Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: April 13, 2003
Latest Update: April 13, 2003
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

Backup of The Moral Maze of Image Ethics
By Jon Prosser
SOURCE: Leeds University, School of Education
Copyright: Source Copyright/a>.
Included here under Fair Use Doctrine for teaching purposes.

For 'Situated Ethics', Helen Simons and Robin Usher (Eds), Routledge, forthcoming.

The Moral Maze of Image Ethics
Jon Prosser

Introduction

Visually orientated educational research, relative to orthodox educational research, is a 'newcomer' to the qualitative research field. As such it lacks a history of accepted ethical practice or a range of theoretical positions on which to base ethical judgements. This chapter does not focus on a general set of ethical principles that are the benchmark for 'wordsmiths' but instead considers common ethical predicaments that result from applying an image-based approach to qualitative research. Those involved who make and use images in a research context are ethically obligated to their subjects. There are moral and political reasons for this. Future visual researchers require access to images and image-making possibilities if image-based research is to make a significant contribution to qualitative research. To gain and maintain that access, to stay in potentially stimulating visual contexts, there is a need to secure the confidence of respondents and fellow researchers. Establishing respondents' confidence means assuring them that they will not be 'damaged', misrepresented, or prejudiced in any way; in terms of researchers confidence means a agreeing ethical procedures that protects respondents yet ensures trustworthiness of findings. Image-based research, being a relative newcomer to interpretative studies, needs theoretical and methodological tenets on which to base its credentials. However, confidence in image-based investigations will only be generated when ethical principles are agreed between researchers and researched, and within the research community, and adhered to by visual researchers across a range of visual contexts. Identifying what constitutes an appropriate ethical practice, as the title of the chapter suggests, is not easy. In order to explore the twists and turns of the ethical maze this chapter is divided into two parts. The first part considers still photography and provides examples from my own work to illustrate ethical dilemmas that face practitioners of image-based research. The second part considers moving images and emphasis is placed on documentary-type film and video. This is an artificial division as many issues, for example those of access, political pressures, and aesthetics, discussed within the still photography sub-heading, are equally applicable to moving images and vice-versa. Hence, ethical issues should be considered as operating across this divide and encompassed by the more general term 'image-based research'.

Image-based research

Image-based research is comprised of moving images in the form of film and video, and still images, for example, photographs, cartoons, and drawings. As such it does not form a homogeneous set of technologies, techniques or practices. This divergence is compounded by different analytical procedures, differently generated data and is used for different ends. Researchers using images may draw on a diverse range of disciplines which, potentially at least, apply a different set of ethical practices. The diversity of theory and practice within image-based research does not suggest a particular field of educational research which constructs and applies its own set of ethics. What makes image-based research differently situated to other forms of research lies in the obvious - visual images are quite different in nature from words in their allusion to 'reality', and participants see themselves and can be seen by others.

Image-based research is often perceived by academics and practitioners alike as having a lower status (Prosser, 1998) and operating on the margins of qualitative research. Orthodox (word) orientated researchers relate, methodologically and ethically, to their respective disciplines of sociology, history and psychology. Image-based researchers, on the other hand, derive their methodological and ethical inspiration from visual sociology and visual anthropology. However, with this alignment comes a new set of problems especially for film-makers and photographers. Although photographs, for example, were used in early sociological journals their use damaged any hope of academic integrity. Riis and Hine, for example, the most prominent protagonists in the use of photography to bring about social change, were seen by many as "muck-raking" (Stasz;1979, p 134). Equally, documentary photographers of this period such as August Sander's portraits of German social types (Sander, 1986) and Eugene Atget's survey of Paris (Atget, 1992), were perceived as lacking a methodological framework. Hence, not only did early practice undercut the acceptability of image-based research in the eyes of social scientists, more importantly it failed to provide an initial ethical framework. Indeed, visual sociology only emerged as a sub-discipline around 1970. Consequently few role models of acceptable ethical practice have been debated let alone established for others to follow. All this has repercussions for image-based educational researchers and ethical practice who rely on visual sociology, visual anthropology, films of the documentary genre, or media reportage, for methodological models. Given the matrix of adoption and the paucity of role models for those educational researchers using images there is little in the way of ethical consensus.

Still Photography

Photographs have numerous uses in educational research and at different phases of the research process different ethical principles come to bear. The period prior to making images, the act of constructing images, and issues arising after they are made, are situations that have discrete ethical implications (this is also holds for moving images). In practice the process begins by negotiating access for image making. This means negotiating with the Head of an educational institution - as prime 'gatekeeper' - what can and cannot be photographed, how photography is to take place, and how resultant images are to be used. Of course both researcher and 'gate-keeper' have reasons for seeking permission or agreeing (or otherwise) that photography may occur. The researchers have their agenda: to add to sociological knowledge, to increase career prospects; and the 'gatekeepers' have their agendas - to be treated fairly, and to use the research activity to their own advantage. Becker (1988, p xv) reminds us that contracts with a visual locus are rarely based on philanthropy but rather some potential usefulness to both parties:

Remember that the heads of ….institutions such as hospitals, jails or schools, who need not participate in having films of themselves made, generally think there is something in it for them: perhaps a chance at reform, perhaps some public relations benefit. They may well think they are smarter than the film-maker or researcher. Is it unethical for image workers to pretend to be dumber than they are to take advantage of that arrogance? Others, less powerful, also have their own reasons for co-operating with image-makers, so the bargain is seldom one-sided …

There is no straightforward answer to Becker's question. Balanced against the possibility of unbridled researcher deception is the potential for participants to behave 'unnaturally' if the focus of the study is made explicit. But implicit in Becker's statement is another ethical dilemma - that 'gate-keepers', during negotiations for access to schools, may set parameters or limitations on the research enterprise. The Headteacher, being in a position of power, can influence how staff and students are portrayed by controlling access to him/herself and therefore images (by, for example, insisting on photographing in 'formal settings' or 'staged' shooting) whilst allowing and directing access to those less powerful. This is borne out in the paucity of visual studies of powerful leaders of institutions and organisations as compared with the multitude of studies of less powerful groups such as teachers and school children. During negotiations for access general guidelines have the potential to be made specific and formal or non-specific and informal. However, the underlying ethical issues are the degree to which the aims of the project are made clear, and the extent to which academic freedoms are curtailed by censorship.

Stereotypically photojournalists appear in Hollywood films as ". . . standing on the hood of a tank as it lumbers into battle through enemy fire, making images of war as he risks his life." Becker, 1998, p 85). Photographers seeking to document events in educational institutions need to be more wily in their approach. The introduction of a camera to participants can take place on the first day as a ‘can opener’ (Collier and Collier, 1986) or over a period of time using a ‘softly softly’ approach (Prosser, 1992, p 398). The ‘softly softly’ approach, entails walking around an institution with the camera in an "out of the case over the shoulder like a piece of jewellery" mode, followed by ‘safe’ photography of buildings or positive publicity type images suitable for inclusion in the institution's prospectus. Only much later is ‘serious’ photography normally attempted." There is a delicate dividing line here between being sly, deceitful and furtive, and being sensitive and judicious. The final arbiters of ethical decisions may not lie with the visual researcher, nor the research profession who are not in a position to know, but with participants who, in accepting or rejecting the investigator, signal their response.

Images can be obtained openly or covertly. To act covertly, for example, would be to hide from the subject, use a telephoto lens that allows recording of a scene from a distant position, or to use a 'snooper' which allows the photographer to point their cameras in one direction whilst actually taking a photograph at right angles to the apparent angle of shooting. Such techniques are rarely practised in educational contexts. Nonetheless, since cameras may incite suspicion and discourage naturalistic behaviour, disputable tactics are used, such as shooting 'from the hip' or setting a camera on 'auto' to give the impression the camera is not functioning, when it is. Visual sociologists would justify this practice by arguing that if permission to take photographs had been granted emphasis shifts to applying techniques that are appropriate to obtaining trustworthy data and this may entail shooting when subjects were unaware. Nevertheless, few image-orientated educational researchers would countenance outright covert or clandestine photography as it more often reveals researchers’ discomfort with their own photographic activity than it does insights into the daily lives of their subjects.

During the opening phase prudent photographers identify no-go areas and those participants not previously excluded by the 'gate keeper', who do not want their photograph taken. This is a question of privacy made ambiguous by territory, motive and consequence. Educational establishments are neither private nor public places making the legal position even more unclear than is normally the case (the law on privacy and intrusion with regard to photography in public and private places is vague in the UK). Besides, teachers and managers feel 'ownership' of their spaces that comes from a deep sense of professional autonomy. To assume they are not 'private' places would be a mistake on the part of the photographer. Of course the most dramatic, even sensational images, may be of those not wanting their photographs taken but that is no reason for taking photographs. Such actions are not only dishonest they are counter productive to the enhancement of sociological knowledge. Ultimately the reason for not taking photographs of participants if they are hostile to the idea is not a matter of privacy or morality but the likelihood of such action compromising rapport - a necessity for any researcher hoping to remain in the field.

Although access provides initial ethical problems these can normally be anticipated. Any problems at this stage are precursors to more substantial dilemmas, anticipated and unforeseen, that attend the photographic activity that follows. Given that all photographs are constructions it is important to know something of the context of creating an image if the implied promise of truthfulness to the subject, the audience, and the research profession, are to be upheld. I will use examples of weaknesses in my own work to illustrate how the serendipitol nature of photography can compromise not only the face validity and the veracity of images but also the ethical status of the photographer.

Photograph 1 ~ 'The Ritual of Knock and Wait' about here

Photograph 1, 'The Ritual of Knock and Wait', used in a study of school culture, shows a teacher knocking at the Headteacher's door, bending, listening for a response from within. The objective - to illustrate a taken-for-granted ritual - was planned and drew on the work of Cartier-Bresson (1952) in isolating a 'decisive moment', for its visual arrangement. The context of taking the photograph is interesting because it highlights a range of ethical issues. The first is the possibility of misrepresentation stemming from the polysemic nature of images, for even a single image has many legitimate interpretations. My intended meaning of the photograph was simply 'this is the everyday ritual of knocking and waiting'. However, the aesthetic device (more on this later), the inclusion in the frame of a visual clue (the painting on the left), potentially implies a 'big brother is watching you' relationship between the teacher outside and the Headteacher inside. This would be one interpretation but a misrepresentation since observations and interviews showed that such an implication would be quite unfounded. The aesthetic device, used to make a more dynamic statement, and implicit but consequential statement, detracts from the original objective of the image.

It demonstrates the importance of using images in conjunction with words to project an intended meaning. Equally, it illustrates that whilst the researcher created images may be attributed a meaning by others, their intended meaning is best signalled in relation to the socio-political context of how and why the image was made.

The second ethical issue is concerned with fabrication. The first time photograph 1 was taken the film was damaged in processing and could not be printed. When I came to repeat the photograph, the lens, film, time of day, angle of shooting, and the scene were the same but the painting (it having been returned to the pupil who painted it) and the teacher were missing. The pupil agreed to bring the painting into the school for one day - the day the Head was away from the school. Teachers, aware that he was away, did not knock on his door. After I waited for two hours a teacher, out of sympathy for my plight, pretended to knock and I got my picture. The second image replicated the first in many respects but is, nonetheless, artificial, a 'set-up' with little in the way of naturalism so central to documentary photography and qualitative research. The photograph, used as an illustration, was included in reporting the findings of the study without mention of the context of taking.

Is all deceit morally equal and to be equally condemned? My feeling is 'no' and it depends, for example, on the mode of communication. Would it be considered deceitful if, during an interview, a tape recorder failed and the interview were repeated - probably not. However, as the mode of communication in the case of 'The Ritual of Knock and Wait' is a photograph, there is a stronger case to argue that deceit has taken place. Image-based researchers frequently state that photographs are not and will never be an objective witness of reality or a 'window on the world'. Nevertheless, many audiences expect an unrealistically high level of 'objectivity' and 'truthfulness' of photographs than would be expected of verbal or written forms of communication. The problem of photographs being perceived by audiences as "telling us what the world it really like" (Beloff, 1985, p 100) is long standing as Gross, Katz and Ruby (1988, p 4) point out:

The 'marriage of conviction' between our faith in the truthfulness of the photographic image and our belief in the possibility of objective reporting has lasted nearly a century and a half, and has been strengthened by the invention of motion pictures and television. Although both partners in this marriage have come under growing suspicion, undermined by our growing awareness of the inevitability of subjectivity in the selection, framing, contextualisation, and presentation of images and reports, their continuing acceptance in public discourse and belief testifies to their resilience.

Therefore, because image-based researchers are aware of the inherent problem stemming from the 'marriage of conviction', it is their moral responsibility to pass on information relating to the context of making which tends to support the so-called trustfulness of the photographic image (more on this later). Consequently, what makes 'The Ritual of Knock and Wait' ethically indefensible, is that the context of taking was not revealed, denying audiences informed interpretation and further enhancing the possibility of a false sense of trust in the photograph.

Photograph 2 'Pupil on Walkabout' illustrates quite a different ethical problem. One person's representation may be another's misrepresentation and in photography aesthetic considerations are one way of shaping a truth. Aesthetic devices are important in documentary photography and are used in constructing powerful images which in turn encourage 'readers' not only to look but also to accept a particular meaning of an image. However, this is a two-edged sword since aesthetic qualities, knowingly or otherwise, can distract or disproportionately influence the photographer's meaning and the 'reader's' interpretation. 'Pupil on Walkabout' is an example of this problem. The boy was regularly found on a Friday afternoon hiding in the school's fuel storage area or in the cloakroom (usually under a mound of coats). He explained how each Friday the physics teacher told him to "get lost" so he did. The photograph was taken to illustrate his predicament

Photograph 2 ~ 'Pupil on Walkabout' about here

Two issues arise from the use made of this photograph in a research context. There is a dynamic relationship between words and images. Edward Weston, a famous American photographer in discussing the relationship between photographs and titles said "a poet can write a few words under it (a photograph) which will change how you see it. In this case words and picture will affect each other, they enlarge each other" (Danziger and Conrad, 1984, p 30). In the case of photograph 2 neither the title nor text used in the report (Prosser, 1989) support my intended meaning of the image.

A second and more significant failing compounds this weakness. In the past documentary photographers, for example Sander (1977), have developed what can be described as ‘puesdo-objective' photography. They used standard lenses without filters, emphasised frontality of the subject and flatness of space, recorded people in their natural environment, and printed their negatives full frame to produce an aesthetic style known as 'standers and sitters'. This style was used in photograph 2 and raises a number of general ethical questions. As stated earlier, one ethical responsibility of researchers is to report conceptions and procedures on which a research report is based. However, given that photographs are constructions, to what extent is it possible for photographers to account reflexively for the influence of aesthetic considerations? I was aware that using the 'standers and sitters' style, coupled with chiaroscuro lighting, would produce an 'arty' image. Equally, I was aware that the central positioning of the boy, the pathos of the figure, and the gloominess of the place, would evoke an overly emotional response in the viewer. In conveying a sense of isolation and depression I was representing an interpretation that was unsupported by data and had no substantive basis. This was not a case of incompetence (I knew what I was doing) more a case of the artistic style, drama and sensationalism of an image, being given priority over academic integrity. Recognising limitations resulting from lack of reflection is ineptitude; recognising limitations resulting from failing to act on reflexivity is unethical.

Moving Images

Although there are technical and procedural differences between moving and still imagery, in terms of ethical dilemmas there are many similarities. There are similarities between photographs and moving images as a result of similar technologies and modes of communication. The still camera and the movie camera each in their own way are technological devices that replicate accurately what is set before them. However, importantly, they do so at our bidding. Both are 'visual' but, being different in their mode of recording and presentation, pose different ethical dilemmas. Their similarity gives rise to similar ethical questions and in the same way their differences give rise to a different set of ethical issues. Therefore, despite possessing interchangeable ethical problems, a contrast will be drawn between moving and still images. The most marked differences between still and moving images, are pointed out by Beloff (1985, p 104), quoting Hopkinson:

A newsreel has movement, but the still photograph has permanence. Its is a moment frozen of time frozen. The famous picture of the South Vietnam general shooting a terrorist with his own hand in a Saigon street would have meant little flashing by on television screens. As a still picture it stands forever - an accusation of mankind. An alternative distinction is provided by Adelman (1998, 156) quoting Berger:

The fact that a film camera works with time instead of across it affects every one of its images on both a technical and metaphysical level . . . Most important of all, the eye behind the film camera is looking for development not conjuncture. The implication that single images without accompanying words to provide context rarely fulfil the reflexive and internal validity afforded by moving images is an important one. Despite these critical distinctions there are many interchangeable ethical dilemmas facing both still and moving image-makers.

Perhaps the most common ethical debate focuses on notions of truth and veracity of still and moving images. Our belief in the capacity of photography to provide evidence of the external world is reflected in the saying 'the camera never lies'. We know this has never been the case. Shortly after photography was patented at the Academy of Sciences in Paris in 1839, for example, the inventor Lois Jacques Daguerre was experimenting by retouching photographs. Winston (1998) catalogues a large number of manipulations of the photographic image ranging from Gardener's rearrangement of bodies after the battle of Gettysburg (dragging them about forty metres and changing their clothes) to Robert Doisneau's famous picture 'The Kiss' in which the main protagonists were not photographed in the act of spontaneous gesture of affection but the result of a specially commissioned actor and his girlfriend. Kane (1994) provides an inventory of digital manipulation including National Geographic Magazine's moving two pyramids closer together for aesthetic reasons. Yet, since we know that photography was never objective why do we hold on to the authenticity of the photograph? Kane (1994, p 10) suggests a reason:

Even when photo-images are faked, they only confirm the essential power of the photographic. When Stalin infamously removed Trotsky from the picture of Lenin in Red Square, or when surrealists and avant-gardists fiddled with exposures and turned the photo into a phantasm, both parties were exploiting - for political and artistic purposes - our fundamental trust in the camera. We believe the camera's eye can bring us truth, whether subjective (the snapshot of a loved one, the performance of a great actor) or objective (pictures of weather forecasts, police suspects, lab experiments). The photographic is the way we moderns test that reality is out there: we rely on its veracity more than we readily admit.

Given we invest images with an integrity "more than we readily admit", how can we best stand outside of ourselves to judge them? To begin with the trustworthiness of moving and still images depends on their contextual validity. In terms of the context in which images are made transparency of the process is central; in terms of the context in which images are viewed their mode of representation and the cultural and pictorial codes of their reception are central. Judgements and claims of contextual validity are best made essentially via reflexive accounts but also through their representation. Reflexive accounts attempt to render explicit the process by which data and findings were produced and are the 'Achilles heel' of all film genres claiming academic integrity. It is clear that until recently anthropological film, for example, has been insufficiently reflexive or integrated (usually reflexive accounts, where they do exist, are provided as an adjunct to the film). Nonetheless, even in the case of a reflexive documentary account the academic community will find fundamental faults since there is a widely held belief that ‘reality’ is distorted by directors beliefs, sponsors' needs, artistic convention and for artistic reasons (Winston, 1995). This argument is also applied to all forms of the realist mode of communication including the ‘photographic essay’ and ‘documentary photography’.

Informed Consent

The above concerns are not abstractions of interest only to academia. The problems, resulting from the social and political milieu that are part and parcel of any filmmaking, show themselves in a series of moral and ethical dilemmas. Consider the scenario of making of a documentary film of a school. The relationship between the filmmakers and their subjects is initiated within a framework of informed consent. This customarily means that subjects are: free of coercion or deception; have an understanding of the process by which a film is to be made, the outcomes, and the uses to be made of the film; and that they, as individuals or groups, have the capacity and competence to consent (Anderson and Benson, 1988). Even a cursory reflection on these criteria applied in an educational setting would pick up potential discrepancies. The hierarchy of the school, on understanding the potential advantages of making the film, could entice or inveigle the subjects (teachers, administrators and students) to take part for the school's common good. This would have direct repercussions since the subjects, not steeped in filmic knowledge, would be unaware of the techniques and ploys of directors going about their art. Moreover, as with any case study the outcomes of filming cannot be preordained and it is only in editing can the final 'story' be told, which means ultimate control lies with the film-makers not the subjects. Also, pupils (minors requiring parental consent) and parents may only be given cursory information about the film and rarely have the luxury of 'opting out'. Finally, since the effects of the film on actors and audience can rarely be predicted by the film-maker, there can be no guarantees of negative repercussions on subjects. These points exemplify how easy it is for ethical ideals to be subverted in practice. It should be borne in mind that 'informed consent' is more often a matter of individual conscience and rarely takes the form of a contract identifying particularities. Without acquiescence and the participation of teachers and pupils, observational films in educational settings would not exist. If truly informed consent is absent or lacking the films' ethical integrity would be impaired. If directorial freedom is confined constructive and artistic integrity would be limited. Clearly, for directors there is a tension between needing actors' co-operation during filming and wanting complete autonomy during editing. The view of participants, as cited by Becker (1988, p xiii), highlights the irreconcilable ethical dilemma:

I ought not be able to sign away my rights to be treated, when someone collects images, in an ethical fashion, whether I want to or not. . . . I cannot give my consent unless I am truly informed, and that I know at least as much about the process of making photographs and films (or doing social research) as the people doing the work. (Becker, 1988, p xiii)

Recurring Themes

Generally, situated ethics constitute a set of dilemmas for film-makers that are not easily resolved. Where they are resolved it is only by setting aside one set of values in preference for another. This is most obvious in the Griersonian documentary film tradition applied in the past to studies of education, health, welfare, and housing. Directors used their creations for social reform, to expose bad or evil, and to bring about desirable change. However, in taking up the cause of social improvement by documenting social victimisation, they put to one side any consideration of improving the lots of the subjects of their films. In paying little attention to the moral rights of participants they provide evidence for claims that "most documentary film-makers have relatively little commitment to the subjects of their films" (Beauchamp and Klaidman, 1988, p 138). Moreover, in the past the popularity of such films led to a recurrence of themes commonly termed 'victim documentaries' (Winston, 1995). Brian Winston (1988, p 34) in quoting a comment made by Basil Wright 1974 exemplifies the recurring 'victim documentary' theme:

You know this film (Children at School) was made in 1937. The other thing is that this film shows up the appalling conditions in the schools in Britain in 1937 which are identical with the ones which came out on television the night before last: overcrowded classes, schoolrooms falling down, and so on. It's the same story. That is really terrible, isn't it?

What Winston implies is that "overcrowded classrooms, schoolrooms falling down" is a recurring 'victim' type documentary that had media currency in 1937, 1974, and 1988. Given the combination of pressures from sponsors, the public's need for exposé, and the enhancement of career prospects of the film-maker, it is little wonder that films of the less powerful in society are repetitious whilst case studies of the powerful are significant by their absence. Direct cinema, when aiming to show everyday comprehensive schooling, tends, at least in part, to focus on poorly performing or overwhelmed teachers. Not surprisingly those in the 'spotlight' are unhappy when they view the film for the first time - usually much later when screened on national television. This view is common in documentary work: . . . how rare it is that image-makers show us to others as we would like to be seen, and, moreover, put in question the assumption that the image makers' perspective is more objective or valid than that of their (willing or unwilling) subjects. Gross, Katz and Ruby (1988, p viii)

Directors willing to discuss interpretation of their work are rare. One of the few is Roger Graef well known for his series of films in the early 1970s, 'The Space Between Words', ~ essentially about communication but encompassing comprehensive schooling. He accepts that his filming threw up unpredictable issues, that teachers are not committed to accepting outcomes and should be in a position to respond to both the record and the director's interpretation:

>. . .my solution . . . is to provide as part of my rules for filming, a guaranteed viewing during the editing stage to all the key participants, with a firm promise to change anything that can be pointed out to be factually inaccurate. That extends to re-editing for emphasis as well (original emphasis). (Graef, 1980, p 171)

Graef has developed a set of procedures (Graef, 1980, p 175) to explain and guide his ethical practice, though, as he himself points out, these do not themselves guarantee ethical practice or fair treatment of participants. Nevertheless, his position represents the 'high water mark' of ethical practice in observational filming of educational institutions.

It is the director who has responsibility for the interpretation of data and the presentation of findings. However, it is clear that a distinction should be drawn between observational film that is governed by principles that underpin research and documentary films which are shaped by the vagaries of mass audiences. The ultimate ethical concern in documentary films, shared by Beauchamp and Klaidman (1988, 183), is that truths are distorted:

The search for 'truth' fades and becomes a search for a preconceived moment, a biased hypothesis that captures the 'essence of truth' in the mind of the documentary maker.

The pressures on the makers of docu-soaps (often referred to as 'bubble gum for the eyes') and documentaries, as a result of the need to please audiences of 10 million or more, are significant. It is clear from the extent of documentary frauds at present that such 'investigative' films have major ethical implications in how they treat people and how they represent or misrepresent the 'truth' of a situation. Contemporary documentary films about education, although methodologically and ethically flawed, are viewed by mass audiences as evidence of the decline of schooling.

Video-based Classroom Research

The use of camcorders by researchers to record classroom interaction is far removed from the pressure of documentary and journalistic enterprise and their compulsion for dramatic narrative. Video-based classroom research enhances the possibility of researcher-practitioner co-operation, decreases the theory-practice divide, and, where there is mutual 'close reading' of visual data (Mitchell and Weber 1998), provide respondent insight and validity. It is a particularly pure form of vérité being without commentary and focusing on observational method. As visual records they provide extra-somatic ‘memory’. The camera’s reproductive and mimetic qualities can be used to systematically record visual detail with emphasis on reproducing objects, events, places, signs and symbols, or behavioural interactions. The ability of the camera to record visual detail without fatigue to be organised, catalogued, and analysed at a later date, is useful to fieldworkers.

Filming in classrooms necessitates a close working relationship being established between the participants and the researcher. The issue of ownership and control is central since disconcertingly, and unlike word-orientated research, not only do participants have the opportunity to see themselves interacting with each other, but so too do others. Those who claim ownership, excluding the researcher, are not necessarily the actors themselves. Certainly the 'gatekeepers' who hold power have claim, as do governors and the heads who are responsible for their schools' good name. There are examples (Graef, 1989, p 1) of observational film benefiting those in positions of power yet "blighting" the career of subordinate actors. This is because problems commonly occur when observational film and video are shown to outside audiences (that is outside of the immediate circle of researcher and actors). Graef (1989, p 2) believes that:

Vérité brings out that viewers are very nosey about details of other people's lives, but disapprove of that noseyness in themselves and transfer this disapproval into disapproval of what they are looking at.

The problem of judgmental audiences of video-recordings is picked up by Busher and Clarke (1990, p 121):

It is perplexing why audiences rush to judgement about aspects of action, approaches to teaching and personality when viewing a video of a teacher in action. Video-extracts of lessons are void of all but immediate information about the action of the scenes on view while yet appearing to offer an adequate basis for the exercise of judgement by viewers. In this sense videos can be dangerous in easily causing a false sense of understanding of the truth of things as can glimpses of lessons snatched while walking down a corridor. Since it is very difficult to predict outside audiences' reaction to observational film of classrooms, participant's awareness of potential hazards of external interpretation is integral to informed consent, and as important as who owns and controls the data is how data are to be used.

Videos of classroom interaction necessitate shots of the largest group in the frame - pupils. Not only is their performance most visible but without their co-operation filming could not take place. The teacher in whose classroom video recordings are made usually tell their pupils that filming will take place but rarely discuss its meaning - perhaps because of the scale of the consensus seeking exercise which is more difficult to achieve as pupil's age decreases. This raises the common ethical question of "How much information do subjects need to give 'informed consent'" (Graef, 1980, p 163), and signals a less frequently asked but important question: what about minors rights? Pupils' 'voices' are absent and their disempowerment is complete if they (and their parents) are not invited to view their 'performance'. Busher and Clarke (1990, p 144) make an additional point that "some children seem to attract more attention in the classroom than do others", and that consequently the visual record "is likely to be skewed both to over-display, and to overemphasise the importance of the attractive children." This, coupled with Calderwood's findings (1988) that videos of classroom interaction incite colleagues' curiosity more than other forms of record keeping and the unpredictability of audience reaction, make empowerment of pupils an important ethical issue.

Contemporary Classroom Video-recording

The ethics of educational research has undergone modifications over the past decade, as a result of increasing complexity in the research process and challenges posed by critical theorists and postmodernism. Latterly, post-modern and narrative influences have brought a new meaning to reflexive accounts. Hence, depending on the stance taken, discussion of contemporary visual ethics ranges from privacy, ownership, informed consent, to truth, transparency, reflexivity, and realism. Modern documentary films can be viewed as the quintessential postmodernist media in that they attempt to depict reality, champion relativism, and place little store in objective standards of truth. Winston (1995) in "Claiming the Real", examines the continuum of principles, ethics, epistemology and practices of documentary work, offering an important insight into the essential differences between film as documentary, and the documentary as fiction. The issue of relative but conflicting ethics, of representing different 'voices' contrasted with notions of fictions and realism, are central in this type of work.

The post-modern and narrative approaches are also beginning to impinge on classroom video-recordings. This is clearly illustrated through the work of Weber and Mitchell (1995) and Mitchell and Weber (1999) who use photographs and videos of themselves and colleagues, as tools for narrating auto/biography of their professional lives and as an aid to help practising teachers examine their professional identity. Ethical obligations now take a different turn. To what extent should the sensitivities of participants be taken account of when film makers turn their cameras on their own schools, own colleagues, and own classes, whose agreement and trust they may take for granted?

These questions are not easily answered. There is the difficult reflexive question of procedural reactivity. Are film-makers sufficiently sensitive to predict the outcome of recording and, more importantly, replaying recordings of the taken-for-granted act of teaching? Video-based research allows participants to see themselves and reflect on their practice but it also has the potential to displace previously established self-images. This makes video-based research different from still-image research and quite different from word orientated ethical considerations. Self-initiation or initiating others into video-recording of classroom practice, are acts that carry responsibilities. Teachers initiating colleagues into video-recording of the relatively private intimacy of their classrooms is to confront them with a camera's unfaltering stare, to be caught 'looking in the mirror', requiring the teacher to open themselves to the public. Mitchell and Weber (1999, p 199 - 200) and Busher and Clarke (1990, p 120 - 122) both illustrate the potential pain from self-analysis to teachers as a result of unsupported or insensitive use of video-recording.

Finally, autobiographical film and video are capable of going further by telling the stories of the repressed and underrepresented whose 'voices' are rarely heard in classroom documentaries. However, the degree of trust, confidence, faith and intimacy, so essential for this type of work, also bring with them particular moral issues. Katz and Katz (1988) describe how the ethics of autobiographical films, where close associates may be drawn in alongside the biographer to form a special relationship, differs from an orthodox ethical code. A strength of autobiographical studies and studies made from within communities as distinct from external agencies, lies in their ability to act as an antidote to what Winston (1995) terms 'victim documentaries'. Victim documentaries are the focus by the powerful of the private and everyday lives of the less powerful. Rather than rely on pervading values of bodies that often fund documentaries, 'in-house' films and videos have the opportunity to give 'voice' to ethnic, religious, and sexual groups that are external or periphery to mainstream beliefs.

A Way Through the Moral Maze?

There are innumerable examples of poor ethical practice by image-based researchers. This ethical 'black hole' is sustained because few experienced visual researchers have established a consistent set of ethical procedures and few image-based research students are taught ethics. As a result important ethical issues are rarely debated and ethical knowledge seldom disseminated. There are additional reasons for the moral complexity of image-based research. It is sub-discipline that is applied across a range of disciplines including sociology, anthropology, and psychology. Ethics are situated differently according to each discipline's 'slant' on what comprises befitting moral behaviour. Add to this the relative newness of visual studies and the multiplicity of image-based research in terms of technology used and processes followed, and we begin to recognise the complexity of the moral maze within which it is situated. The ethics of visual research is in its infancy and, metaphorically speaking, located near the centre of a complex moral maze. There are many false avenues to explore before escape from an ethical 'wilderness' is possible.

More established sub-disciplines, such as educational psychology, have established a code of practice that in the past have acted as a focal point of debate and, potentially at least, consensus based action. Image-based research lacks guidelines and codes of practice in its evolution. Of course guidelines and codes of practice in themselves do not amount to good practice but they are important arenas of debate on the road to realisation of moral behaviour in visual research. Consequently, and this may sound at odds with other contributors to this book, visual researchers needs to take a backward step, to reach a consensus on what constitutes the principal ethical dilemmas of image-based research. Th establishment of a 'checklist' of moral dilemmas is important because it will reflect the different nature of image-based research relative to other styles of research. The 'checklist' is a necessary evil that will act as a springboard to attaining ethical practices that are situated in image-based research rather than, for example, word-based research. Recognition of the distinctive ethical dilemmas posed by visual research is the first and most significant step in escaping the moral maze. What is important is that practitioners of visual research reflect on and report back their experiences in order to ground their situated ethics in actuality. It's difficult to avoid prescription at this point but it seems clear that case studies of situated ethics should be widely disseminated to students of images-based research and those under the gaze of visual researchers. The situatedness of differing research styles is central to establishing enhanced ethical practice. It is equally important that situated ethics becomes a matter of public knowledge rather than remain the domain of implicit professional knowledge.

References

• Adelman, C. (1998) Photocontext. In J. Prosser (Ed.) Image-based Research: A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. London, Falmer Press.
• Anderson, C., Benson, T., W. (1988) Direct Cinema and the Myth of Informed Consent. In Gross, L., Katz, J., S., Ruby, J. (eds) Image Ethics. New York, Oxford University Press.
• Atget, E. (1992) Atget Paris, Paris, Hazan.
• Beauchamp, D., Klaidman, R. (1988) The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception. In Gross, L., Katz, J., S., Ruby, J. (eds) Image Ethics. New York, Oxford University Press.
• Becker, H. S. (1988) Forward: Image, Ethics, and Organisations. In Gross, L., Katz, J., S., Ruby, J. (eds) Image Ethics. New York, Oxford University Press.
• Becker, H. S. (1998) Visual Sociology, Documentary Photography and Photojournalism: It's (Almost) All a Matter of Context. In J. Prosser (Ed.) Image-based Research: A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. London, Falmer Press.
• Beloff, H (1985) Camera Culture. Oxford. Blackwell.
• Busher, H. and Clarke, S. (1990) The Ethics of Using Video in Educational Research. In Using Video-Recording for Teacher Professional Development. School of Education, University of Leeds.
• Calderwood, J (1988) Teachers' Professional Learning. London, Falmer Press.
• Cartier-Bresson, H. (1952) The Decisive Moment. New York, Simon and Schuster.
• Collier, J, Collier, M (1986) Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research Method. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press.
• Danziger, J., Conrad, B. (1984) Interviews with Master Photographers. London, Paddington Press.
• Evans, H (1978) Pictures on a Page. Belmont, Wadsworth Publishing.
• Graef, R (1980) The case Study as Pandora's Box. In Towards a Science of the Singular. Helen Simons (ed). Occasional Publication No10, Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia.
• Graef, R (1989) Privacy and Observational Film. Anthropology Today, Vol. 5 No. 2. pp 1 - 2.
• Gross, L., Katz, J., S., Ruby, J. (1988) Introduction: A Moral Pause. In Gross, L., Katz, J., S., Ruby, J. (eds) Image Ethics. New York, Oxford University Press.
• Katz, J. S., Katz, J. M (1988) The Ethics of Autobiographical Film. In Gross, L., Katz, J., S., Ruby, J. (eds) Image Ethics. New York, Oxford University Press.
• Kane, P. (1994) Putting us all in the Picture. London, The Sunday Times, 28 August, Section 10, pp 6-7. Mitchell, C., and Weber, S. (1998) Picture This! Vernacular Portraits and Lasting School Impressions of School. In J Prosser (ed) Image-based Research; A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. London, Falmer Press.
• Mitchell, C., and Weber, S. (1999) Reinventing Ourselves as Teachers: Beyond Nostalgia. London, Falmer Press.
• Prosser, J (1989) The Nature of School: An Ethnographic Case Study. Unpublished D. Phil. Thesis, Department of Educational Studies, University of York.
• Prosser, J (1992) Personal Reflections on the Use of Photography in an Ethnographic Case Study. British Educational Research Journal. Vol. 18, No 4, pp 397-411.
• Prosser, J. (1998) The Status of Image-based Research, in J Prosser (ed) Image-based Research; A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. London, Falmer Press.
• Rosenthal, A. (1980) The Documentary Conscience. Berkeley, University of California Press.
• Sander, A (1986) Citizens of the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, The MIT Press.
• Southall, T., W. (1985) Diane Arbus Magazine Work. New York, Aperture.
• Stasz, C (1979) The Early History of Visual Sociology. In J. Wagner (ed.) Images of Information: Still Photography in the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills and London. Sage.
• Weber, S.J. and Mitchell, C. (1995) That’s Funny, You Don’t Look Like a Teacher! Interrogating Images and Identity in Popular Culture, London: Falmer Press.
• Winston, B (1995) Claiming the Real: The Documentary Film Revisited. The British Film Institute, London.
• Winston, B (1998) 'The Camera Never Lies': The Partiality of Photographic Evidence. In in J. Prosser (Ed.) Image-based Research: A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. London, Falmer Press.