Linda gave me feedback on an earlier version of my draft exegesis (revised version here). I was actually really touched that she spent the time considering my work (as jumbled as the thing I’m calling “work” was, poor thing!) and also a little surprised that someone with minimal knowledge on my research area was so able to give really useful feedback. In fact, her feedback was perhaps even more useful for being outside of my little world of chaos and giving cause to rethinking things that seemed logical in my head, but which are maybe not so.
Linda advised some inclusion of the research inevitably necessary in getting a radio piece aired on ABC, including their codes of ethics as well as other production constraints and needs such as length, style etc. I’ll revisit this later.
She also pointed out that I haven’t made it very clear that it will be a radio production and not a visual production. Looking over my draft I can see that this is quite a valid point. I can also see that I started to write a sentence explaining why, but my train of thought moved faster than I could type. Basically, after doing my own searches and also asking Kyla Brettle, an industry professional and lecturer, there appears to be a significant lack of resources exploring radio features of any type, let alone as specific as radio documentary. Still, after reading about ethical issues arising out of film documentary it is already clear that there are many parallels to be made. Actually, I can also see a danger in an easy assumption that since radio does not work with visual representation, which is most heavily critiqued by writers, that radio is somehow more ‘pure’, more likely to reveal the voice of the so called “subject”, which, frankly, is bollocks. Precisely because of this misconception and trust of radio, combined with a medium in which editing is perhaps more invisible (think of the ability to reconstruct people’s words), the necessary trust an interviewee must give, the integrity with which a producer must practice and the power dynamics at play are crucial elements for interrogation in any feature which aims to represent a story in-line with the participants own objectives.
Which brings me onto Linda’s next point. Am I investigating the power play between the producer and subject or investigating representing ethnic groups in a way that truly represents their notions of ’self’?. This is a great question but a very difficult one for me to answer. So, as usual, here is the conveluted answer!
As I’ve just stated, for me power is so entwined with representation that my gut feeling tells me that being critically aware of the power play in orthodox documentary is necessary in investigating alternative methods of building a representation which attempt to be closer to notions of the participant’s ’self’. By orthodox documentary Dennis O’Rouke’s Cunnamala is a useful case is focus. O’Rouke makes no apology for his belief in documentary as his art, his perspective, and therefore that creating a representation of of the world as he sees it is his right. Which it probably is, even though ethicist have a problems with his work and approach. It would be probably be my right too, but it is not my desire or aim. The story of William Cooper and the contemporary ramifications is not my story, and I’m not even wanting to borrow it as some writers claim their practices as.
The question is then, how do I go about being a producer of a story which I never want to claim ownership to? Is it possible and what methods bring us closest to making this happen?
Next, Linda picked up on my reluctance to use a few key words. The first one was Documentary. I’ve already said that I plan to critically analyse the problematic power dynamics in orthodox documentary and am looking instead to participatory production methods to create a story. Leaving aside the question of truth for a moment (because no where so far have I even begun to discuss the perspectivism alive an well within both traditional documentary and any other constructed and mediated representation) if you are not practicing documentary methodology, is it still a documentary? Is the term still appropriate? In pointing out the flaws for its application in this context, how can I then continue to use the term? I’ve begun using “Feature” as an alternative here and there but I think I need to mull over that a little more. Perhaps rejecting the term means I’m creating a comfortable lie for myself, in denial but still involved with the same dilemma (though hopefully a little less naive).
Another uncomfortable concept is ethnography. I don’t consider this project to be ethnography; its not a good story because its about a culture or an ethnicity. Yes there are two cultural groups or communities involved and yes their cultural background is a relevant aspect, and yes this brings into play some existing ethical debates, but this project is not about saying ‘they the other’ are interesting because ‘they’ are different and therefore there is a story about them that should be told. Having said that, ethnographers have grappled with significant ethical issues around othering, representation and power with some applications for consideration in critiquing documentary practice. This is why despite my reluctance, there are some references to writing with origins in ethnographic themes.
The exegesis is fast becoming a mammoth thesis of itself but I think it will be possible to point so huge topics such as Orientalism and Othering without necessarily needing to go through the complicated arguments surrounding it. Rather, this exegesis will look, for example at how Said’s work has changed the ethical context within which practioners work. It will look at the Enghel’s model of participatory methodologies within the same framework, that of Communication for Development, and discuss the methods which apply to a project: a) in Australia, b) involving both Jewish and Koorie participants, and, c) in radio production rather than film, as well as those that don’t.
Enghel considers the importance of dissemination and it is here I think it will be relevant to have a more detailed discussion of what it means to choose a broadcaster like the ABC in advance as a preferred channel of publication, their industry requirements, and how this influences the production process.
I predict other challenges will arise and be explored in the action-reflection aspect of the project, such as the actual dynamics of participatory methodology; do participants feel comfortable to be part of the process? How does it feel to be a producer in this dynamic? How does it effect choices made? Do producer and participant have differing emphases on narrative and self ie. is the participant concerned (reasonably when you think about it) concerned with how their voice sounds, how do you navigate differing priorities in a participatory environment?
And I think I’m back where I started. The aim. I think there are two, both of which I share with the primary participants involved; We want this feature to be heard to the widest, most relevant audience possible becasue social and political motivations which requires a content rich, technically and structurally strong production. We also all hope to feel comfortable with representations created, keeping in mind that, as a media form, these will necessarily always be artificial representations.
Big Big thanks to Linda!
