Visuality is a concept that crosses boundaries of practice and meaning, making it an ideal subject for interdisciplinary research. In this article, we discuss visuality using a fragment from a video meeting of television producers at Swedish Television’s group for programming in Swedish Sign Language. This example argues for the importance of recognizing the diversity of analytical and practice-derived visualities and their effect on the ways in which we interpret cultures. These different visualities have consequences for the methods and means with which we present scholarly research. The role of methods, methodology, and analysis of visual practices in an organizational and bilingual setting are key. We explore the challenges of incorporating deaf visualities, hearing visualities, and different paradigms of interdisciplinary research as necessary when visibility, invisibility, and their materialities are of concern. We conclude that in certain contexts, breaking with disciplinary traditions makes visible that which is otherwise invisible.
AnthesB. (2009). Contemporary native artists and international biennial culture. Visual Anthropology Review, 25, 109-127.
2.
AppaduraiA. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization (Vol. 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
3.
BanksM. (2001). Visual methods in social research. London, England: Sage.
4.
BanksM.MorphyH. (1997). Introduction. In BanksM.MorphyH. (Eds.), Rethinking visual anthropology (pp. 1-35). London, England: Yale University Press.
5.
BattagliaD. (1997). Displacing the visual: Of Trobriand axe-blades and ambiguity in cultural practice. In BanksM.MorphyH. (Eds.), Rethinking visual anthropology (pp. 203-215). London, England: Yale University Press.
6.
BeharR.Brink-DananM. (2012). Mediajourneys: Looking at people, looking for people. Visual Anthropology Review, 28, 1-12.
BergerJ. (1977). Ways of seeing. London, England: Penguin Books.
9.
Blatto-ValleeG.KellyR. R.GaustadM. G.PorterJ.FonziJ. (2007). Visual-spatial representation in mathematical problem solving by deaf and hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12, 432-448.
10.
BornG. (1997). Computer software as a medium: Textuality, orality and sociality in an artificial intelligence research culture. In BanksM.MorphyH. (Eds.), Rethinking visual anthropology (pp. 139-169). London, England: Yale University Press.
BrothM.LaurierE.MondadaL. (2014). Introducing video at work. In BrothM.LaurierE.MondadaL. (Eds.), Routledge Research in Cultural and Media Studies. Studies of video practices: Video at work. (pp. 1-29). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.tandfebooks.com.focus.lib.kth.se/
13.
DorseyM. E.Diaz-BarrigaM. (2010). Beyond surveillance and moonscapes: An alternative imaginary of the U.S.-Mexico border wall. Visual Anthropology Review, 26, 128-135.
14.
DourishP. (2013). Epilogue: Where the action was, wasn’t, should have been, and might yet be. ACM Transactions in Computer-human Interaction, 20(1), Article 2.
15.
DourishP.BellottiV. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW ’92 (pp. 107-114). Toronto, Ontario, New York: ACM.
16.
EgidoC. (1990). Teleconferencing as a technology to support cooperative work: Its possibilities and limitations. In GalegherJ.KrautR. E.EgidoC. (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 351-371). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
EmmoreyK.KorpicsF.PetronioK. (2009). The use of visual feedback during signing: Evidence from signers with impaired vision. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14, 99-104.
18.
FaveroP. (2005). India dreams: Cultural identity among young middle class men in New Delhi. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.
19.
FinnK. E. (1997). Introduction: An overview of video-mediated communication literature. In FinnK. E.SellenA. J.WilburS. B. (Eds.), Video mediated communication (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
FinnK. E.SellenA.WilburS. B. (Eds.). (1997). Video mediated communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
GergleD.KrautR. E.FussellS. R. (2013). Using visual information for grounding and awareness in collaborative tasks. Human-Computer Interaction, 28, 1-39.
22.
GlassA. (2009). A Cannibal in the archive: Performance, materiality, and (in)visibility in unpublished Edward Curtis photographs of the Kwakwaka’wakw Hamat’sa. Visual Anthropology Review, 25, 128-149.
GürselZ. D. (2009b). U.S. newsworld. The rule of text and everyday practices of editing the world. In Elizabeth BirdS. (Ed.), The anthropology of news and journalism. Global perspectives (pp. 35-53). Bloomington: University of Indiana University Press.
HammondJ. D.BrummelJ.BuckinghamC.DolanD.IrishL.MenzelE.NoardC. (2009). Interrogating cultural anthropology text covers: Intended messages, received meanings. Visual Anthropology Review, 25, 150-171.
27.
HarawayD. J. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575-599.
28.
HarawayD. J. (2007). When species meet (posthumanities) (Vol. 3). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
29.
HauserP. C.CohenJ.DyeW. G.BavelierD. (2007). Visual constructive and visual-motor skills in deaf native signers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12, 148-157.
30.
HindsP. J.BaileyD. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14, 615-632.
31.
HunterS.MaesP.TangA.InkpenK.HesseyS. (2014). WaaZam! Supporting creative play at a distance in customized video environments. In Proceedings CHI 2014. One of a CHInd, April 26–May 1, 2014, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (pp. 1197-1206). New York, NY: ACM Press.
32.
IsaacsE. A.TangJ. C. (1993). Studying video-based collaboration in context: From small workgroups to large organizations. In FinnK. E.SellenA. J.WilburS. B. (Eds.), Video mediated communication (pp. 173-197). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
JayM. (1993). Downcast eyes. The denigration of vision in twentieth century thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
JenkinsH. (2008). Convergence culture: Where new and old media collide. New York: New York University Press.
35.
KisinE. (2011). Ravens and films: Stories of continuity and mediation. Visual Anthropology Review, 27, 131-140.
MacDougallD. (1997). The visual in anthropology. In BanksM.MorphyH. (Eds.), Rethinking visual anthropology (pp. 276-295). London, England: Yale University Press.
38.
MarcusG.FischerM. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
MarscharkM.SpencerL. J.DurkinA.BorgnaG.ConvertinoC.MachmerE.TraniA. (2015). Understanding language, hearing Status and visual-spatial skills. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 20, 310-330.
40.
MirzoeffN. (1999). An introduction to visual culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
MirzoeffN. (2002). The visual culture reader. London, England: Routledge.
42.
MitchellW. J. T. (1994). Picture theory: Essays on verbal and visual representation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
43.
MitchellW. J. T. (2005). What do pictures want? The lives and loves of images. Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press.
44.
MuirL. J.RichardsonE. G. (2005). Perception of sign language and its application to visual communications for deaf people. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10, 390-401.
45.
MurdockG.PinkS. (2005). Picturing practices: Visual anthropology and media ethnography. In RothenbuhlerE.ComanM. (Eds.), Media anthropology (pp. 149-163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
OlsonG. M.OlsonJ. S. (1997). Making sense of the findings: Common vocabulary leads to the synthesis necessary for the theory building. In FinnK.AbigailS.WilburS. (Eds.), Video-mediated communication (pp. 75-91). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
PerryM.JuhlinO.EngströmA. (2014). Dealing with time, Just in time. Sense-making and clip allocation in multiperson, multistream, live replay TV production. In BrothM.LaurierE.MondadaL. (Eds.), Routledge Research in Cultural and Media Studies. Studies of video practices: Video at work (pp. 262-285). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.tandfebooks.com.focus.lib.kth.se
PinkS. (2012). Advances in visual methodology. London, England: Sage.
50.
RaeJ. P.SteptoeW.RobertsD. J. (2011). Some implications of eye gaze behaviour and perception for the design of immersive telecommunication systems. In Proceeding DS-RT ’11 Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE/ACM 15th International Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real Time Applications (pp. 108-114). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
51.
RoseG. (2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. London, England: Sage.
52.
RoseG.Tolia-KellyD. P. (2012). Visuality/materiality: Introducing a manifesto for practice. In RoseG.Tolia-KellyD. P. (Eds.), Visuality/materiality: Images, objects and practices (pp. 49-11). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
53.
SchmittM.GunkelS.CesarP.HughesP. (2013). A QoE Testbed for Socially-Aware Video-Communication. In SAM ’13 Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Socially-aware Multimedia, October 21, 2013, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 37-41). New York, NY: ACM Press.
54.
SellenA. (1992). Speech patterns in video-mediated conversations. In Proceedings of CHI Human Factors in Computing Systems92 (pp. 49-59). New York, NY: ACM Press.
55.
SinhaS. (2009). The Marigold trail: A study of Robert Gardner’s forest of bliss. Visual Anthropology Review, 25, 40-48.
56.
SturkenM.CartwrightL. (2009). Practices of looking: An introduction to visual culture (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
57.
SuchmanL. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58.
SvanaesD. (2013). Interaction design for and with the lived body: Some implications of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology. In ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), Special Issue, Theory and Practice of Embodied Interaction in HCI and Interaction Design (Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 8.1-8.30). New York, NY: ACM Press.
59.
TangJ. C.IsaacsE. (1992). Why do users like video? Studies of multimedia-supported collaboration. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 1, 163-196.
60.
ThompsonJ. B. (1995). Media and modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
61.
ThompsonJ. B. (2005). The new visuality. Theory, Culture, Society, 22, 31-51.
