Navigating Visual Research: Enhancing Knowledge on Sustainable Grazing Management

1. Generating actionable knowledge through a transdisciplinary process: the pros and cons of visual research methods Katrin Prager James Hutton Institute ESRS conference Krakow 24-27 July 2017

2. Challenge • Maintaining cultural landscapes in areas with marginal land • Management activities no longer economically viable • E.g. permanent semi-natural grassland in upland regions • Conservation designation not sufficient; active management (grazing) needed

3. Project objectives • TransGRASS project www.hutton.ac.uk/research/projects/TRANSGRASS • Bring together knowledge of different stakeholders to achieve the desired outcomes (ecological, economic and social sustainability) • How can co-production of actionable knowledge about common grazings be facilitated through the use of visual methods (mobile video ethnography, touch table)? • Critical reflection on the influence of visual technology research, process, participants and outcomes

4. Case study • Common grazings on Trotternish Ridge on Isle of Skye, Western Scotland

5. Case study • Various designations: Special Area of Conservation, Natura 2000; Site of Special Scientific Interest • Scottish Natural Heritage aim to “work with the owner to protect the site and maintain and (…) enhance its features” • Crofters using the common grazings struggle to maintain livestock grazing, demographic change, policy framework unconducive to their support livelihoods

6. Types of knowledge • local –generalisednovice – expert knowledgetacit – implicit – explicit knowledge traditional – local – scientific informal – formal ways of generating knowledge • Ecological site monitoring/ survey • Interviews and mobile video ethnography (MVE) • Stakeholder workshops • Filming

7. Visual methods • Conceptualised as boundary objects (Star and Griesemer 1989) • Used as tool for surfacing diverse understanding, interpretation and assumptions • Aspiration to provide a platform that facilitates exchange of knowledge and learning among stakeholders, and co-production of knowledge

8. Visual methods • Technology: minicam (gopro), regular video camera, audio recording, touchtable map with embedded photos from the ecological survey • Outputs: • site condition assessment (ecological survey) • footage filmed by farmers and researchers • edited video clips for use in workshop setting • a film on issues surrounding common grazings management

9. Findings • Challenges of technology (wind noise, rain, shaky…) • Tensions between film-making and research • Inclusion/ exclusion of stakeholders (unfamiliar with technology, uncomfortable, impracticable, time constraints)

10. Findings • Negotiation process (building trust, balance giving and taking, access to crofters, access to data/ information, power expressed through withholding) • Visual methods take extra effort and time – may not be justifiable or available. Similar results achievable through interviews and workshops • New relationships built and gap between land managers and policy staff reduced • stakeholders gained insights; re-thinking triggered; some knowledge co-produced

11. Thank you • Co-researchers: Katrina Brown & Petra Lackova • More info • katrin.prager@hutton.ac.uk • www.hutton.ac.uk/research/projects/TRANSGRASS • SEGS blog: http://www.hutton.ac.uk/blogs/segs

12. Scottish Environment, Food and Agriculture Research Institutes (SEFARI) Social Economic and Geographical Sciences (SEGS)