the contribution made by visual anthropology to the study of consumption behavior

7/29/2019 The Contribution Made by Visual Anthropology to the Study of Consumption Behavior

1/20

Western society has always given precedence towords over images, visual perception being considered

inferior to other vehicles of knowledge. This skepti-

cism toward images is not new; Plato also spoke of

the deceptive and fallacious nature of images, that

they fool the eyes and deceive the mind (Schroeder,

2002). Photography and video are often relegated tothe status of illustration, entertainment or even work of

art, and marketing research has long been a follower of

this school of thought.

However, photography and video are now used

more and more in the human sciences, and particu-

Recherche et Applications en Marketing, vol. 22, n 1/2007

The contribution made by visual anthropology

to the study of consumption behavior

Delphine Dion

IAE de Paris, Sorbonne Graduate Business School

The author wishes to thank Richard Ladwein for his comments and advice. She can be contacted by writing to the following e-mail address:[email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the main methodologies of visual anthropology and discusses their use in marketing research. After a

brief history of the emergence of pictures and videos in anthropology, we present the epistemological and methodological shifts

in visual anthropology. Based on this, we identify two ways of using pictures and videos in the field of research: as a recording

device and as a research tool.

In the first approach, video and still cameras are used to obtain more detailed, precise and lively ethnographic descriptions

of consumption behavior. The researcher attempts to draw up an exhaustive list of the objects owned by the consumer (inventorytechnique) or he uses a camera to record specific actions or objects he wants to focus on (videography).

In the second approach, pioneered by Jean Rouch, videos are used in a more reflexive and subjective way. The camera is no

longer considered as an objective recording device. It is used in a participative and collaborative way to develop a shared

understanding of consumption experiences. By the mediation of the camera, the researchers aim is to bring the viewer into peo-

ples experiences. The camera becomes the participant as well as the collaborator.

Key words: Qualitative research, ethnography, visual anthropology, photography, video, consumption experiences, pictures,

videography.


2/20

larly in marketing, to study consumption behavior

(Belk and Kozinets, 2005).1 Despite this evolution,

marketing research, where images are granted the

same importance as statistical or lexical analysis, for

example, is still rare. The image is often confined to

the role of simply illustrating a verbalization

constructed independently as a self-contained unit of

meaning. More often than not, we have very little

information about the photographic images we see

and use: whether it be as to how they were collected

(locations, people photographed, framing, number of

shots, etc.), or the methods employed in analyzing

them. Some of these images are later inserted into a

text with the purpose of illustrating behavior that,

quite often, has been identified by means of othertools.

However, the photographic image holds very

important, very specific argumentative and analytical

possibilities. Visual anthropology, like much of the

work in consumption behavior where photography

has been used, tends to be something other than a

simple factual account and must be considered as a

specific observation research method. We would the-

refore be well advised to gain a better understanding of

the research techniques used in visual anthropology.

The themes, tools and methods used in visual

anthropology have changed greatly over the years,just as anthropology itself has changed. In the time of

the silent or post-synchronized documentary,

research was centered on directly observable move-

ment and behavior: techniques surrounding the

construction and use of objects, ceremonial behavior

and non-verbal communication. The introduction of

portable, lightweight cameras featuring synchronous

sound-image recording devices in the 1960s and,

later on, the advent of digital recording techniques,

broadened the scope of visual anthropology signifi-

cantly. The visual description of activities was now

accompanied by the direct verbal expression of the

subjects themselves, which meant that elements notdirectly observable before, such as personal expe-

rience, emotions, judgments and interpretations,

could now be gathered (de France, 1994).

Visual anthropology thus went from the study of

movement to the exploration of experience. These

new developments in technology cannot fully

account for the disciplines new infatuation however,

as this also corresponded with an epistemological

revival that was both reflexive and comprehensive,

and which generated new interest in ethnographic

film and increased its validity (Pink, 2006).

These evolutions have created a need to define

the challenges facing visual anthropology more

clearly so that marketing researchers may better fulfill

the potential these new perspectives bring. The goal of

the current article is to open a window on visual

anthropology and make new observation research

methods based on the photographic and/or videoimage available to both marketing researchers and

professionals. This paper does not claim to be a

guide or handbook on the issue, but rather seeks to

draw marketing researchers attention to recent deve-

lopments in contemporary visual anthropology.

In visual anthropology, the image is considered as

an intrinsic not extrinsic element of the research pro-

cess, just as it is in the analysis of advertising visuals

(Barthes, 1985; Ceriani, 2004), works of art

(Thrlemann, 2004), family photographs (Bourdieu,

1965; Schroeder, 2002) or fiction films (Weakland,

1974; Comolli, 1994; Marteaux and Filser, 2006).

2

It isnot concerned with gathering and analyzing existing

visual productions, but with producing photographic or

video images in a given field of research in order to

generate an understanding of the Other. This involves

conducting research with images (researcher pro-

duces images as an instrument of research) and not

on images (analysis of representations driven by

images in a given situation).

This paper will begin with a proposal for the defi-

nition of visual anthropology, which will then lead to

two possible utilizations of the image: the image as a

tool for recording behavior, and the image as a field of

research. In so doing, pioneering marketing researchusing these methods of observation will be examined

and several fields for the application of these tech-

niques in marketing research and studies will be

proposed.

Delphine Dion62

1. Many conferences now organize special sessions devoted tovideo. This is true, for example, of the Consumer Culture TheoryConference and the conferences of the Association for ConsumerResearch, which has, since 2002, held an annual film festivalwhere researchers are invited to present videos on consumption.

The review Consumption, Markets and Culture ran a special featureon this theme in September 2005.

2. For a literary review of the analysis of marketing visuals, refer toTissier-Desbordesarticle (2004).


3/20

VISUAL ANTHROPOLOGY: FROM TOOL TO FIELD

OF RESEARCH

Before embarking on an analysis of the contribu-

tion made by visual anthropology to the study of

consumption behavior, it is best to first gain an

understanding of the specific characteristics of the

discipline and the founding principles of anthropo-

logy. This will then be followed by an examination of

how videography slipped into research methods little

by little, until it developed into an entirely separate

discipline. The final part of the paper will analyze theepistemological and methodological evolutions that

visual anthropology has experienced in the past few

years.

The founding principles of anthropology

First and foremost, anthropology is defined by its

field of study: the self-other relationship in other

cultures (Aug, 1994). Anthropology cannot be

defined by particular themes (religion, family,

exchange, etc.), by the societies it studies (traditio-nal) or by the theories it uses (structuralism, functio-

nalism, culturalism, etc.), but by its mission: to

study mankind in its entirety, in all societies, at all

latitudes, in all its states and in all epochs. Accompli-

shing this mission is inseparable from its method:

ethnographic description; that is the direct observa-

tion of particular social behaviors founded on a

human relationship and familiarity with the groups

we seek to understand by sharing their existence

(Laplantine, 2005).

At first, ethnologists limited themselves to brin-

ging indigenous people into their colonial residences tointerview them (in precisely the same way companies

currently do when they invite their consumers into

their buildings to talk about their consumption expe-

riences....). In the tradition of Malinowski (1922),

who broke away from this approach, ethnologists

little by little left their colonial residences to go into

the field and join what was happening. Participative

observation thus gradually gained the upper hand

over veranda ethnology, as Malinowski enjoyed

calling it. (Like Malinowski, we could urge marke-

ting companies and researchers to go out into the

field more and to relinquish veranda marketing

research in favor offieldmarketing research).

Henceforth, gaining knowledge of human beings

could no longer follow the example of the botanist

examining a fern or the zoologist observing a crusta-

cean; it could only proceed by communicating

directly with humans and by sharing their existence

in a lasting way. The ethnographer must be capable

of truly adopting the primary inclination of the cul-

ture hes studying (Laplantine, 1999). This unders-

tanding requires that the observer be integrated into

the very location of the observation. The ethnogra-

pher must immerse himself in the day-to-day life and

daily interaction of his research community in thesame way as the indigenous person. This approach

invites a slow and inevitably long period of familiari-

zation with the groups being studied (Laburthe-

Thorla and Warnier, 2003).

The construction of knowledge is grounded

(Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). First, researchers

observe and take notes. This allows them to acquire an

understanding of the society or group in which they are

immersed. They then try to validate their conceptuali-

zations based on their fieldwork immersion. In the

next stage, researchers may need to collect data to

enhance their knowledge, and this process continuesuntil a complete conceptualization of the phenome-

non being studied is achieved. The construction of

knowledge is therefore iterative and continuing. It is

constructed gradually through contact with the

research area and results in a negotiated and shared

understanding of behavior (Heisley, McGrath and

Sherry, 1990).

The pioneers of visual anthropology

For a very long time, most ethnologists andanthropologists have used the image as a tool for

gathering information. This was the case for Had-

dons expedition to the Torres Strait Islands in 1898

when he made the first ethnographic film with one of

the first Lumire motion picture cameras (de Brigard,

1974). The method was also employed by Boas, as

early as 1885, when he photographed different ele-

ments of Indian culture (objects, ceremonies, beha-

vior), and also by Malinowski when he studied the

Trobrianders between 1915 and 1918. Although

The contribution made by visual anthropology to the study of consumption behavior 63


4/20

these pioneers of visual anthropology often produced a

vast amount of photographic material (1,100 of Mali-

nowskis photographs are archived at the London

School of Economics), they did not truly fulfill the

potential of their pictures. In those times, the image

was reduced to two functions: illustrating and objecti-

fying (Pink, 2006). So, in the description Malinowski

gives of his research options inArgonauts of the Wes-

tern Pacific (1922), he doesnt speak of using pho-

tography as a means of investigation. He emphasizes

the need to conduct a systematic description and,

throughout his analysis, he supports his discourse by

referring the reader to his various photographs taken in

the field. He used his photographic images more as a

testament to the truth of his observations.The use of photography in research reached a

major turning point through the work of Bateson and

Mead in 1942 at the end of a two-year period of field

work in a village in Bali. Mead interviewed, chatted

and took notes while Bateson took photos and filmed. In

this way, they took 25,000 photos and 7,000 meters of

film. When they returned to New York, they selected

and wrote comments for 759 photographs, and these

made up the body ofBalinese Character: a photo-

graphic analysis. This book not only provided an origi-

nal vision of learning about a culture but also constituted

a renewal of fieldwork techniques (Winkin, 1981). Theresearch method developed by Mead and Bateson no

longer used photography as a simple means of proving

written observations, but as a veritable research material

in its own right. Mead points out that the different types

of behavior identified in Balinese Character were

brought to light by analyzing the photos, and that in no

way did the photos represent a mirror of these beha-

viors (Worth, 1981). Despite their innovative approach,

Mead and Bateson did not succeed in making the use of

photography in anthropology more legitimate, and it

wasnt until the 1970s that the discipline truly acquired

academic recognition. After having been considered aminor and marginal discipline for many years, visual

anthropology became a well-established and fast-

expanding discipline (Ruby, 2005).

The epistemological and methodological evolutions

of visual anthropology

Mead (1974) defined visual anthropology as the

study of man based on what is offered to vision alone

and grasped through non-verbal tools of investiga-

tion. The camera was perceived as a sort of secret

weapon; invisible, omniscient and omnipotent,

capable of witnessing the whole of an event (Mac-

Dougall, 1974). Focusing on the idea that film is

objective, Mead sought to use the camera in the most

neutral manner possible. She recommended keeping

the camera on a tripod in the background and simply

letting it film continuously so that people forgot it

was there (Mead, 1974). The camera became a wit-

ness capable of recording an event in its entirety.

Mead opposed edited and participative film, and

sought to make it as objective as possible. To recons-

truct reality as faithfully as possible, anthropological

videography was limited to uncut unedited film. Theresult was more a recording than a film (Young,

1974). Today, this approach seems unrealistic and,

for ethical and epistemological reasons, is not recom-

mended.

From voyeurism to collaboration

At that time, filming individuals without their

knowledge didnt seem to cause any particular moral

dilemmas (especially given the colonial mentality of

the times). Mead and Bateson even went so far as tofilm situations where the people did not wish to be

observed, let alone filmed (Mead, 1974). Although at

the time these practices seemed normal, it would be

unthinkable to proceed in this manner today. It was

felt that, rather than trying to film people without

their knowing it, a collaborative approach should be

developed. The subject should no longer be treated

like a lab animal that one observes from behind a

camera lens, but as a partner collaborating in the

research process.

From objectivity to subjectivity in visual

descriptions

Initially, anthropologists invested pictures with a

view to obtaining a more objective means of recor-

ding their observations, and in this way expel subjec-

tivity from their field notes. But the objectivity of

pictures was very quickly called into question. It

appeared, over time, that images were no more trans-

parent than text notes.

Delphine Dion64


5/20

It can be said that any visual description is selective

and incomplete insofar as it adheres to the laws of

exclusion and overload, which state that showing one

thing means simultaneously hiding another (law of

exclusion) and also that showing one thing means

simultaneously showing something else as well (law of

overload) (de France, 1994). Therefore, no descrip-

tion can be either exhaustive or completely precise.

Restricted on both sides by this goal for both rich-

ness and precision, the anthropologist is obliged to

make choices regarding framing, focus, length of

shot, angle, scenes and individuals to be photogra-

phed or filmed, etc. These choices can create optical

illusions or conceal facts, therefore deceiving our

understanding (MacDougall, 2006).Another consideration was that a description is

shaped by its interactive context. This is influenced

by interaction between the anthropologist and his

informants (social environment) and objects (mate-

rial environment), but also by the observers own cul-

ture. Observation is therefore rooted in a social

context, cultural conventions, collective norms and

each individuals personal experiences, all of which

necessarily affect the description.

The final consideration was that a description is

distorted by the games played by the participants.

Aware that they are being observed, the informantsintervene in the image production process by playing

self-projection games designed to control the way

they show themselves (Conord, 2002). Barthes tells

us: As soon as I feel I am being observed by the

camera, everything changes: I begin to pose, I ins-

tantly create another body for myself, I metamor-

phose into a picture ahead of time [...]. In front of the

camera, I am simultaneously the person I think I am,

the person I would like people to believe I am, the

person the photographer believes I am, and the per-

son he is using to exhibit his art (Barthes, 1980,

pp. 25-29).In this way, all agreed to admit to the subjectivity of

visual description. A photograph or video is not a

copy or mirror of the world, but a description of

something created by someone. It is a representation a

person makes for themselves of the world (Worth,

1981). An image must be considered a dynamic inter-

action between the photographer, the spectator and

the image. Meaning is constructed actively and not

received passively. An image is polysemic, capable of

generating multiple meanings (Barthes, 1980).

From erasing to affirming the anthropologists

presence in the research

Behind the effacing camera, the ethnologist

sought to erase his own presence from the research. It

seems unrealistic, however, to think that people can

forget the camera. The feeling of intrusion is likely to

subside over time but can never disappear comple-

tely.

Whatever the case, the simple presence of an

observer is disturbing in itself, whether he has a

camera or not. The ethnographer does not in fact

consider himself as an objective witness observing

objects, but rather a subject observing other subjects in

the context of an experiment in which the observer

himself is observed (Laplantine, 2005). The ethno-

grapher is not, and does not want to be, invisible. He is

not an indigenous person, a native; he is, and will

remain, a foreigner, regardless of what he wants or

the way he behaves to integrate and ground himself in

the subjects culture (Copans, 2002). This means that

all forms of ethnographic observation are imperfect, if

only because of disturbance arising from the simple

presence of an observer.

Therefore, sooner or later, the anthropologist is

led to reflect upon his status and the observer-

observed relationship, whatever tools he may beusing (speech, writing, video or still camera). Howe-

ver, the disturbance the ethnographers presence

imposes on what he observes, far from being conside-

red an epistemological obstacle that should be neu-

tralized, is an infinitely rich source of knowledge

(Laplantine, 2005). Conscious of the disturbance

caused by his very presence, the anthropologist must

seek to personally place himself at the heart of the

observation. The anthropologist should not try to

escape but, on the contrary, he should accept his status

as a voyant-visible, to use the expression by Merleau-

Ponty. One must try to go from an outsider looking into an insider engaging in reciprocal observation. This

viewpoint represents a fundamental break away from

positivist conceptions based on the principle of data

being collected by an absolute observer external to

the phenomenon being studied (Laplantine, 2005).

Rather than trying to hide oneself in an apparent

attempt to make people forget the camera, and parti-

cularly the ethnologist, it is better to accept the pre-

sence of these two elements and continue working,

fully aware of the situation. Rather than giving



6/20

people the impression of being filmed unwittingly

and without having a real understanding of the way

filming is being carried out, the camera should be

placed at the center of the interaction. The purpose of

this is not to question the way the camera changes

behavior, but to film interaction in the presence of the

camera, while remaining conscious of the distortion

it brings (Young, 1974).

Consequently, the study of mankind through pic-

tures (photographic or video) represents not only the

study of filmable mankind able to be filmed or pho-

tographed but also of filmed mankind, as it is

shown by images. Visual anthropology therefore

encompasses both the study of man captured by the

image and the image of filmed man. This concept isthe basis for Claudine de Frances (1994, p. 6) defini-

tion of visual anthropology: man as he is captured

on film, in the unity and diversity of ways in which he

exhibits his actions, his thoughts, and his milieu.

Film and photography are, at the same time, both

tool and field of research. Most anthropologists are

attached to the first aspect and seek to complete their

written notes with visual ones. Others search more

deeply into the staging of reality and try to use the

image in a more reflexive manner.

THE IMAGE AS A TOOL

In this first approach, video and still cameras are

used to obtain a visual description of a research area.

In marketing research studies, the use of visual des-

criptions appears extremely promising as these allow

the analysis of real behavior in its natural setting.

This means we can go above and beyond statisticaldata and laboratory observations. More specifically,

visual descriptions may be used to:

explore the lifestyles of a consumer community

or a marketing target group (activities, interests,

reference universe, lifestyle, identity data, etc.);

collect information in situations where there is

significant distortion of statistical data: study of

target groups that are difficult to question (chil-

dren and teenagers, for example), or on sensi-

tive or politically incorrect subjects;

better understand the uses of products/services:

analyze the user manuals of products/services

(location, time and frequency of use, users,

functions used, use, difficulties of use, unders-

tanding of instructions for use, maintenance

method, place kept, etc.), detect misuse or dan-

gerous use of products, understand the relation-

ship with products/services (rituals, importance

and status of object for the user, how the pro-

duct is displayed, etc.), analyze the social inter-

action surrounding the product/service (nature

of interaction, status and roles of individuals,

etc.);

analyze behavior in a commercial setting

(exploration of commercial setting, manipula-tion of products, organization of waiting per-

iods, interaction with contact personnel and

other customers, etc.).

This type of information can allow marketers to

understand the sociocultural context of a market, to

identify areas of innovation (new products/services,

new functions, new design for a space, etc.), to test

prototypes and identify the best communication tech-

niques for encouraging consumers to adopt a pro-

duct/service.

To create a visual description, the researcher can

use the inventory technique and draw up the mostexhaustive list possible of elements noted in the area of

research, or use a video or still camera to identify the

remarkable elements.

Drawing up an inventory of social and cultural

practices

The researcher takes photographs to establish the

most exhaustive list possible of the social and cultural

practices of a given group of people. The inventory

may be statistical, when it deals with objects; ordynamic, when it is centered on social interaction.

Statistical inventory

Photography is used to create a list of the number

and type of objects owned and their uses. This tech-

nique allows a visual representation of the way these

objects are related to one another, where they are

positioned in the space and how they are displayed.

Delphine Dion66


7/20

These spatial configurations give us an understan-

ding of the cultural and social patterns of the inhabi-

tants.3

When compiling this inventory, the photographer

may either take an exhaustive number of shots of the

phenomenon or take sample shots. Collier (1974)

adopted this method in order to gain an understan-

ding into the process of acculturation and adapting to a

sedentary lifestyle of a group of American Indians in

San Francisco. He photographed the inside of 22

houses (living room, kitchen and bedrooms) and then

listed each object in an observation table in the follo-

wing categories: furniture, organization of space,

domestic appliances, literature, art, music, sports,

games, Christian religion and Indian objects. Collierwas then able to carry out one analysis per household

and per consumption universe.

This type of inventory can be replicated on several

occasions in the space and over time. In this way, the

evolution of a phenomenon can be studied over time

(Collier, 1974).

Dynamic inventory

Inventories may also be of a more dynamic nature

and represent a sociometric analysis (Collier, 1974).These techniques provide information not only on

social structures but also on the dynamics of social

interaction and action. In this technique, the resear-

cher seeks to understand the subjects relationship

with space (the way the individuals use and divide up

the space) and any social interaction (the way the

subjects behave together and coordinate their

actions).

The researcher may choose to take shots freely in

time and space, or take shots from a fixed location at

regular intervals (if working with a still camera) or

film continuously (if working with a video camera)

to record the events playing out naturally and sponta-

neously in front of the lens.

However, although the inventory is relatively well

suited to material objects (statistical inventory), it has

been widely criticized for studying social interaction.

The dynamic inventory has been called into question

largely because of the ethical and epistemological

limitations mentioned earlier. Anthropologists there-

fore generally prefer to adopt a more participative

form of visual description.

Creating a videographic account

In the tradition of ethnographic descriptions,

video and still cameras are used like visual notepads.

The aim is to achieve a richer, more complete and

more dynamic description of the research field than

the traditional ethnographic description recorded

with pen and paper. Compared to traditional ethno-

graphic descriptions, visual descriptions have unde-

niable qualities. First, the description they give is

irrefutable in that the images are guarantees of the

objects authenticity. They demonstrate that the

object was real, that it did exist (Barthes, 1980).

Second, ethnographic descriptions mediated by a

video or still camera provide an almost continuous

description, contrary to the process of perceiving

something with the eye, which is merely a mental

construction that uses a scanning technique to gather

information and is relatively imperfect. In this

context, the video or still camera becomes a pallia-tive accompaniment, or a prolongation of the human

eyes perceptions and the observation process

(Copans, 2002). The continuity of audiovisual obser-

vation is only limited by the size of the cameras

memory and the life of its battery. Discontinuity

becomes a choice most of the time, whilst in direct

observation this is restricted because of the physiolo-

gical limits of those involved. Third, photos and

videos, as material objects, supports or traces, allow

the observer to survey the research area several

times. Unlike a traditional observation situation, the

analyst can go back to the image as often as hewishes. Fourth, visual description allows the resear-

cher to concentrate on the details, details which are

all too often missed in on-site note taking, which is

necessarily quick and distorting and follows the

movement of visual perception, omitting surplus ges-

tures and insignificant moments (Piette, 1992).

Visual description, therefore, allows us to pay particu-

lar attention to describing human actions and interac-

tions which are not directly observable through the

naked eye. Video and still cameras provide a better


3. Aerial photographs can complete this inventory. They provide a

greater understanding of the relationship between ecology and thehabitat, and give an insight into the overall social practices and useof space (Collier and Collier, 1967; Harper, 1997).


8/20

analysis of collective, complex, technical and time-

intensive events (Copans, 2002).

Traditionally, the researcher has a choice of

taking unstructured shots or of structuring these

around a script. He may also prefer to have the sub-

jects take the shots themselves.

Unstructured photographing and filming

Unstructured shooting is like taking written

notes. It is based on a selection process. The anthro-

pologist doesnt restrict himself to recording what

unfolds naturally or spontaneously in front of his lens

but attempts, rather, to work more in the line of

taking text notes. The aim is no longer to make pic-

tures an objective means of recording (given that this is

not logical in any case), but rather to use the image like

a pen and allow all its subjectivity to lie with the

means of recording itself (Piette, 1992).

When an anthropologist goes into the field, he

observes different types of behavior, takes notes and

establishes inferences based on his experience and

the notes he took in the field. He then publishes the

conclusions of his study and not the notes them-

selves. During this process, he is led to determine a

certain number of priorities concerning the interest ofthe events and to concentrate more on certain ele-

ments in order to provide a more detailed description

of them. Visual description must follow the same

logic. Video and still cameras are not used to follow

any particular sampling. Quite the opposite, they are

used deliberately to pinpoint remarkable actions, that

is, the actions and interactions that the ethnologist

wishes to study in more detail.

The camera should not be kept in the background

or project a distant panorama of human actions, but

should be close to the action and be inserted into the

heart of the event so as to make it more intimate(Young, 1974). The film must try to mimic direct

observation.

Film description can be either micro-descriptive

(hinged on the detail of each action) or macro-

descriptive (focused on the ensemble of actions or

facts). If the spirit of the description remains, the latter

changes according to scale (de France, 1994). Micro-

description possesses immense internal autonomy

(intra-cinematic): the film is almost enough in itself

and doesnt require a commentary within the film.

On the other hand, macro-description is often subject

to external dependence (extra-cinematic) on other

forms of expression in order to create a link between

the different events that have been filmed.

The anthropologist leaves his anonymity behind

him and reveals himself to the spectator. He shares

his opinions and questions concerning his methodolo-

gical and technical options when filming or photo-

graphing (Ruby, 2005). He attempts to be as transpa-

rent as possible in terms of any illusions created by the

presentation (by indicating scenes which have been

deliberately hidden or which cannot be shown) in

order to present the making and editing of the film as

objectively as possible (de France, 1994).Several marketing researchers have collected

their field data by means of visual description. In

their Consumer Behavior Odyssey, Belk, Wallendorf

and Sherry granted a significant amount of space to

visuals. During their travels across several American

states, they took 800 pages of notes, 3,500 photo-

graphs and recorded 60 hours of video (Wallendorf,

1987). Instead of concentrating on a particular site or

exploring it exhaustively as ethnologists traditionally

do, they preferred to enlarge the context of their

study and therefore vary it. They were interested inAmerican consumption as a whole, including a wide

range of consumption activities, and therefore selected

a group of locations with the aim of including several

contrasting situations. They then performed two

types of data triangulation: an inter-researcher trian-

gulation to compare the three researchers analyses

and an inter-support triangulation which brought

visual and textual data into perspective. Based on this

fieldwork, they analyzed a certain number of ele-

ments linked to consumption situations (Belk, Wal-

lendorf and Sherry, 1989). Research that has used a

similar approach includes Pealozas (1999) study of

Nike Town, where she completed her text description

with a visual description of the consumers environ-

ment, or Ladweins (2002) study of the spatial strate-

gies of holidaymakers around a hotel swimming

pool. During his observation process, Ladwein photo-

graphed several instances of remarkable behavior

with a view to closely examining the interaction bet-

ween the holidaymakers and their process of space

appropriation.

Delphine Dion68


9/20

Photographing and filming structured around a

script

In transposing the principles of visual anthropo-

logy to sociology, sociologists modified practices in

the field. Based on the principle that ones concepts are

what direct the act of photographing or filming

(Becker, 1974), shooting should follow a more struc-

tured research protocol and be based on a sort of

script of the shots the film-maker wishes to record.

To begin with, the researcher dissects the issue

and identifies the various underlying research ques-

tions he wishes to find an answer to. This body of

questions then serves as a sort of guide to the photo-

graphic images; a picture is taken in order to answerone of the questions asked. This process of collecting

photos is therefore a highly strategic exploration placed

in the context of precise theoretical questions. Its goal

remains to make pictures the incarnation of sociological

concepts. The process involves continuous interaction

between the research area and the formulation of

ideas, in the sense that the script is both flexible and

interactive, and in this way is constantly evolving as the

subject changes. As the photos are collected, new

questions emerge, either more precise, or radically

new, and this gives rise to new conceptual

approaches, which in themselves allow the script tobe reformulated (Suchar, 1997). It is therefore much

more than a simple guide to visual interviews.

In marketing research and studies, this approach

could be an extremely useful means of exploring a

given area of study, because it continuously dissects

and refines an issue as the visual elements are gathe-

red. This constant contact with the field allows a

more and more detailed understanding of the

consumption behavior observed.

Having your subjects take visual notes

In order to better understand the way individuals

perceive their environment, ethnologists have some-

times chosen to give the video or still camera to their

subjects and asked them to create a visual account of

their life story (photographic biography), a specific

part of their life (Mizen, 2005, or even to translate

certain concepts into images (Beilin, 2005).

This method of collecting visual data has proven

extremely rich because two people from two diffe-

rent cultures looking at the same scene dont necessa-

rily see the same things. This is because the way we

see things depends on our environment; we learn to see

the things we need to see. In an unfamiliar area of

experience, the common properties of its constituents

predominate so much that they completely obscure

their differences. (...) A farmer, shepherd or zoo-keeper

sees a distinct individual in each of his animals,

whilst, for the uninitiated, sheep are sheep and mon-

keys are monkeys. (Arnheim, 1969, p. 175). Over

time, interest and experience teach us how to look.

To look well is something that must be learned; only

then will we be able to make initial abstraction

more acute and increase our degree of differentiation

between things (Arnheim, 1969).It thus follows that when the camera is entrusted to

a person from the community, this person is likely to

photograph things a foreigner would not even notice,

and similarly, the foreigner may focus on things that

are not necessarily significant to the members of the

community. This technique excludes information on

a culture generated by external observers (records

aboutculture) and prefers recording of the culture by

the indigenous individuals themselves (records of

culture), therefore allowing the way that different

groups structure and represent their environment to

be appreciated (Worth, 1981). The pictures producedby the informants represent their subjective vision of

the world, and this, in turn, becomes the object of the

analysis. The interpretation of these images must

necessarily be done by the subjects themselves and

under no circumstances by the researcher.

Collecting photos and videos can also be done via

the Internet (Kozinets, 2002). Personal Internet sites,

blogs and webcam sites are indeed bursting with photos

and videos posted online by cyber surfers across the

globe, and these forums give access to their behavior in

both public and private domains. The Internet cer-

tainly facilitates the collecting process significantly,but also has several disadvantages. On the one hand, it

is very difficult to get feedback from the individuals

in the images in order to understand their context and

decipher them; and on the other hand, it is nearly

impossible to follow any particular sampling method.

For example, by using real estate sites, one can gather

masses of photos of the insides of houses, but without

any communication with the owners, we cant learn

much about their decorating choices, their relation-

ship to their environment or their lifestyles.



10/20

Several marketing researchers have chosen to

give the camera to their informants so that they may

collect the images themselves, and it was in this vein

for a study on consumption rituals that Wallendorf

and Arnould (1991) asked students to photograph

their Thanksgiving celebrations. Each student then

arranged their photos in chronological order and pla-

ced each one in a table under the following catego-

ries: individuals, objects, behavior, proxemics, loca-

tion, type of shot. Wallendorf and Arnould then

added their own personal comments on each photo-

graph. This data provided additional information to

the themes which had emerged in previous in-depth

interviews and observations (participative and non-

participative), particularly in terms of clothing, pets,the presentation of the table and the proximity rela-

tionships of the individuals according to their status in

the family. A textual analysis based on these data

then identified recurring behavior and key words for

each context. Donnenfeld and Goodhand (1998) used a

similar research method in order to understand the

ways children receive and represent their environ-

ment. The photo-biographies created by groups of

children aged 7-8 and 11-12 helped provide new

insight into conflicts between the protected and

secure world of childhood and the adult world; the

world of freedoms and responsibilities. A finalexample of this visual data collection technique is

Warrens (2005) study of the way individuals per-

ceive their work environment.

Organizing an exchange mediated by the image

Ethnographic description can be enriched by

feedback from informants on images. This exchange

about the film generates a greater and more precise

understanding of the way subjects perceive their

world and allows us to share the reality of their visualcontext (Hall, 1967). Observing peoples reactions

when they look at photos or film of themselves gives

us a better understanding of the way subjects per-

ceive their physical and social environments, as well as

their activities.

This exchange mediated by the image also gives us

new insight because it brings up things which were

not otherwise expressed because the individuals

didnt pay attention to them, either because they

didnt see the point in talking about these events or

because they didnt want to. Subjects indeed find it

quite difficult to speak about the mundane; and when

they speak about the out-of-the-ordinary, they tend to

focus on a certain number of salient aspects and go

into great detail over them, while forgetting to mention

the surrounding elements.

This exchange session with the subjects looking

at the images (representing them in specific situa-

tions) may be more or less structured.

Non-structured interviewing centered on images

Anthropologists generally organize a free discus-

sion centered on the images taken during research

(Collier, 1974; Mizen, 2005). During a study of the

Red Mesa swap market in New Mexico, Belk, Sherry

and Wallendorf (1988) took photos on-sight and later

came back to the market to show the stallholders

their photos of them. This technique allowed them to

create a solid foundation for their interviews based

on the real-life experience of the informants and to

encourage them to talk without having to ask them

questions. McGrath, Sherry and Heisley (1993) also

used this research method in an ethnographical

context to research a weekly market; as did LaTour,

Henthorne and Braun-LaTour (2003) to explore thebehavior of cigar smokers; and Banister and Booth

(2005) in a study on young children with a view to

developing a new study methodology for children.

Interviewing organized around processes

of categorization (photo-elicitation)

Sociologists use a more structured type of inter-

view where photography is used to update the

processes of individual categorization (photo-

elicitation). This approach is based on the theory ofpersonal construct which states that our understan-

ding of the world is shaped by the way individuals

perceive events, others and situations (Beilin, 2005).

These unique constructs, based on each persons

experiences, are rooted in the values of the individual

and are unique and exclusive to each person. In this

technique, photography becomes the vehicle for elici-

ting the structure of these personal constructs. They

are first categorized and ordered during a process

called laddering. This can be achieved either by the

Delphine Dion70


11/20

subjects themselves (auto-categorization or auto-

driving) (Suchar, 1997; Beilin, 2005), or by the pho-

tographer, in which case the subjects validate his

interpretation (hybrid categorization) (Schwartz,

1989). The technique then uses images during inter-

views to discover the way subjects perceive and

structure the phenomena around them.

Heisley and Levy (1991) used thisphoto-elicitation

technique to analyze eating practices during the pre-

paration and participation of a family dinner. More

specifically, the study tried to better understand the

role and status of each family member, the uses of

food products, objects used during the preparation

and participation of the meal, ways of preparing the

meal and family interaction throughout the process.They spent three evenings with three families and

took 400 photographs (172, 103 and 125 photos, res-

pectively, for families 1, 2 and 3). Approximately 15

photos per family were then selected. These photos

were chosen because they showed activities which

were characteristic of those evenings. Each family

then looked at the photos concerning them (respecti-

vely, 17, 14 and 10). The photos were presented to

them in chronological order and the participants were

asked to comment on each. Based on the individuals

reactions to the photos, Heisley and Levy were able to

analyze the use of products in a natural context and theroles and interactions within these families. This

research method was repeated by Rosenbaum (2005)

to study the way consumers interpret the presence of

symbolic objects in sales locations and the way these

objects affect consumers behavior.

Holbrook et al. (1998, 2001) propose a hybrid

methodology which combines photo-reporting and

individual feedback from informants on their photo-

graphs, and collective reflection centered on non-per-

sonal photographs with the aim of developing a better

understanding of consumption experiences. This

research method begins with a photo-report, where

informants are invited to illustrate consumption expe-riences using photographic images organized into

very general themes: What New York means to me

(Holbrook and Kuwahara, 1998) or What happiness

means to me (Holbrook et al., 2001). The photographs

are then individually commented on by the inform-

ants, which allows themes to emerge inductively

based on the informants photos and comments, rather

than deductively, based on a preconceived categoriza-

tion. The process ends with collective reflection cente-

red on the photos and comments collected in phases

one and two so as to compile a collective photo-

graphic essay which endeavors to present a panorama

of the themes analyzed. This research method requires

the active participation of informants, whose status

goes from interviewees to collaborators. The col-

lective photographic essay allows an in-depth explora-

tion of consumption experiences through the eyes of

the informants themselves.

From these examples, we can see that visual

anthropology methodologies are starting to develop

in marketing research. The image is considered less

and less as a methodological adjunct and more as a

research material in its own right. Research studies

carried out in marketing based on photo and video

recordings have made it possible to study new

aspects of consumption behavior: the sacred, rituals,

appropriation of space, social interaction during

consumption processes, use of products, the relation-

ship with objects, etc. Video and still cameras are

used to record social behavior and interaction, and

preserve details. The image is used as a tool in order to

refine ethnographic field description. It is considered as

a machine observation of consumption facts and

assists in analyzing the temporal flow of consump-

tion activities, identifying culturally significant

moments and studying spatial behavior and person-

object interaction (Arnould and Wallendorf, 1994).Visual descriptions of consumption behavior are

effective and rich. They constitute a more finished

form of ethnographic description than the written

variant, in that they provide a more complete descrip-

tion (animated and with sound). They allow a conside-

rable mass of information to be recorded, compared to

written note taking, and any gaps may be later filled in

in writing. However, visual description, whether it be a

photographic inventory or visual note taking, is based

on a realistic and instrumental conception of film.

The anthropologist makes a visual recording with the

intention of analyzing the images later on (El Guindi,2004). Visual description is therefore only a variant

of the anthropology of words, to use Meads (1974)

term. It uses precisely the same approach as traditional

anthropology (MacDougall, 2006). In the 1980s and

the 1990s, debates arose in anthropological circles

concerning phenomenology and the issues of expe-

rience and the senses, which, under the impetus of

first Jean Rouch then David MacDougall, gave way

to a more reflexive and subjective form of visual

anthropology (Pink, 2006).



12/20

THE IMAGE AS A FIELD OF RESEARCH

The model of traditional anthropology initiated

by Malinowski in the 1920s was greatly criticized

during the 1960s because of the absence of a reciprocal

relationship between the giver and receiver of infor-

mation (Copans, 2002). Postmodern approaches called

the reality/interpretation, fact/representation and

observer/observed dualities into question. In the

movement of postmodern anthropology, initiated by

Clifford and Marcus, ethnography was no longer to

be considered as the experience and interpretationof another circumscribed reality, but rather as a

constructive negotiation involving at least two

conscious politically significant subjects (Clifford,

quoted by Copans, 2002, p. 101). They suggested the

development of new experiential, interpretive, dialogi-

cal and polyphonic styles. Anthropological know-

ledge based on a systematic description therefore lost

its authority to an ethnographic description based

more on experience (Pink, 2006).

Jean Rouch is considered by all as the father of

this new visual anthropology. He completely chan-

ged the role of the camera and the image: henceforth,the camera was a participant and a collaborator.

The camera as a participant

The camera is no longer a recording tool; it

becomes a field of research. The anthropologist is no

longer considered as the man behind the camera

merely recording the scene unfolding before his eyes.

He is no longer trying to be forgotten, to be an invi-

sible observer or a neutral narrator. Henceforth, the

camera is placed at the heart of the action, in which itbecomes an active player.

The idea of the camera as a participant appeared in

the 1920s in a film by Robert Flaherty on the life of the

Eskimos. In contrast to the colonial approaches of

the time, he didnt film the Eskimos as things so

much as Nanook, an Eskimo as a person. Flaherty

tried to get closer to this man in order to trace his

daily life. He didnt simply follow him around fil-

ming him, but rather engaged him in dialogue and

asked him to collaborate closely with the ethnogra-

phical portrait he was undertaking. Together, they

created a presentation of real situations based on

authentic reconstructions of reality, in which Nanook

plays Nanook. Together, they made the filmNanook,

which tells the story of a mans struggle against

nature for survival (Rouch, 1974). This experience

laid the foundations for dialogic anthropology and

the coming together of perceptions.

During the same period, Dziga Vertov tried to

film the Russian revolution. His goal was not to film

great moments in history but the small elements of

reality, according to a principle that he called

KINOK , or cine-eye. The idea was to show the

world as his eye saw it. He compared the camera to his

eye, which he considered as a sort of omniscientmechanical machine that records everything it sees.

Vertov tried all possible filming techniques to achieve

and record reality in movement: a truth in movement

(de Brigard, 1974).

These two pioneers introduced two new prac-

tices: Flaherty; participation and Vertov; spontaneity.

However, these innovations remained buried for

several decades. It was Jean Rouch who exhumed

them in the 1950s to give birth to a new visual

anthropology in which the image was used in a more

subjective and reflexive way so as to better describe

and understand the sensory experiences of the Other.This evolution was made possible by emerging

new technologies, particularly the portable video

camera, which fundamentally changed the role of the

camera and the ethnologist. Using the camera in a

fixed position meant that you had to place yourself

outside the action and use zoom effects to compen-

sate for your observations rigidity. It reinforced the

sensation of voyeurism. The camera was like a sur-

veillance camera whose task was to record the facts

and gestures of each person, and was often seen as a

violation of privacy. With the advent of new light-

weight, portable video cameras, the anthropologistcould now place himself at the heart of the action and

bring down the invisible wall between the observer

and the observed.

The principle developed by Rouch, which he called

cine-trance by analogy with the trance-like state

often experienced by the cameraman, consists of fil-

ming not rationally but emotionally, following emo-

tional moods as they develop and change throughout

the process. The film-maker goes into a cine-trance

which places him in the center of the action (Colleyn,

Delphine Dion72


13/20

2004). He falls into synchrony with the individuals

being filmed and bases himself in the harmony of the

scene to incorporate the body of the others

(MacDougall, 2006). The images are affected as

much by the person behind the camera is by those in

front of it. In Chronique dun t(1961), Jean Rouch

becomes an actor behind the camera. He is integrated

into the action. We can feel his presence through his

voice and his responses to his subjects (MacDougall,

1974). In La chasse au lion (1967), Rouch is not an

observer of the lion hunt but a hunter in his own

right. He explains that this comes from the fact that

Damour, Moussa, the others and myself participated

in the adventure of the hunt and followed its rules,

i.e., not carrying any weapons and wearing necklacesaround our necks to remain invisible. From the

moment we begin to play this game, we are hunters. In

this film then, we became hunters, we belonged to

the group of hunters (Rouch, 1994, p. 163).

Rouch not only recorded the comments and reac-

tions of his actors on the screen, as in Jaguar, but

also used the presence of the camera to provoke

situations and psychological drama, as is the case inLa

pyramide humaine (1959) (de Brigard, 1974). His

camera entered the heart of the action, modified it,

provoked it and created the reality described

(Colleyn, 2004). This practice fundamentally modi-fied the role of the camera and, consequently, the role

of the researcher in the research process.

The camera is no longer seen as a surveillance

instrument. The ethnographic film is no longer reduced

to a simple recording like the bovine eye of a sur-

veillance camera (Aumont, 2006). The camera is

integrated and involved in the action as an individual in

its own right. The film is a means for the anthropolo-

gist to bring to life the experiences he shares with the

group hes filming (Rouch, 1974). The elements of

one culture are not described in terms of another. The

anthropologist tries, via film, to bring the spectatorinto the experiences of its subjects (MacDougall,

1974). The film-maker must understand and receive

the world. He finds himself in a direct and imme-

diate relationship with what will instantaneously

become the material of his film. He must do every-

thing at once: see, interpret, adapt, cut, and conse-

quently, edit (Aumont, 2006, p. 121). The ethnogra-

phic film is therefore distinguished from a fiction

film by the absence of a script and of a director.

Reality is always ahead of the film-maker, whereas in

a fiction film it is the film-maker who is ahead of rea-

lity, given that he is working from a script (...). With

Rouch, filming is half accidental, embracing the

whims of an event no one really controls (Aumont,

2006, p. 104). The camera deals more with the indivi-

duals than with cultural elements. The individual is at

the heart of the film, which means less fragmented

sequences and greater interaction with the subjects.

The camera is no longer a detached eye but an active

participant in the filming; the film must therefore be

created by an ethnologist with an extremely impor-

tant role to play. The film is centered on a sequence of

open interaction between the person filming and the

people being filmed (Young, 1974).

The researcher lays claim to the distinctive natureof his own view, the particular orientation of his per-

sonal understanding of what he is showing. In La

pyramide humaine, Jaguar and La chasse au lion,

Rouch expresses his own vision, his own experience,

his own view. Similarly, those who express them-

selves in his films speak in their own name (Piault,

2004). In all his films, he presents himself as camera-

man, interviewer, film-maker and ethnologist

(Aumont, 2006). The ethnographer must share his

sensory experiences to understand the lifestyles and

experiences of the Other. The goal is to first identify

the sensory experiences of the Other, then to try tofeel them, but also to stress any differences between

them and his own. Rouch goes from ethnographic

description to describing the subjective content of

consciousnesses.

The camera as collaborator

For many years, anthropology (in general and

visual in particular) was based upon an asymmetrical

relationship between the ethnologist and the inform-

ants. The ethnographic film was conceived as a des-cription of a cultural group (generally from the third

world) by another cultural group (generally Ameri-

can-European). This vision, by definition, created a

barrier between the person filming and the people

being filmed (MacDougall, 2006). Contemporary

visual anthropology seeks to distance itself from this

mentality by prioritizing intersubjectivity and colla-

boration. Collaboration is essential in that the anthro-

pologist must not only be accepted in the community

hes studying but must also obtain the collaboration



14/20

of his subjects. It is not simply a matter of gaining

their willingness to be filmed but also of motivating

them to invest themselves in the research process,

above and beyond the actual shooting.

To begin the process, an insertion period is neces-

sary to lay the foundation for the filming. Its duration

is extremely variable, but in no case should this be

decided by the observer. It is the observed who

decides. It seems all the more fundamental that the

people being filmed are led to collaborate in an extre-

mely active way. Once this is accomplished, it is time

to shoot the film. During this phase, collaboration

with the informants is all the more important because

the aim is not to take pictures but to make pictures or

videos (Becker, 1995). The ethnologist does not tryto take pictures of the individuals or to film them but

rather to make pictures or videos with them. This

collaboration with the subjects allows the camera to be

directed toward the facts that are important for the

actors. Moreover, the individuals being photographed

no longer consider the camera a weapon being pointed

at them but a tool for interaction with the ethnologist.

This expels any sensation of voyeurism or distance.

The video or still camera acquires the power to vali-

date the subjectsvalues (Banks, 1995).

The study often begins with an impromptu film,

and then there is a process of constant back-and-forthbetween filming and going back over what has been fil-

med. The actors are invited to comment on the shots

taken and this generates new questions and new paths

of investigation, which is why it is essential to have a

consensual cooperation between the film-maker and

his subjects. By alternating sessions of looking at the

images, discussions with the informants based on the

images and further filming, understanding of the pro-

cess gradually grows, cinematic description becomes

more and more precise and the analysis becomes

richer. This dialogue mediated by the image heigh-

tens the understanding of reality as much as the way ofpresenting it through film (choices of scenes to be fil-

med and edited). One example of where this proce-

dure was used was in Rouchs La chasse au lion: I

continuously applied the feedback process, every

year coming back with the edited images of what I

had filmed in the previous years. I projected the

black-and-white copy of the last sequences filmed for

the hunters. Basing myself on this projection, I

improvised as to what I would film that year. The

film was created year after year. After seven years I

stopped, because there was no longer any reason to

continue (Rouch, 1974).

Henceforth, the ethnographic film must be consi-

dered as the communication process between the per-

son filming and the people being filmed. By invol-

ving the actors, this technique makes it possible to

gather and identify aspects which had previously

been neglected, hidden or unsuspected (Copans,

2002). Therefore, collaboration does not consist sim-

ply of having individuals react to the images that

have been collected, but also of giving them power

over the production of the images which will represent

them (Pink, 2006). The film-maker and his subjects

become partners in interaction in the progression of

reciprocal knowledge. Knowledge no longer appearsas an ethnographic secret which is stolen then

devoured in the occidental temples of knowledge,

but is now the result of an endless study in which the

studied and the studier take a path together, a shared

anthropology (Rouch, 1994).

Jean Rouch also invented a new way of filming

by turning the laws of visual anthropology on their

head (rules which were not appropriate to an anthro-

pological encounter) and creating a brand of anthro-

pology that was interactive, lively and based on

exchange (Piault, 2004). Positioning the ethnologist

as subject-observer-actor gave visual anthropology anew lease of life as a means of observing and unders-

tanding, particularly for grasping the experiences of

the Other, i.e., the way the individual perceives his

environment and interacts with it, both physically

and culturally (MacDougall, 2006).

The research methods of contemporary visual

anthropology may help us to gain new insights into

consumption processes and, more particularly, into

consumption experiences, whether these be shopping

or usage experiences. The term consumption expe-

rience is meant here in its widest interpretation and

refers to the real-life experience of the individual in aconsumption situation. This can, of course, be based

on an extraordinary situation or an ordinary day-to-

day situation. What is important is the analysis of the

experience in the situational context (watching a

football game, vacuuming, tinkering in the shed,

shopping at the supermarket, eating, etc.). From this

viewpoint, the study consists of understanding the

personal interpretation of consumption experiences

(Marion, 2003), i.e., the way individuals relate to

their consumption situations, whether in terms of

Delphine Dion74


15/20

purchasing behavior or the behavior surrounding

using products and services. The research method

developed by Rouch may shed new light on

consumption experiences, not by talking about the

experience as in the past, but by using a device which

records the entirety of the sensory and emotional per-

ceptions of the consumer, and follows his evolution

throughout the consumption process.

In marketing, to our knowledge, only two resear-

chers have taken up this path. Marcoux and Legoux

(2005) were inspired by the methodological prin-

ciples developed by Jean Rouch to study the expe-

rience of marketing activities around Ground Zero.

By alternating filming sessions in New York, picture

viewing sessions and theoretical reflection, the tworesearchers explored the commercial activities linked

to the sale of souvenirs from September 11 and the

perceptions of visitors when confronted with these

commercial activities. Their film, Ground zero: a

contested market, highlighted the controversial role

of commerce in the memory construction process.

Anthropologists are also working in this vein. For

example, we can cite the ethnographic film made by

Mercier (2006) which traces his experiences at Tati,

the study conducted by Ibanez-Bueno (2006) on the

involvement of the body in webcam communication,

or the work of Sarah Pink (2006) on keeping a house-hold. Throughout this last study, conducted in colla-

boration with the Unilever Research Center, Pink and

others made video visits to forty men and women,

during which she was able to reconstruct their sen-

sory experiences of their houses and the way they

were kept. These video visits made her realize that

the feeling of home is not only created by objects but

also by sensory experiences (music, smell, light,

touch, etc). This illustration gives us a glimpse of

visual anthropologys potential to help us understand

consumption experiences. Visual anthropology can

give us a new vision of consumption behavior by

trying to better understand the sensory experiences ofconsumers, whether from a sales point of view or in

relation to using products.

CONCLUSION

Throughout the 20th century, the first visual

anthropologists, such as Mead or Collier, tried to

make the use of video and photographic images legiti-

mate by engaging in mainstream positivist research,

inserting the image in the anthropological

approaches of the times. Recently, under the impetus

of Jean Rouch and David MacDougall, visual anthro-

pology started to break away from the positivist para-

digm and to propose research methods based on a

more reflexive and comprehensive epistemology

which subordinated factual data and gave precedence

to meaning being interpreted by and for the subject

(Wunenburger, 2001). This approach changed our

general understanding of the image and its status in the

research process from the status of a tool to the status

of a field of research. The camera is no longer a mere

recording device and the anthropologist need no longer

be considered as the man behind the camera recor-

ding the scenes unfolding before his eyes. He is no

longer required to erase his presence, to be an invi-

sible observer or a neutral narrator. Henceforth, the

camera is placed at the heart of the action, in which it

becomes an active participant. In this way, we havewitnessed a transition from a voyeuristic brand of

anthropology to a reflexive and collaborative anthro-

pology in which visual anthropology gains new

momentum as a method of observing and understan-

ding, particularly as a way of comprehending the

experiences of the Other.

Until now, the (very few) marketing researchers

who have incorporated the image into their research

process have essentially followed the first school of

thought, i.e., to use video and still cameras as tools.

Although this approach has been extremely valuable in

that it has allowed the analysis of new facets ofconsumption behavior, it is also worth considering a

more reflexive approach, which brings with it a new

understanding of consumption experiences, whether

shopping or usage related. This is not a question of

simply enriching text and photographic descriptions

by adding sound and movement but of completely

altering the role of the camera in the marketing

research project so as to be more able to comprehend

the individuals personal perception of his consump-

tion experiences.



16/20

REFERENCES

Arnheim R. (1969),La pense visuelle, Paris, Flammarion(republished 1976).

Aug M. (1994), Pour une anthropologie des mondescontemporains, Paris, Flammarion.

Arnould E. and Wallendorf M. (1994), Market-orientedethnography: interpretation building and marketing,Journal of Marketing Research, 3, 4, 484-505.

Aumont J. (2006), Le cinma et la mise en scne, Paris,Armand Colin.

Banister E. and Booth G. (2005), Exploring innovativemethodologies for child-centric consumer research,Qualitative Market Research: an International Journal,8, 2, 157-175.

Banks M. (1995), Visual research methods, SocialResearch Update, 11.

Barthes R. (1980), La chambre claire Notes sur laphotographie, Paris, Gallimard, Le Seuil.

Barthes R. (1985), Laventure smiologique, Paris, LeSeuil.

Becker H.S. (1974), Photography and sociology, Studies inthe Anthropology of Visual Communication, 1, 1, 3-26.

Becker H.S. (1995), Visual sociology, documentary, andphotojournalism: its (almost) all a matter of context,Visual Sociology, 10, 1-2, 5-14.

Becker H.S. (1998), Les ficelles du mtier commentconstruire sa recherche en sciences sociales, Paris, La

Dcouverte.Beilin R. (2005), Photo-elicitation and the agriculturallandscape: seeing and telling about farming,community and place, Visual Studies, 20, 1, 56-68.

Belk R., Sherry J. and Wallendorf M. (1988),A naturalisticinquiry into buyer and seller behavior at a swapmarket, Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 4,449-470.

Belk R., Wallendorf M. and Sherry J. (1989), The sacredand the profane in consumer behavior: theodicy on theOdyssey,Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 1, 1-38.

Belk R. and Kozinets R. (2005), Videography in marketingand consumer research, Qualitative Market Research:an International Journal, 8, 2, 128-142.

Blanchet A. (1997), Dire et faire dire lentretien, Paris,

Armand Colin.Bonte P. and Izard M. (2004),Dictionnaire de lethnologie etde lanthropologie, Paris, PUF.

Bourdieu P. (1965), Un art moyen essai sur les usagessociaux de la photographie, Paris, Les ditions deMinuit.

Ceriani G. (2004), Reprsenter le silence Analyse de lacampagne institutionnelle Telecom Italia 2003,Ateliersde smiotique visuelle (Eds. A. Hnault and A.Beyaert), Paris, PUF, 41-51.

Collier J. (1974), Photography and visual anthropology,Principles of visual anthropology, Ed. P. Hockings,Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 235-254.

Collier J. and Collier M. (1967), Visual anthropology photography as a research method, Holt, Rinehart and

Winston, (republished The University of New MexicoPress, 1986).

Colleyn J.P. (1990), Le film et le texte, La rancune et leprophte, Eds. M. Aug et N. Colleyn, Paris, EHESS,7-14.

Colleyn J.P. (2004), Jean Rouch, presque un homme-sicle,LHomme Revue Franaise danthropologie, 171,537-542.

Comolli A. (1994), Linvestigation filmique des apprentis-sages,Du film ethnographique lanthropologie filmique,ed. C. de France, Paris, ditions des Archivescontemporaines, Ordres sociaux , 3-4, 91-127.

Conord S. (2002), Le choix dune image en anthropologie,quest-ce quune bonne photographie ?,Ethnographiques, 2.

Copans J. (2002),Lenqute ethnologique de terrain, Paris,Nathan.

de Brigard E. (1974), The history of ethnographic film,Principles of visual anthropology, Ed. P. Hockings,Berlin, Mouton de Guyter, 13-43.

de France C. (1994), Lanthropologie filmique : une gensedifficile mais prometteuse, Du film ethnographique lanthropologie filmique, Ed. C. de France, Paris,Editions des archives contemporaines, Ordressociaux , 3-4, 5-43.

Donnenfeld S. and Goodhand A. (1998), A picture is worthone thousand words, Marketing and Research Today,26, 1, 4-17.

El Guindi F. (2004), Visual anthropology: essential method

and theory, Walnut Crek, CA, AltaMira Press.Floch J.-M. (1995),Identits visuelles, Paris, PUF.Hall E. (1968), Proxemics, Current Anthropology, 9, 2-3,

83-95.Hall E. (1967), Foreword, Visual anthropology

photography as a research method, Eds. J. Collier andM. Collier, Holt, Rinehart and Winston (republishedUniversity of New Mexico Press, 1986).

Harper D. (1997), Visualizing structure: reading surfaces ofsocial life, Qualitative Studies, 20, 1, 57-77.

Harper D. (2003), Reimagining visual methods: Galileo toneuromancer, Collecting and interpreting qualitativematerials (Eds. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln), 2nd

edition, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications,176-198.

Heisley D. and D. Levy (1991),Autodriving: a photoelicita-tion technique, Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 3,45-46.

Heisley D. (2001), Visual research: current bias and futuredirections,Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 1, 45-46.

Heisley D., McGrath M.A. and Sherry J. (1990), Anabstract of To everything there is a season: aphoto-essay of a farmersmarket,Advances in ConsumerResearch, 17, 1, 39-40.

Holbrook M., Stephens D.L, Day E., Holbrook S. and StazarG. (2001), A collective stereographic photo essay on keyaspects of animal companionship: the truth about dogsand cats,Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1, 1-16.

Delphine Dion76


17/20

Holbrook M. and Kuwahara T. (1998), Collectivestereographic photo essay: an integrated approach to

probing consumption experiences in depth,InternationalJournal of Research in Marketing, 15, 3, 201-222.

Holbrook M. (2005), Customer value and autoethnography:subjective personal introspection and the meanings of aphotograph collection, Journal of Business Research,58, 1, 45-61.

Hudson L. and Ozanne J. (1988), Alternative ways ofseeking knowledge in consumer research, Journal ofConsumer Research, 14, 4, 508-521.

Ibanez Bueno J. (2006), Cration dun hypermdia virtuelet ethnologique lexemple dune recherche sur lesinternautes suisses et franais, Du cinma ethnogra-phique lanthropologie visuelle, Paris, Muse delHomme.

Kozinets R.V. (2002), The field behind the screen: usingnetnography for marketing research in onlinecommunities, Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 1,61-72.

Laburthe-Torla Ph. and Warnier J.-P. (2003), Ethnographieanthropologie, Paris, PUF.

Ladwein R. (2002), Voyage Tikidad : de laccs lexprience de consommation, Dcisions Marketing,28, 53-64.

Laplantine F. (1999), Clefs pour lanthropologie, Paris,Seghers.

Laplantine F. (2005),La description ethnographique, Paris,Armand Colin.

LaTour M., Henthorne T. and Braun-LaTour K. (2003), Is acigar just a cigar? A glimpse at the new-age cigar

consumer,Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1-13.Malinowski B. (1922), Les Argonautes du Pacifiqueoccidental, Paris, Gallimard (republished 1989).

Marcoux J.S. and Legoux R. (2005), Ground zero: acontested market, Consumption Markets and Culture,8, 3, 241-259.

Marion G. (2003), Apparence et identit : une approchesmiotique du discours des adolescentes propos deleur exprience de la mode,Recherche et Applications enMarketing, 18, 2, 1-29.

Mauss M. (1969),Manuel dethnographie, Paris, Payot.Mead M. and Bateson G. (1942), Balinese character: a

photographic analysis, New York, Academy of science.Mead M. (1974), Visual anthropology in a discipline of

words, Principles of visual anthropology, Ed.

P. Hockings, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 3-10.Marteaux S. and Filser M. (2006), Comment renouveler lastratgie marketing ? Quand le cinma peut inspirer lesstratges,Dcisions Marketing, 41, 81-85.

MacDougall D. (1974, 1994), Beyond observationalcinema, Principles of visual anthropology, Ed.P. Hockings, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 117-132.

MacDougall D. (2006), Film, ethnography, and the senses thecorporeal image, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.

McGrath M.A., Sherry J. and Heisley D. (1993), Anethnographic study of an urban periodic marketplace:lessons from the midville farmers market, Journal ofRetailing, 63, 3, 280-319.

McGrath M.A. (1989), An ethnography of a store:trappings, wrappings, and rapture,Journal of Retailing,

65, 4, 421-449.Mercier A. (2006), Restitution dune exprience

dethnographie filme sur support DVD vido, Ducinma ethnographique lanthropologie visuelle,Paris, Muse de lHomme.

Mizen P. (2005), A little light work? Childrens imagesof their labour, Visual Studies, 20, 2, 124-139.

Moles A. (1987), La visualisation thmatique du monde,triomphe du structuralisme appliqu, CahiersInternationaux de Sociologie, LXXXII, 147-175.

Monnet N. and Tovar M. (2006), Essai dethnographievisuelle ou comment cerner le pouls de la place deCatalogne au travers de photographies et dambiancessonores, Du cinma ethnographique lanthropologievisuelle, Paris, Muse de lHomme.

Perec G. (1975), Tentative dpuisement dun lieu parisien,Paris, Christian Bourgois diteur.

Pealoza L. (1999), Just doing it: a visual ethnographicstudy of spectacular consumption behavior at NikeTown, Consumption and Culture, 2, 4, 337-400.

Piault M.H. (2004), Une attente incessante. Jean Rouch(1917-2004), Cahiers dtudes africaines, XLIV, 3,175, 493-505.

Piette A. (1996), Ethnographie de laction, lobservationdes dtails, Paris, Editions Mtaili.

Piette A. (1992),Le mode mineur de la ralit paradoxes etphotographies en anthropologie, Louvain-la-Neuve,Peeters.

Pink S. (2006), The future of visual anthropology engaging

the senses, London, Routledge.Rook D. (1985), The ritual dimension of consumerbehaviour, Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 3,251-264.

Rouch J. (1994), Le commentaire improvis limage ,Du film ethnographique lanthropologie filmique, C. deFrance, Paris, ditions des Archives contemporaines,159-166.

Rouch J. (1974), The camera and man, Principles of visualanthropology, Ed. P. Hockings, Berlin, Mouton deGruyter, 79-98.

Rosenbaum M. (2005), The symbolic servicescape: yourkind is welcomed here, Journal of ConsumerBehaviour, 4, 4, 257-267.

Rosenfeld J.-M. (1994), Filmer : une reconversion du

regard, Du film ethnographique lanthropologiefilmique, C. de France, Paris, ditions des Archivescontemporaines, 43-59.

Ruby J. (2005), The last 20 years of visual anthropology acritical review, Visual Studies, 20, 2, 159-170.

Schouten J. and McAlexander J. (1995), Subcultures ofconsumption: an ethnography of the new bikers,Journalof Consumer Research, 22, 1, 43-61.

Schroeder J. (2002), Visual consumption, London,Routledge.

Schwartz D. (1989), Visual ethnography: usingphotography in qualitative research, QualitativeSociology, 12, 2, 119-154.



18/20

Suchar Ch. (1997), Grounding visual sociology research inshooting scripts, Qualitative Sociology, 20, 1, 33-55.

Tissier-Desbordes E. (2004), Lanalyse de visuels enmarketing : pour une complmentarit des principalesapproches,Dcisions Marketing, 36, 63-74.

Thrlemann F. (2004), Blumen-Mythos de P. Klee,Ateliersde smiotique visuelle (Eds. A. Hnault and A.Beyaert), Paris, PUF, 13-40.

Wallendorf M. (1987), On the road again: the nature ofqualitative research on the consumer behavior odyssey,Advances in Consumer Research, 14, 1, 374-375.

Wallendorf M. and Arnould E. (1988), My favoritethings: a cross-cultural inquiry into objectattachement possessiveness, and social linkage,Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 4, 531-547.

Wallendorf M. and Arnould E. (1991), We gathertogether: consumption rituals of Thanksgiving day,

Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 1, 13-31.

Warren S. (2005), Photography and voice in criticalqualitative management research,Accounting, Auditing

and Accountability Journal, 18, 6, 861-882.Weakland J. (1974, 1994), Feature films as cultural

documents, Principles of visual anthropology, Ed.P. Hockings, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 45-67.

Wunenburger J.J. (2001), Philosophie des images, Paris,PUF.

Winkin Y. (1981), La nouvelle communication, Paris, LeSeuil.

Worth S. (1981), Studying visual communication,University of Pennsylvania Press.

Young C. (1974), Observational cinema, Principles ofvisual anthropology, Ed. P. Hockings, Berlin, Moutonde Gruyter, 99-113.

Delphine Dion78


19/20


20/20

Copyright of Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) is the property of AFM c/o ESCP-EAP

and its content may not

the contribution made by visual anthropology to the study of consumption behavior

Documents