• Mainly about engagement and collaboration using social media and events, with some asides on living in London. More about David Wilcox and also how the blog started.
  • Search


« On stealing virtual sex beds, and the risks in Facebook groups | Main | Creating futures for the common good »



I like it a lot. There is authenticity to a self-recorded video. Yes, the camera focusses everybody's minds, but it is still a conversation between peers rather than an interview.

Unfortunately, for research ethics committees of universities (well, in Australia where I am anyway), such informal consent as was included at the end of the clip wouldn't be sufficient.

But then, in your situation everyone participated equally--nobody has a special role as researcher, reporter or documentary-maker.

What I liked - in retrospect - was the chance to take something we were talking about, then turn it into an action which demonstrated something at the time, and produced a blog item, and some further discussion. In future I'm going to think more - OK, what can we do NOW!

The consent on tape is a standard journalistic technique - even if it's not "broadcast" it acts as evidence of how you explained to the person how you would like to use the material, what they said in return and even how enthusiastic or cooperative they appeared to be. It seems odd to me that such high quality evidence of consent would not cut it in (Australian) academic circles. It is easier to forge a signature than a filmed consent!

The comments to this entry are closed.