentaries have found broadcasting and financial partners, Knopperts has recently become the industry and marketing director at the Sheffield Documentary Festival in England. Replacing Knopperts as the IDFA rep is industry veteran Adriek van Nieuwenhuijzen, who has a wealth of knowledge on documentary filmmaking. Neil Sieling, American University New Media Fellow at the Center for Social Media, is recognized internationally as a consultant, TV producer (Alive from Off Center) and curator, who helped to launch a multitude of projects, including Link TV.

This sextet of visionary media activists scored its initial North American success with an afternoon of spirited, well-structured debates at the 2007 Hot Docs festival in Toronto, Canada. Seats were hard to come by as filmmakers, broadcasters, academics, producers and students jostled for space at University of Toronto’s Innis Town Hall. The highlight was an Oxford Union-style debate organized around the proposition that “The authored documentary is a dead duck in the digital water.”

Arguing in favor of the proposition were activist director Daniel Cross (The Street, S.P.I.T. and creator of the website homeless.org); producer and cross-media creator Femke Wolting of the Dutch-based company Submarine (My Second Life); and the British-based communications academic Adnan Hadzi (Liquid Culture, Deptford TV). Arguing in favor of the auteur were director Jennifer Fox (Flying: Confessions of a Free Woman), new technologies student Brad Dworkin (Ryerson University in Toronto) and broadcaster/producer/writer Nick Fraser (BBC’s Storyville).

Operating as the moderator, Sieling pointed out that DocAgora questions the new digital age in “a Socratic manner without being pretentious.” He set up the ground rules, keeping the speakers to a slightly loose five-minute time limit, announcing a “clap-o-meter” for an informal audience vote and explaining that Canadian veteran commissioning editor Rudy Buttignol would be the adjudicator for the debate.

Cross brought the proceedings to life right away by announcing, “The water is poisoned, the ducks are dead and the auteurs ain’t got no money––so we’re going to win this debate.” He then challenged the audience, asking all the auteurs to stand up and be counted. No one stood up, hardly surprising in a room full of reticent Canadians and international doc-makers.

Cross’ argument centered on the collaborative nature of documentary filmmaking, particularly in cinema vérité. Since the main camera operator, sound recordist and editor have so much to do with the making of that type of doc, Cross suggested that the director is simply part of the process, not an auteur. To him, the best documentaries have layers of authorship, not just a single vision. He concluded by pointing out that the website he has founded, www.homelessnation.org, welcomes that layering through blogs by street people, who are given cameras and encouraged to contribute pieces on issues ranging from police brutality to squatting

Counter-punching for the auteur side, the distinguished documentary director Fox passionately argued, “I live for authorship.” To her, scientific and medical discoveries are authored. Even An American Love Story has become as much her story as the subjects’ because she gave shape and structure to the documentary. Fox expressed her belief in “a singular vision” of filmmaking, replying to Cross’ layers of authorship by suggesting that creative collaborators only work well when there’s a link: the auteur.

Next up, presumably for the collective, non-auteur side, was Wolting. The Dutch new media pioneer used to be a programmer at the Rotterdam International Film Festival and, while there, grew weary of the old-style auteurs, who seemed to always get funding and have their films included in prestigious festivals worldwide. While arguing against that style of auteurism, which smacks of elitism, Wolting did make a case for young “authors” being able to make their films with new digital tools. With YouTube, it is possible to distribute short films for free and bypass festivals altogether. A believer in the punk ethic DIY (do it yourself), Wolting ended up endorsing a “new age of auteurs,” who are not members of a privileged class but simply the ones with the best ideas and methods of execution.

Toronto new media artist Brad Dworkin followed Wolting to the podium, arguing on the auteur side. Dworkin pointed out that even Andrew Sarris, the critic who popularized the auteur theory in the US back in the 1960s, now admits that the old definition doesn’t work anymore. Calling auteurism a “pattern theory in flux,” Dworkin asked, “In a digital world, can we say the author is dead? I don’t think so; it’s in a new form: the website itself.”

Dworkin suggested that we look at an entire website as one work: the layout, the text, even the color. “The new auteurs,” he went on, “are the creators of the search engines because they develop the programming, aesthetics and set the parameters, like a director of a documentary.” Citing an experiment he conducted in collective authorship, where 20 feeds of Toronto were shot simultaneously, Dworkin noted that by setting the time, format and place, he was, in fact, the auteur. Even in digital work, he concluded, “the context of the exhibition and distribution” are handled by one person, who is effectively, its author or creator.

Hadzi came to the debate highly prepared, as his PhD project is on “the author versus the collective.” Taking the high road, he argued that “the author is in flux. The copyright is the dead duck in the digital water.” Playing to the crowd as a tongue-in-cheek academic radical, Hadzi offered an astonishing amount of facts and speculation around new media technology. For instance, did you know that by 2015, your home computer will be able to store all the music created in the world? Or that by 2020, all the content ever created could potentially be stored in that same computer?

Hadzi is a believer in “copyleft,” a practice where directors and other artists voluntarily remove some usage restrictions from their own work. His ideas complement the “free use” access to archival materials, which the Center for Social Media advocates. For Hadzi, open licensing and common source technology will open up production and distribution for documentary filmmakers. And the auteur? Artists with singular visions will provide knowledge and wisdom to the collective voices that will spring out of the new panacea in the upcoming digital age.

Leaving the visionary thoughts of Hadzi, Dworkin and Wolting far behind, the avuncular Fraser arose to deliver the final speech of the debate. The well educated and fearsomely amusing Brit suffers fools badly. He denounced famed French cultural theorists Deleuze and Baudrillard, who were obvious inspirations for Hadzi and Dworkin in particular. Fraser pointed out that “everyone in the debate basically agrees with one another,” making it impossible to do what a true Oxford debater would do in conclusion: “Trash the enemies and praise our side.” Apart from a nice but gratuitous aside praising Canadian media philosopher Marshall McLuhan (“Artists are the canaries in the coal mine.”), Fraser’s conclusion was contentious but engaging: “The documentary shall survive made by individuals and collectives.”

As the adjudicator, it was upto Buttignol to deliver the final word. The clap-o-meter had already registered a resounding victory for the auteur side. An advocate of auteurism, Buttignol turned into a contrarian, admitting that he felt suspicious that the audience agreed with him. His conclusion was Jesuitical: “The argument is dead.” Evoking yet another Canadian philosopher and scientist, Hubert Reeves, Buttignol left the audience with this thought: “Chaos and order co-exist.” In other words, auteurs and collectives will always be among us.

Doc Agora will certainly be with us for quite a while. The group plans to be a presence at this fall’s Sheffield and Amsterdam documentary festivals. The future looms before them. Whether it’s bright or not may well be the subject of another debate.

Check out www.docagora.org for details.

Marc Glassman is the editor of POV, Canada’s leading documentary magazine, and of Montage, the publication of the Directors Guild of Canada.