Historia

When engaging in social research, two considerations must be made: what is the ontology and what is the epistemology? Sociologist, Jennifer Mason (2002), suggests beginning with identifying what social reality is going to be studied. She acknowledges the difficulties in attempting to conceptualize a different understanding of the nature of a given phenomenon beyond the basic understanding of the components of the “social world” (2002. 14). For instance, when identifying what exactly this study was to entail, it became important to conceptualize superhero films as something deeper than superficial blockbuster popcorn spectaculars. There was something more that could be said about the reality they created and reflected back to the audience.

Once the ontological direction has been settled upon, the next challenge is to establish an epistemological approach. Mason asks the researcher: “what might represent knowledge or evidence of the entities or social ‘reality’ that I wish to investigate?” (2002, 16). She suggests a variety of ideas exist that deal with the notion of evidence. It can be categorical, at times too much so, implying self-evident proof of a widely known reality. Or, it can be found in the perspective or argument, which is less rigorous, but also less

self-aggrandizing (2002). For instance, visual data is thought amongst many researchers to speak for itself, while others feel it is in fact the viewer that the gives the data its sociological media (Emmison, 2004). So, while this study is looking at the visual data - the instances of the surveillance that happen as the evidence to be quantified - it could also have examined the reality of the viewer and the meaning they give it. Media theorist Klaus Bruhn Jensen (2012) states that when it comes to media studies, in particular, there have been several conceptions of “evidence, inference, and interpretation” that have been folded into it, by the virtue of its intersectionality at the point where art and science meet (2012, 283). He points to a growing tendency towards viewing evidence in a

complimentary fashion, not so much at the stage of minimal measurements, but at the end of “concluding a process of inquiry, in a context, and for a purpose” (2012: 284). As such, it becomes more useful to apply a fluid perception to the evidence on hand. However, drawing on Mason’s (2002) distinction between categorical and

perceptive/argumentative evidence, pictures alone do not necessarily provide meaning (Emmison, 2004). That is not to suggest that, for example, film theorist, David

Bordwell’s approach of straight categorization is with out use. More than one

epistemology can emerge, which may not fit so easily with one type of methodology (Mason, 2002). In media studies, there is often conflict between subject and object and what intentions are filtered through what “social structures and cultural practices” (Jensen, 2012, 286). What remains paramount is that the answers generated from an

epistemological perspective lead to the answer of the ontological question (Mason, 2002). In surveillance studies, the epistemological choice is to either categorize or

perceive/argue. Categorization can be thought of as strict technocratic methodology. The perception/argumentative approach is found in political discourse. Discourse often frames surveillance as a prescription for the reduction of crime and, on a wider scale, of risk. However, the discourse does not always match the results, as evidenced by a report on the effectiveness of video surveillance in several Ontario cities (Lett, Heir, & Walby, 2012). Surveillance theorist Kevin Haggerty (2009) calls the rhetoric surrounding surveillance research a knife fight without rules. He argues that powerfully influential parties with special interests have swayed methodology to a heavy emphasis towards quantifiable research practices at the expense of ethical considerations. The result is an

argument about the means of surveillance research rather than the ends it achieves. Specifically, studies that generate great public discourse, such as surveys that examine privacy and surveillance, can be challenged by what methodological information is left aside as much as the results themselves (Haggerty & Gazo, 2005). Furthermore, theorist Kevin Walby (2005) argues for more research that employs non-numeric methods, such as the institutional ethnography method, when studying surveillance. He argues that qualitative methods peel back the curtain on the power that managerial and professional institutions possess and how they use it to sway discussions that impact how much surveillance should be installed.

In summary, this section has addressed methodology from an ontological general perspective. The process of engaging in research begins with identifying a particular ontological question, what is it in society that the researcher wants to study? After that, the focus shifts to the epistemological level, how is the evidence to be identified. Mason (2002) suggests that evidence gathering is often either categorical or

perspective/argumentative. Theorist Michael Emmison (2004) states that while data is often taken as is, the meaning of it is determined by the interpretation of the ones who engage with it. Jensen (2012) argues that the debate comes down to dichotomy of subject versus object. He also suggests that categorical and perspective approaches to evidence can co-exist, giving the research a richer purpose. Surveillance studies are a prime example of the struggle between empiricism and hermeneutic approaches to evidence gathering and interpretation. All of this is relevant to my study because it reveals how a dual approach to methodology can provide a richer vein of evidence to prove the dissolved panopticon is a meaningful concept and to answer the overarching research question of surveillance normalization. The following sections will focus the discussion of methodology from a generalized level to how it applies specifically to this project.