Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 02 December 2014, At: 14:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Geography in HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjgh20
Exposing students to repeatphotography: increasing culturalunderstanding on a short-term studyabroadKelly K. Lemmonsa, Christian Brannstroma & Danielle Hurdb
a Department of Geography, Texas A&M University, 810 O&MBuilding, College Station, TX 77843, USAb Department of Art History, City University of New York, 365 FifthAvenue, New York, NY 10016, USAPublished online: 11 Sep 2013.
To cite this article: Kelly K. Lemmons, Christian Brannstrom & Danielle Hurd (2014) Exposingstudents to repeat photography: increasing cultural understanding on a short-term study abroad,Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 38:1, 86-105, DOI: 10.1080/03098265.2013.836745
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2013.836745
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Exposing students to repeat photography: increasing culturalunderstanding on a short-term study abroad
Kelly K. Lemmonsa*, Christian Brannstroma and Danielle Hurdb
aDepartment of Geography, Texas A&MUniversity, 810 O&M Building, College Station, TX 77843,USA; bDepartment of Art History, City University of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York,NY 10016, USA
(Received 21 June 2012; final version received 7 July 2013)
Traditionally, repeat photography has been used to analyze land cover change. Thispaper describes how repeat photography may be used as a tool to enhance the short-term study abroad experience by facilitating cultural interaction and understanding. Wepresent evidence from two cases and suggest a five-step repeat photography method foreducators to use to increase participation and cultural interaction of students involvedin fieldwork, long-haul fieldwork, and study abroad programs. We suggest that throughthe five steps developed in this paper that students’ potential to understand and interactwithin the host culture is increased.
Keywords: Geography education; study abroad; repeat photography; culturalunderstanding
Introduction
Scholars have used repeat photography to analyze land cover change (Bahre, 1991; Bahre&
Bradbury, 1978; Hastings & Turner, 1965; Martin & Turner, 1977) and, more recently, to
measure cultural and economic transformation of landscape (Arreola & Burkhart, 2010;
Finn et al., 2009). Repeat photography is the comparison of old and new photographs taken
from the same location. It has developed from a quantitative exercise to measure vegetation
change to potentially be used as a method to increase student participation and cultural
understanding in study abroad. Such a tool is needed as the number of study abroad
participants increases and the length of time spent in these abroad programs decreases,
limiting the time students have to participate in and understand the respective host culture.
Study abroad has come to the forefront of undergraduate education because institutions
no longer see study abroad as a supplemental activity, but rather as an essential part of the
undergraduate experience (Biles&Lindley, 2009). In the 2010–2011 academic year, nearly
273,996 US students participated in a study abroad program for school credit, an all-time
high and an increase of over 150% in the last 15 years (IIE, 2012). Most of that growth has
been in the short-term (8 weeks or less) study abroad programs, in which enrollments have
increased from just over 25,000 students in 1993 to almost 160,000 students in 2011.
This study abroad experience aims to provide cultural understanding through cultural
interaction. This experience has been described as a way to provide students with a unique
“life changing” experience (Bishop, 2009). However, few research experiments have been
conducted concerning the effect that shorter stays abroad have on student’s cultural
understanding. Short-term study abroad programs typically do not require a language
q 2013 Taylor & Francis
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 2014
Vol. 38, No. 1, 86–105, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2013.836745
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
component. With little to no language skills, students are less likely to understand how to
interact within and understand the host culture (Molinsky & Perunovic, 2008). With study
abroad programs growing shorter, making it more difficult for students to have cultural
interaction, there is a need for new and creative methods to increase student’s cultural
interactions on short-term study abroad programs. This paper, therefore, aims to assess
repeat photography as a means to enhance cultural understanding through increased
cultural interaction.
We seek to discover if repeat photography can (1) overcome some of the theoretical
limitations of photography to be discussed and (2) increase cultural understanding despite
shorter stays abroad. We present evidence from two cases and suggest the use of five
specific questions/steps to educators to enhance fieldwork, long-haul fieldwork, and study
abroad experiences. We found that this process will increase student’s cultural interaction
in turn increasing their potential toward cultural understanding.
Repeat photography origins
Recent publications have shown the effectiveness of using photography as a supplemental
educational tool within the field of geography (Hall, 2009; Latham & McCormack, 2007;
Rose, 2000, 2008; Sanders, 2007; Sidaway, 2002). Scholars have shown that photography
can be used in geography to (1) encourage “directed observation” (Sanders, 2007); (2) help
students “look with intention” (Sanders, 2007); (3) provide an “opportunity to hear
multiple voices in multiple ways” (Sanders, 2007); and (4) to enhance the quality of
student engagement (Latham & McCormack, 2007). Photography is a good method to
introduce the complexities of geography (Sidaway, 2002). In fact, Hall states (2009,
p. 453) that “studying human geography at university without photographic images would
be unthinkable.” Thus, photography is used ubiquitously throughout geography in both
research and teaching. However, the use of photography as a medium to understanding
culture has several theoretical complications. These complications are discussed in the
“Repeat Photography Critiques” section of this paper.
Repeat photography consists of four basic steps as described by the seminal work of
Hastings and Turner (1965). First, one must find historical photographs that pertain to the
research area. Second, one must examine the historical photograph to determine the exact
location from which it was taken. Third, one must take a new photograph from the exact
location and angle as the original. Fourth, one must examine the two photographs within
the scope of the research project to determine change/results (see Figures 1 and 2 from
Brazil as examples).
Scholars have applied this method to numerous instances of environmental and
landscape change (Hattersley-Smith, 1966; Webb, Boyer, & Turner, 2010). In North
America, the classic work began with analysis of vegetation cover at the Santa Rita
Experimental Range, which provided the original photographs for Hastings and Turner’s
book, The Changing Mile (1965), which inspired several more studies (Bahre, 1991; Bahre
& Bradbury, 1978; Kay, 2002; Martin & Turner, 1977). The use of repeat photography has
grown to encompass numerous other cases, such as in the humid and sub-humid tropics
(Kull, 2005; Works & Hadley, 2000) and even post-Katrina recovery in the US Gulf Coast
(Burton, Mitchell, & Cutter, 2011). The use of repeat photography remains a pertinent tool
in mapping vegetation change, landscape change, and glacial change in the twenty-first
century (Bass, 2005; Walker & Leib, 2002). Research projects are now being done
at various locations across the USA and around the world using this method (White &
Hart, 2007).
Journal of Geography in Higher Education 87
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Figure 1. (a) Labor intensive gold panning, Palmeiras, Brazil, ca. 1900 (Acervo da Casa AfranioPeixoto, Lenc�ois – BA, CCAP 3.189/70). (b) Recreation of (a) in 2010. Source: Afranio Peixoto:Lives in Lenc�ois, Bahia, Brazil and runs a small historical museum of the old mining era inLenc�ois.
88 K.K. Lemmons et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Repeat photography development
Another branch of repeat photography originated from Mark Klett’s Second View: The
Rephotographic Survey Project (Klett et al., 1984). Klett created the Rephotographic
Figure 2. (a) The street Barao de Cotegipe in Barreiras, Brazil ca. 1940 (Inez Pitta de Almeida,Historia de Barreiras). (b) Recreation of (a) in 2010. Source: Inez Pitta de Almeida: a historian of thecity of Barreiras, Bahia, Brazil, and a popular school teacher.
Journal of Geography in Higher Education 89
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Survey Project in 1977 (Klett et al., 1984), with the goal of recreating the first photographs
of the West taken by US survey teams in the 1800s. Klett’s team was successful in finding
and recreating 120 of the old sites. Klett returned to his work done in Second View and
published a continuation of his work in 2004 titled Third View, designed to specifically
answer the questions that arose from the original Rephotographic Survey Project and to
address issues of representation and the consistently changing relationship of nature and
culture (Klett et al., 2004). The project revisited over 110 of the original sites to retake
photographs. Klett’s group concluded that “landscape photographs result from an
interaction of personal experience and culture influences; and second, photographers are
always participants in the making of a landscape, not simply impartial witnesses, and their
photographs are never neutral” (Klett, 2004, p. 3. Klett (2004) postulated in 1984 and
again in 2004 that photographs were not merely a static representation but that
photographs represented cultural views dependent on the photographer. For example,
which angle he/she chose to use, why he/she chose to photograph that respective site, and
how that photograph was developed were all based upon the cultural influences and the
participation of that photographer under those cultural influences.
Building upon Klett’s ideas about culture and photography, Smith (2007, p. 179) wrote
that repeat photography is a “powerful method to produce knowledge about place . . . [that
this] act goes beyond looking at historical images in archives to move our thinking onward
about how we relate to images.” For Smith (2007, p. 197), the fieldwork component of
repeat photography is an ethnographic practice; the method is a “visual, embodied strategy
that emphasizes looking, insight, and reenactment.” This process of ethnographic practice
is matched with the product, comparing the old and the new, reflecting on the changes, and
interpreting those changes (Smith, 2007).
Similar claims appear in recent studies of cultural landscape change. A small Mexican
fishing village in the 1950s that consisted of a hotel, a brick church, a few restaurants, and
some modest dwellings was rephotographed as a tourist center with several hotels, paved
roads, and sidewalks (Finn et al., 2009). The authors describe how repeat photography can
be employed to “understand the ongoing transformation of a humanized landscape” (Finn
et al., 2009, p. 593). For Finn et al. (2009), repeat photography may also be used to
visualize cultural and economic changes: “visualization” is a process that comes about
because repeat photography is more than a then-and-now exercise. Repeat photography
allows for closer “inspection of a place in motion . . . it takes the viewer beyond a single
depiction of a historical landscape and creates a narrative of place through time” (Finn
et al., 2009, p. 585).
In the field of visual sociology, Camilo Jose Vergara began to use repeat photography
to measure urban change, specifically that of urban decay and stress, focusing on New
York’s, Chicago’s, and Detoit’s urban housing projects (Vergara, 1995). More recently,
Rieger (2011) has used this method in sociology to document social change, arguing that
photographs can also be used for sociological evidence and not just for the evaluation of
physical/structural change. Rieger (2011, p. 132) suggests that images can be used to
“form the basis of interpretations about what is happening socially.”
Collectively, the work of Klett (2004), Smith (2007), Finn et al. (2009) and Rieger
(2011) suggests deeper cultural meaning in the practice and interpretation of repeat
photography. For Klett et al. (2004), landscape photographs are a result of personal
experience and cultural influences. The person taking the repeat photograph is subject to
personal experience and cultural influences and not an impartial witness, but rather a
participant in construction and reconstructing of the place/landscape. Smith (2007) further
emphasizes the importance of participation in the construction of repeat photography. She
90 K.K. Lemmons et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
states that repeat photography becomes not only an activity of observing differences
between two pictures but also an ethnographic activity where observers are participants
actively engaged in taking the repeat photo and actively observing differences (Smith,
2007). Latham and McCormack (2007, p. 243) also elaborate on the importance of being
engaged through the taking of photographs; “photography provides both a distinctive way
of engaging . . . at the same time as it offers a way of critically reflecting on the centrality
of the visual in the production of geographical knowledge.” To elaborate further on this
point, Finn et al. (2009) describe engagement through photography as being “no longer a
simple mimetic device that objectively displays a given scene.”
In an article titled “Culture and Photography,” Ferrarotti (1993, p. 75) describes
another way in which photography leads to an understanding of culture:
It is opined that photography gives time to see, to “read.” It may rightly be objected thatphotography is static. Yet dynamism is implicit in it. In contrast to videotape, cinema andtelevision, photography lets itself be looked at, granting the time needed for reading. Incommon parlance, “informing” means passing on news, delivering messages, clarifyingspecific data and situations when needed. Yet in the act of informing there is something else.At the very moment it informs, information may form, deform and transform.
Ferrarotti (1993, p. 75) further emphasizes the points made by the authors above that
photography is not merely a static representation but rather “dynamic” because it “lets
itself be looked at,” giving it the ability to “form, deform and transform” the participant/
observer.
Photographs are dynamic: they allow one to observe the aforementioned cultural
underpinnings of photographs as frozen moments in time. It is this “dynamism” that allows
one to transcend history, to see from the present day to the time of the original photo.
Through this dynamic process, repeat photography becomes an ethnographic activity,
where, again as Smith (2007) states, observers become participants actively engaged in
taking the repeat photo and actively observing differences.
Drawing on this literature, we may establish the principles of using repeat photography
as an ethnographic activity to understand culture in a teaching environment: First, ask
why the original photographer took the photo. What was their intention, motivation?
Biographical literature should be given to the participants about the photographer and some
historical context given about the original photograph that will aid participants in
discovering intent/motivation. For example, the original surveyors that Klett et al. (1984)
rephotographed, what were their intentions? These original surveyors were demonstrating
the cultural belief of “Manifest Destiny,” that thesewide open landscapes and resources that
were captured in photographs were given by divine power to fulfill a national destiny.
Second, how is the rephotographer taking the new photo? Through what cultural lens is
the rephotographer seeing and interpreting the present landscape before him/her?
What assumptions is the rephotographer making? Again, borrowing from Klett’s well-
documented experience in the late 1970s during the Rephotographic Survey Project, he
relates his personal cultural view of his rephotographs that he saw them through the lens of
“New Topographics” a movement that was a reaction to the “pure” wilderness movement.
“NewTopographics” sought not only to show nature, as was the previous movement’s goal,
but also to show the interaction of culture and nature, and how man seemed to be molding
nature. Thus, his view at the time was not that of nature and conservation, but rather an
uncritical view of how man can live with nature, and it was through this understanding that
Klett saw the rephotographs. These questions prompt the rephotographer to become an
active participant in the cultural surroundings before him/her. It causes them to reflect not
only on the past cultural influences but also on their own cultural views, how they might be
Journal of Geography in Higher Education 91
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
interpreting the scene before them due to their cultural background and upbringing. This
process furthers the participant’s understanding and level of comfort within the culture.
With time to reflect on the two images, rephotographers seek to understand meanings in
images and the causes of change in the cultural landscape from then to now.
Repeat photography critiques
Repeat photography is an ethnographic process, potentially encouraging practitioners to
reflect on the deepermeanings of photographs and culture; however, the use of photography
to record, transcribe, or interpret a foreign culture has been problematic since the medium’s
invention. As stated by Rose (2000, p. 567), “historical circumstances of a photograph’s
production and use cannot be innocently retrieved.” This section heeds Rose’s (2000,
p. 567) admonition that more consideration be “given to contemporary research practice in
relation to historical photographs,” by attempting to situate the practice of geographic
repeat photography within the larger context of photographic theory. It is important to
remember that in addition to being a scientific methodology, repeat photography functions
within the same intellectual and esthetic realm as other photographic practices, especially
when it is being used pedagogically to establish cultural connections between students and
a foreign environment. Three principle theoretical discussions of which educators using
repeat photography should be aware are (1) photography’s violence toward its subjects,
viewers, and the past as postulated by Barthes (1981); (2) the tension between the
subjective and the objective as commented upon by Sontag (1977); and (3) the recent
differentiation of the first- and third-world photography and their respective power
dynamics as outlined by anthropologist Pinney (2003).
Sharing its verbiage with themodern parlance for the discharging of firearms, the phrase
“shoot a photo” alludes to the violence implicit in the creation of a photograph.
Photographers are voyeurs and their subjects are victims. Not only is the creation of the
photograph an obtrusive and intrusive act, but also the resulting image has lasting
repercussions. The post-structuralist Roland Barthes, a key figure in the theorization of
photography as both a documentary and an esthetic form, famously proclaimed,
“Photography is violent” (Barthes, 1981, p. 91). He meant that photographs cause harm to
their viewers because they serve as a “counter-memory.” By representing objects “exactly,”
photographs deny the capacity to refuse or reimagine the past. Although thismay be an asset
for students investigating changes in landscape, it can inhibit opportunities to reconstruct
the past via personal or communal memory. When photography is the primary means
through which individuals interact with foreign cultures, the photograph can become a
surrogate for learning from personal and cultural histories, hindering rather than facilitating
direct involvement with other cultures.
Barthes’ (1981) language for describing the photograph’s subject, which he tellingly
calls “the target,” reflects photography’s violence while alluding to photography’s role as
“counter-memory”:
The person or thing photographed is the target, the referent, a kind of little simulacrum, anyeidolon emitted by the object, which I should like to call the Spectrum of the Photograph,because this word retains, through its root, a relation to the ‘spectacle’ and adds to it that ratherterrible thing which is there in every photograph: the return of the dead (Barthes, 1981, p. 9).
In reconstructing past photographs, rephotography is not only “the return of the dead”
but also a metaphorical autopsy of cultural corpses. Such procedures can be helpful and
necessary, but Barthes (1981) reminds that there is always a disjunct between past and
present, self and image, and photographer and photographed.
92 K.K. Lemmons et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
It is important to note that Barthes is most concerned with photographs of people, more
than landscapes. However, his theories are also applicable to the types of human-altered
and human-observed landscapes dealt with in this paper. Here, study abroad repeat
photography is imagined as a way of creating cultural connections between ethnically and
linguistically diverse groups. As such, it generates a three-way dialog between the
students, the native citizens of the countries they visit, and the landscapes they observe. If
this relationship becomes unilateral, for example, if the students observe the landscape
without considering the local needs, customs, traditions, or priorities which shape it, their
findings run the risk of being biased and/or incomplete. This risk is best explained in the
writings of Susan Sontag.
In contrast to Barthes, who takes issue with photography’s “exact” mechanical
reproduction of the past, Sontag, who is second only to Barthes in her influence as a photo-
theorist and a practicing photographer herself, draws attention to photography’s inherent
editorializing. Sontag (1977, p. 6) admits that “The picture may distort” but insists that
“there is always a presumption that something exists, or did exist, which is like what’s in
the picture.” Despite the flaws and limitations of photography, the mechanical fact of its
production convinces modern human audiences that photography is “more innocent, and
therefore more accurate, relation to reality than do other mimetic objects” (Sontag, 1977,
p. 6). Sontag’s goal as an author is to remind the viewers of her – and other’s –
photographs that photography is a “seductive” medium and that “the work that
photographers do is no generic exception to the usually shady commerce between art and
truth. Even when photographers are most concerned with mirroring reality, they are still
haunted by tacit imperatives of taste and conscience” (Sontag, 1977, p. 6). No
photographer can escape the prejudices and influences which frame their photographic
production, and no photograph is a completely neutral record. Photographs may seem to
“furnish evidence” but they “are as much an interpretation of the world as paintings and
drawings” (Sontag, 1977, pp. 5, 7). Sontag and Barthes address two sides of the same coin:
photographs make us feel that they are absolutely, impartially, and universally true, when
they are in actuality only shadowy reflections of one individual’s view of the past.
Sontag’s writing lays out one of the core problems of photography: deciding which
part of the photograph is “real” and which part reflects the paradigm of its creator.
It is imperative that students realize that every photograph is taken for a specific purpose
and reflects the ideologies of its creator. Likewise, it is as important for students to
rediscover why certain locations were photographed as to rediscover the locations
themselves.
The implications for this subjectivity on the practice of repeat photography are
outlined by geographer Bass (2004, p. 20):
A photograph, though surely a sort of argument or statement about its subject based on thevantage point and the subject chosen, is comprehensive. It is not comprehensive in that itcaptures and represents everything out there, but in that it captures everything in the field ofvision in front of the camera. To be sure, the photographer chooses the field of vision. Onemay choose to point the camera just right so as to barely crop out a power line or a billboard,thus telling a very different story than if it was included. Alas, any description or story has thissubjectivity inherent.
Bass defends repeat photography’s usefulness believing the benefits of its objectivity
to be greater than the weakness inherent in its subjectivity. Likewise, art theorists
have recognized photography as “a process based not on synthesis, but on selection”
(Szarkowski, 1966, p. 1). Recognizing photography’s duality (as both a subjective and an
objective medium) can help students grapple with issues of meaning, authorship, and
Journal of Geography in Higher Education 93
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
“othering,” which represent the primary ethical concern for such projects. Hopefully,
placing repeat photography within a larger theorization of photography and making its
implications known to the students who practice it will help circumvent these issues.
The practice of photography has often been articulated as a form of visual and
ideological colonization marginalizing the contributions of minority groups (Pinney,
2003). This interpretation has only recently been challenged by researchers such as Pinney
(2003) who combats the vision of photography as a “shamanic trace exported from one
demiworld to the other” (Pinney, 2003, p. 1). Pinney (2003) recognizes that the prominent
historical narrative has been the technical progression of photographic practice,
highlighting the achievements of Western, first-world photographers. His volume and
others like it attempt to shift the focus away from the stereotypical experience of the
civilized white-man capturing and controlling images of primitive “others.”
Modern “othering” would presumably occur in situations like contemporary study
abroad programs where students are grouped with others of like background and then sent
out to explore a foreign culture. In her research of “othering” in the context of study
abroad, Nairn (2005, p. 306) states that
Fieldtrips are ‘a way of seeing’ dependent on direct experience, which has similar patricianeffects. Although students may not be landowners, their status as geography ‘knowledge-owners’ (that is, they are geographically ‘knowledgeable’), has similar effects to those ofsocial class.
She warns that study abroad may reinforce racism (in at least some students) and may
therefore be ethically wrong. Repeat photography replicates not only the physical
specifications but also the cultural conditions for the creation of original imperialist
photographs (because the students are privileged outsiders, rather than cultural insiders),
and therefore, may recreate the negative social consequences of prejudice, fear, morbid
fascination, etc. which have haunted photography since its invention.
To avoid repeating the stereotyping rampant in photography’s first century of use,
student rephotographers must be helped to recognize that photography is “globally
disseminated and locally appropriated” and that “it is cultural practice that is the true motor
of photography” (Pinney, 2003, pp. 1, 14). Repeat photography (and the study abroad
experience as a whole) must not be merely an “objective practice,” but an opportunity for
critical reexamination recognizing the problems of procedural violence, subjectivity, and
political power dynamics. When combined with opportunities to investigate the socio-
historical background of landscapes they contain, repeat photography can be a valuable
tool in dismantling some of the negative stereotypes encapsulated in the originals.
Methods and explanation of repeat photo activities
Students from two short-term study abroad programs were examined using the methods of
semi-structured interviews (Dunn, 2000) and focus groups (Cameron, 2000). Group one
(n ¼ 12) was a human geography field course to Brazil in the summer of 2010. Group two
(n ¼ 18) participated in a combined physical and human geography field course to Costa
Rica in the summer of 2011. Typical post-trip fieldwork and study abroad research and
assessment comprise questionnaires rather than interviews and focus groups (Fuller,
Rawlinson, & Bevan, 2000; Hovorka & Wolf, 2009). Klofstad (2005) states that these
questionnaires are unlikely to elicit the detailed information that may be gained through
interviews and focus groups. Houser, Brannstrom, Quiring, and Lemmons (2011) argue
that post-trip study abroad research that uses techniques such as semi-structured
interviews and focus groups, although not definitive, provides rare explanations for the
94 K.K. Lemmons et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
phenomena being researched. The findings for this research design are suggestive and
explanatory and not definitive.
Accompanying the two programs as a researcher and active participant was the first
author. At the beginning of the two study abroad programs, the researcher made his role
and purpose known to the participating students. All students signed a release form
allowing for participant observation, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews,
although the students were not made aware that the researcher was specifically focusing on
their interaction with the host culture. The active participant role taken by the researcher
within the study abroad program facilitated information exchange between the researcher
and the student participant, which in turn allowed for the collection of information not
typically elicited in interviews or focus groups (Jackson, 2006). The qualitative methods
of semi-structured interviews and focus groups were implemented to elicit information
regarding the efficacy of repeat photography in increasing cultural interaction and
understanding. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with students post-trip to gain
access to information about specific repeat photography activities, opinions, and
experiences (Dunn, 2000). Interviews lasted between 5 and 15min, specifically, two
questions were asked about the repeat photography activities: (1) what were your
impressions of the repeat photography activity? and (2) what would you change about the
repeat photography activity to make it better? Eleven of the 12 Brazil study abroad
participants were interviewed. Three of the 11 who were interviewed gave their responses
via email because they were not available for personal interviews after the trip. Thirteen of
the 18 Costa Rica study abroad participants were interviewed. Table 3 gives a list and
description of participants.
Focus groups were held to gain a greater understanding of key themes presented
throughout the repeat photography exercise with regard to cultural interaction and
understanding (Cameron, 2000). The focus groups were conducted at the very end of the
program, and groups were composed of four to six participants. All students participated in
the focus groups. The questions asked in the focus group were very open ended to
encourage discussion. Examples of questions asked are as follows: (1) which problem-
based learning activity did you find most effective in helping you interact with the host
culture? (2) Which activities were not helpful? If the repeat photography activity was not
discussed specifically, then the students would have been prompted by the mediator to
address these same two questions specifically about the repeat photography.
In two study abroad programs, the instructor used a problem-based learning structure
(Spronken-Smith, 2005), focused on human geography, to encourage students to interact
with people and places in Brazil and Costa Rica (see Tables 1 and 2 for PBL schedule and
activity). The instructor (second author) developed the PBL modules for the Brazil 2010
program after experimentation in a Brazil 2005 program and refinement in a Brazil 2008
program. The main structural constraint was lack of language requirement, which would
have dissuaded nearly all students from participating in the programs. No language
requirement was placed on student participation in the study abroad program because
majors targeted (Geography, Environmental Studies and Environmental Geosciences)
have no foreign language requirement; moreover, the university does not teach
Portuguese. Understandably, the language barrier created difficulty for students in
understanding and interacting with the host culture. The instructor opted not to conduct the
program as a field trip with translated lectures made by local experts, learning from
negative student reactions in the 2005 program, and unwilling to deliver content in lecture-
based format. Therefore, the instructor opted for a problem-based learning approach
“passing the responsibility of learning onto students so that the role of the tutor is as a
Journal of Geography in Higher Education 95
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
facilitator” (Spronken-Smith, 2005, p. 204). PBL activities included land-use mapping,
studies of place marketing and the informal economy, repeat photography, and interviews
with English-speaking tourists. PBL activities took place in several cities, as each study
abroad program moved to a different city every 2–4 days. For example, the instructor
briefly discussed written “problems” on some aspect of the city in which the program was
temporarily based. With scholarly articles as required readings, for background, students
were instructed to work in small groups and deliver required products, such as a sketch
map or an essay. The instructor conducted daily debriefing sessions and provided guidance
on safety issues and strategic approaches to solving the particular problems. Foreign
language proficiency was not mandatory, so that problem-solving depended on
observations rather than on sustained discussion with city residents. Repeat photography
was one of these problem-based modules aimed at enhancing students’ cultural interaction
in this problem-based format (Tables 1 and 2).
The method of repeat photography was the same for both study abroad groups.
Students were given copies of historical photographs, and were then instructed to find
Table 2. Brazil 2010 schedule.
Numberof days Location PBL activity
4.5 Salvador Pelourinho land-use mapping (Scarpaci, 2004; Fernandes & FilgueirasGomes, 2009); Pelourinho place-marketing; Pelourinho historical maps;Pelourinho repeat ground photography; Market territoriality; Barra beachterritoriality (Freeman, 2008)
4.5 Imbassaı Land-use mapping; repeat photography in Praia do Forte; Place marketingin Praia do Forte; hotel development (de Vasconcellos Pegas & Stronza,2010); tourism impacts through survey development; environment-development conflicts (de Vasconcellos Pegas & Stronza, 2010)
6.5 Lenc�ois Land-use mapping (Scarpaci, 2004); the prac�a (Curtis, 2000); placeconsumption; environmental conservation (Funch & Harley, 2007)
5.5 Barreiras Land-use mapping; agrarian reform tour; territoriality at riverfront; prac�a;food preferences; repeat ground photography; urban sanitation mapping(Barreto et al., 2007)
4.5 Luis EduardoMagalhaes
Environmental policy tour (Brannstrom, 2009); land-use mapping; prac�a;“find the American”; urban development
4 Brasılia International relations tour (Itamaraty); urban environmental processes;super-quadras and satellite city comparison (Acioly, 1994; Kohlsdorf,Kohlsdorf, & de Holanda, 2009)
Table 1. Costa Rica 2011 schedule.
Numberof days Location PBL activity
1 Soltis Center Lecture: Cultural landscapes2.5 La Fortuna Hybrid landscapes (Spencer, 2011); vernacular landscapes (Fry, 2008);
land-use/cover; tourism outcomes (Matarrita-Cascante, 2010)2.5 Liberia Hybrid landscapes; vernacular landscapes; city structure model
(Ford, 1996); tourism outcomes; the plaza (Tillman, 2009)4.5 Playa del Coco Landscape imprint of tourism (Everitt, Massam, Chavez-Dagostino,
Espinosa Sanchez, & Andrade Romo, 2008)4 Puerto Limon Rewriting the tourist map (Seidl, Guillano, & Pratt, 2007); repeat ground
photography
96 K.K. Lemmons et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
these locations and to take photographs of the same “object” from the same exact angle
and distance as the historical photograph and to assess the differences between the past and
the present. Purposefully, the students were not shown where the locations were, nor given
directions on how to arrive there. They were, however, given general areas in which to find
the photograph location. This was done to encourage the students to explore parts of the
city that they may not normally explore and to encourage students to interact with the local
host culture by showing locals the pictures and gesturing as to where it might be despite
the language barrier.
Implementation of the repeat photography tasks varied between the Brazil group and
the Costa Rica group. In Brazil, repeat photography occurred in three settings during the
program: in the colonial center, Pelourinho, on the second or third day of the program;
2 days later, in a beach setting undergoing rapid transition in tourism; and 2 weeks later,
after students had acquired much more familiarity with the PBL format and with getting
around in Brazil. In Costa Rica, the repeat photography module occurred in the final days
of the program, in Limon, a city in which many students were uncomfortable because
women received stares and whistles, and some students had been told, previously, by
Costa Ricans that the city was crime ridden and dangerous. The differences in
implementation between the two groups were used to compare results to see which method
was most efficient and to evaluate whether repeat photography was a capable method to
increase cultural interaction.
In Brazil, repeat photography was preceded by a historical explanation of the site and
city through impromptu lectures, discussions, and published articles. Repeat photography
was used in three different cities. The first was in the country’s colonial capital, Salvador,
the second in a nineteenth-century mining boom region (Chapada Diamantina), and the
Table 3. Study abroad participants.
Participant Gender Program Interview type
1BR Female Brazil In person2BR Male Brazil In person3BR Male Brazil In person4BR Male Brazil In person5BR Female Brazil In person6BR Female Brazil In person7BR Male Brazil In person8BR Female Brazil In person9BR Female Brazil Via email10BR Male Brazil Via email11BR Female Brazil Via email1CR Male Costa Rica In person2CR Female Costa Rica In person3CR Male Costa Rica In person4CR Female Costa Rica In person5CR Female Costa Rica In person6CR Male Costa Rica In person7CR Female Costa Rica In person8CR Female Costa Rica In person9CR Female Costa Rica In person10CR Male Costa Rica In person11CR Male Costa Rica In person12CR Male Costa Rica In person13CR Male Costa Rica In person
Journal of Geography in Higher Education 97
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
third in a former economic backwater (Barreiras). In Salvador, students received photos,
ca. 1950, from Pierre Verger’s collection of the Pelourinho historical district, now a major
tourist attraction (Fernandes & Filgueiras Gomes, 2009). Verger, a French native and
photojournalist, took thousands of photographs across Brazil while researching the
African Diaspora in the Americas. Students were instructed to rephotograph the buildings
and write an essay discussing major changes in function and appearance. In the Chapada
Diamantina, students received an image taken around the end of the nineteenth century
showing workers looking for black diamonds or carbonate, highly sought after for tunnel
construction in European cities.
In Barreiras, a former backwater in western Bahia until the rise of a globally
competitive agricultural economy (Brannstrom, 2009), we used images from the 1940s
collected by a popular school teacher, Ignez Pitta de Almeida. After receiving the images,
students were instructed to find the location and answer questions: (1) what are the main
changes observed? (2) what is the approximate age of the photo? and (3) what conclusions
can you make about the historical geography of Barreiras?
In Costa Rica, students were directed to required readings on the site, the Caribbean
city of Limon (Harpelle, 2001; Parsons, 1954; Putnam, 2010), visited at the end of the 2-
week program. Students received two images from a 1920s book by a prominent
photographer (Gomez Miralles, 2002 [1922]), and were instructed to find the site that was
only three blocks from the hotel in which the program was temporarily based. The activity
was aimed at having students appreciate the twentieth-century history of Limon. A
boomtown in the late 1880s and early 1900s, when it was the headquarters for banana
exports which imported Jamaican laborers, Limon began a long decline when the banana
firms moved to other plantation sites, in which workers were barred by racist migration
policies from moving. The Afro-Caribbean population in Costa Rica, concentrated in the
Caribbean, forms a significant minority in the country. Other PBL activities in Limon
included production of an “alternative” tourist map (contrasted with a cruise-line map) that
would emphasize the Afro-Costa Rican cultural landscape.
Outside of the basic instructions listed directly above, the students were not directed in
the repeat photography activity according to the five steps developed in the conclusion of
this paper. These steps were formulated post facto in an effort to further bolster the repeat
photography exercise.
Results
The results are based on a synthesis of both interview and focus group responses analyzed
through content analysis. In this section, several students responded to questions by saying
that the activity helped and even forced them to “see.” It is recognized that this “vision” is
subject to the same limitations as photography. This point will be expounded on in the
subsequent section. Due to the nature of the field trip in Brazil, the students were given
more instruction, historical background, and number of activities to do as compared with
the Costa Rica group. Although the Costa Rica group came one year after the Brazil group,
the students were given fewer instructions, historical background, and number of activities
to see if students still came away with the same results as Brazil 2010 being left more to
their own devices in doing the repeat photography activity.
Brazil
An analysis of the Brazil student responses shows that three students said that repeat
photography did not help them interact with the culture (Male 2BR, Male 3BR, and Female
98 K.K. Lemmons et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
5BR). They said that they were not doing repeat photography with the purpose of
understanding the culture but for the purpose of getting a good grade in their field geography
course. Eight students said that repeat photography helped them a lot in understanding the
culture more than if there were no repeat photography activity (Female 1BR, Male 4BR,
Female 6BR, Male 7BR, Female 8BR, Female 9BR, Male 10BR, and Female 11BR). In
analyzing the student’s responses, it became apparent that there were four overarching
reasons why repeat photography was beneficial toward increased cultural interaction. First,
it forced the students to get out and explore. One student noted that if it were not for repeat
photography, “they would have just looked for restaurants, bars and stores” (Male 4BR).
Another stated that “if they didn’t have repeat photography to do they would have stayed in
the hotel and drank” alcohol (Female 6BR). Furthermore, Female 9BR wrote that “it
allowed me to explore the city with some freedom, but also with some structure.” Second,
the students expressed that repeat photography “forced us to see” (Female 8BR) and that
repeat photography “helped you see things, helped you realize how it was, made you see
how people’s way of life was there, how things have changed throughout the years”
(Male 7BR). Another student wrote that “it made us look at the details and consider how
these changes are related to the changing of Brazil” (Male 10BR). Third, the students
expressed that after being forced to explore and enabled to see that being engaged in the
activity helped them to feel more comfortable in their surroundings. They were
“uncomfortable” because they were trying to navigate a foreign environment. One student
said that the activity “kept us from worrying because it gave us something else to focus on
. . . which made us feel more comfortable” (Female 6BR). Fourth, because students felt
more comfortable it helped them “to try and communicate with people” (Female 1BR). The
students said that because they felt more comfortable they felt less inhibited to interact with
the host culture, which the activity helped even further “because you don’t have to know the
language to show someone a picture” (Male 4BR). Two other students expounded further
on how repeat photography encouraged interaction despite the language barrier:
I will never forget one particular location because we were guided by several people to the cityhistorian, who showed us all around the city, trying to explain all about the buildings and thechanges that had taken place in the city since WWII. She was so enthusiastic about the citythat she even took us to places that we didn’t have in our collection to show us some reallyinteresting things (Female 9BR)
I most definitely think it helped understand the host culture . . . it also helped with theinteraction with the host [culture] mainly because we had to walk around the cities and figureout what we were looking for on our own and even ask questions to the local people. Theinteraction with the host culture was one my favorite aspects of the whole trip (Female 11BR)
Even further on this point, another student wrote that taking the pictures from the “exact
same angle got annoying” that the activity of taking the exact photo was not seen as
beneficial as:
the interactions I had with Brazilian citizens or even the conversations I had with otherstudents on the trip about their experiences with these activities. So in the end the way theactivity helped me most experience the host culture was the interaction it prompted betweenme and the other students and me and the local Brazilians (Male 10BR)
In these quotes, we see the effect that the repeat photo activities had on the students that
the activity facilitated interaction by creating a medium through which they could
communicate and interact.
The students expressed that their eyes were opened because of this activity, forcing
them to “see” the then and now, the past compared with the present, and the apparent
Journal of Geography in Higher Education 99
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
changes that have occurred in the landscape. The students also expressed that the
activity helped them to interact through pictures despite the language barrier. The data
for Brazil suggest that repeat photography was beneficial in helping the majority (8 out
of 11) of the students interact with the host culture better than if there were no repeat
photography activity.
Costa Rica
For the less guided activity in Costa Rica, 11 out of the 13 students interviewed said that
the repeat photography activity did not increase their cultural interaction. However, 7 of
those 11 said that although the activity did not increase cultural interaction, it did
increase their historical cultural understanding of the locale. In all 13 interviews, the
students stated that they believed that repeat photography has the potential to increase
cultural interaction, but that the city of Limon presented specific difficulties. In the
interviews, the students explained why they thought that the activity was not conducive
for increased cultural engagement and understanding. Five main themes persisted in the
student’s comments. First, being in big groups to do the activity hindered student ability
to interact with the host culture. Students said that locals appeared to be intimidated by
big groups of students, which made soliciting information from the locals (e.g., showing
them a photo) almost impossible. Second, a lack of background information about the
photos limited their ability to understand the “why” behind the photo. Male 6CR stated
that
repeat photo did not help my understanding. It was just taking a picture. If I were to havelearned more about the history of the photo then I would have understood why I was taking thepicture myself. But our activity wasn’t digging any deeper.
Female 7CR said that the activity “didn’t go into depth with the pictures. I didn’t know
historical background of photos so it wasn’t meaningful. Understanding the background
on the areas would be more beneficial.” Third, most of the students did not feel safe in the
city of Limon while doing the activity, which in turn hindered their ability to interact with
the host culture. The reason that students did not feel safe in Limon is because it was the
last stop on their study abroad program and even though the students had begun to feel
more comfortable within the Costa Rican culture, Limon presented them, yet again, with
another foreign culture that they had yet to understand – the Caribbean/Rastafarian culture
of Costa Rica’s east coast. Students were again faced with the difficulties of navigating a
foreign culture, and felt uncomfortable in their new surroundings. Also, students were
warned that Limon had historically been a more dangerous city and to take extra
precautions, which played further into the students fears. Fourth, since the students were
given the freedom to do the activity as they chose, several of them waited until the end and
had fellow students show them where the locations were. Male 13CR said that the
historical change was great to see, but our group was shown where the photographs werelocated sowe didn’t have to do any of thework.Would have beenmuch better if wewere forcedto get out and search around the city for the picture locations. It would have forced us to look.
The focus groups became the catalyst for the discovery of the fifth theme. After the
students had time to share their ideas and experiences in a group about the repeat
photography exercise, they expressed their frustration of not knowing how to observe.
Group 1 said that through the exercise “we saw things that we wouldn’t have otherwise
seen. However, we didn’t know what we were looking for; do I really understand what I
am looking at? We were observing but we were not sure what we were observing.” Group
2 expressed a similar sentiment
100 K.K. Lemmons et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
our observations felt too shallow. We wanted to know how to get deeper, how to makeobservations, how to see through their point of view, see through their lens. We thought wewere going to get a lot more out the repeat photography activity, it was fun but it wasn’tdeveloped enough.
Furthermore, Group 3 stated that
we felt like we were just guessing when it comes to observation. Our observations were veryshallow . . . [due to] our lack of understanding. If we were taught more about the backgroundthen maybe our observations would have been more meaningful.
It became obvious after analyzing the Brazil 2010 and Costa Rica 2011 student
responses that results differed. Students being left more to their own devices (given less
instruction and structure) in doing the repeat photography exercise, as they were in Costa
Rica 2011, gained much less out of the activity than Brazil 2010 which was given much
more instruction and history about the activity. As a result, this paper builds upon the
existing technique of repeat photography and gives further depth and instruction in its
implementation to foster cultural interaction and understanding.
Discussion
With study abroad programs growing shorter and with no required language component,
students are less likely to understand how to interact within and understand the host
culture (Molinsky & Perunovic, 2008). Therefore, there exists a need for new
methodologies to increase and focus student’s cultural interactions in a shorter period of
time. Photography is submitted as a possible method to increase cultural interaction
because as described in the introduction it (1) encourages “directed observation” (Sanders,
2007); (2) helps students “look with intention” (Sanders, 2007); (3) “provides an
opportunity to hear multiple voices in multiple ways” (Sanders, 2007, p. 1); and (4)
enhances the quality of student engagement (Latham & McCormack, 2007). However,
photography, as described in the “Repeat Photography Critique” section of this paper, has
many limitations keeping it from being an objective method to increase cultural
interaction. We understand that photographs have seemingly endless limitations, it is
evident in the Brazil student responses that they did not recognize or understand because
of these limitations; they believed that they were “seeing” the “truth” through their
observation and not aware of how their observations might be influenced by their cultural
lens. The Costa Rican group appeared to be more cautious in drawing conclusions based
on their observations, not necessarily because they understood that their observations were
influenced by their cultural lens or how the photographer took the photo but because their
knowledge of the area and comfort level were much more limited than that of the Brazil
activity. Post-structural theorists would say that despite student responses, they still do not
know how to see/understand even though they claim to be able to do so. It is here, at this
juncture, that repeat photography developed pragmatically in Brazil and Costa Rica study
abroad programs and theoretically in this paper that the method becomes the strong and
creative tool sought for. Repeat photography can, in a way, take “advantage” of the
limitations of photography. It is the need to interpret photographs and see them as
creations and recreations of culture instead of as objective representations that give repeat
photography its meaning and context. As stated in the critique section, it is imperative that
students realize that every photograph is taken for a specific purpose and reflects the
ideologies of its creator. Therefore, it is important for students to rediscover the meaning
behind why certain locations were photographed so as to rediscover the locations
themselves. Repeat photography works on the basis of these limitations, the limitations of
Journal of Geography in Higher Education 101
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
photography is repeat photography’s strength, the need to understand the cultural context
of the past and the present. The “dynamic” process of this method is what insights cultural
interaction.
Conclusion
According to the results, developing the method of repeat photography, as was done
pragmatically, to increase cultural understanding and interaction was not enough. Students
expressed that it helped but deeper understanding was missing. Through an exploration of
the literature, it has been established that five key principles can be implemented in an
effort to increase cultural understanding and interaction in a short-term study abroad.
Repeat photography can be used to further understand the host culture and one’s own
culture by enlisting these five steps: (1) asking why did the original photographer take this
photo? What was the photographer’s reason? What was the photographer trying to show?
(2) Asking, how am I taking this photo, through what lens am I seeing the present cultural
landscape? (3) Allow time to reflect on the historic image and the image taken, allowing
them to communicate to you. (4) Try to understand what caused the changes in the cultural
landscape from then to now. (5) Active participation. By doing the steps above the
students become active participants. Active participation through repeat photo activity
allows the student to further understand their cultural surroundings, increasing their level
of comfort within the host culture and increasing their understanding of the host and their
own culture.
From the data collected, it appears that student’s responses did not necessarily reflect
the same reasons as those stated above as to why repeat photography helped them interact
with and understand the culture. The students did not mention anything about the original
photographer’s intent, nor did they mention anything about their own cultural lens. They
did mention the effect of the “then and now,” that it allowed them to see the changes over
time, but they did not relate this to culture as expected. The reasons for this might be the
fact that the students were not coached on how to use repeat photography as a tool toward
cultural understanding, but rather the students were left to their own devices in using this
method.
However, the students stated something that was unexpected that the photographs
provided them a medium through which they could communicate without knowing the
language. One student stated that after asking for help “one woman followed us around,
helping us while doing the repeat photography activity,” and that the photographs helped
them communicate and interact (Female 1BR).
Again, student responses were based on repeat photography activities that gave
students very little direction on how to conduct repeat photography. It is recommended
that students be taught to use the steps derived from the literature. We expect that through
this process students will increase cultural interaction in turn making it possible to increase
cultural understanding.
References
Acioly, C. C. Jr. (1994). Incremental land development in Brasilia: Can the poor escape fromsuburbanisation? Third World Planning Review, 16, 243–261.
Arreola, D., & Burkhart, N. (2010). Photographic postcards and visual urban landscape. UrbanGeography, 31, 885–904.
Bahre, C. J. (1991). A legacy of change: Historic human impact on vegetation in the Arizonaborderlands. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
102 K.K. Lemmons et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Bahre, C. J., & Bradbury, D. E. (1978). Vegetation change along the Arizona-Sonora boundary.Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 68, 145–165.
Barreto, M. L., Genser, B., Strina, A., Teixeira, M. G., Assis, A. M. O., Rego, R. F., Teles, C. A., . . .Cairncross, S. (2007). Effect of city-wide sanitation programme on reduction in rate ofchildhood diarrhoea in northeast Brazil: Assessment by two cohort studies. The Lancet, 370,1622–1628.
Barthes, R. (1981). Camera Lucida: Reflections on photography, (R. Howard, Trans.). New York,NY: Hill and Wang.
Bass, J. (2004). More trees in the tropics. Area, 36, 19–32.Bass, J. (2005). Message in the plaza: Landscape, landscaping, and forest discourse in Honduras.
Geographical Review, 95, 556–577.Biles, J. J., & Lindley, T. (2009). Geography, geographers, and study abroad. Journal of Geography,
108, 92–93.Bishop, M. P. (2009). International multidisciplinary research and education: A mountain geography
perspective. Journal of Geography, 108, 112–120.Brannstrom, C. (2009). South America’s neoliberal agricultural frontiers: Places of environmental
sacrifice or conservation opportunity? Ambio, 38, 141–149.Burton, C., Mitchell, J., & Cutter, S. (2011). Evaluating post-Katrina recover in Mississippi using
repeat photography. Disasters, 35, 488–509.Cameron, J. (2000). Focussing on the focus group. In I. Hay (Ed.), Qualitative research methods in
human geography. South Melbourne; Oxford: Oxford University Press.Curtis, J. (2000). Prac�as, place, and public life in Brazil. Geographical Review, 90, 475–492.de Vasconcellos Pegas, F., & Stronza, A. (2010). Ecotourism and sea turtle harvesting in a fishing
billage of Bahia, Brazil. Conservation and Society, 8, 15–25.Dunn, K. (2000). Interviewing. In I. Hay (Ed.), Qualitative research methods in human geography
(pp. 50–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Everitt, J., Massam, B. H., Chavez-Dagostino, R. M., Espinosa Sanchez, R., & Andrade Romo, A.
(2008). The imprints of tourism on Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico. The Canadian Geographer,52, 83–104.
Fernandes, A., & Filgueiras Gomes, M. A. A. (2009). Revisiting the Pelourinho: Preservation,cultural heritage, and place marketing in Salvador, Bahia. In V. del Rio & W. Siembieda (Eds.),Contemporary urbanism in Brazil: Beyond Brasılia (pp. 144–163). Gainseville: UniversityPress of Florida.
Ferrarotti, F. (1993). Culture and photography: Reading sociology through a lens. InternationalJournal of Politics, Culture & Society, 7, 75–95.
Finn, J., Fernandez, A., Sutton, L., Arreola, D. D., Allen, C. D., & Smith, C. (2009). Puerto Penasco:Fishing village to tourist mecca. Geographical Review, 99, 575–597.
Ford, L. R. (1996). A new and improved model of Latin American city structure. GeographicalReview, 86, 437–440.
Freeman, J. (2008). Great, good, and divided: The politics of public space in Rio de Janeiro. Journalof Urban Affairs, 30, 529–556.
Fry, M. (2008). Mexico’s concrete block landscape: A modern legacy in the vernacular. Journal ofLatin American Geography, 7, 35–58.
Fuller, I. C., Rawlinson, S. R., & Bevan, J. R. (2000). Evaluation of student learning experiences inphysical geography fieldwork: Paddling or pedagogy? Journal of Geography in HigherEducation, 24, 199–215.
Funch, R. R., & Harley, R. M. (2007). Reconfiguring the boundaries of the Chapada DiamantinaNational Park (Brazil) using ecological criteria in the context of a human-dominated landscape.Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 355–362.
Gomez Miralles, M. (2002 [1922]). Costa Rica, America Central, 1922. San Jose: EditorialUniversidad Estatal a Distancia.
Hall, T. (2009). The camera never lies? Photographic research methods in human geography.Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33, 453–462.
Harpelle, R. N. (2001). The West Indians of Costa Rica: Race, class, and the integration of an ethnicminority. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Hastings, J. R., & Turner, R. M. (1965). The changing mile: An ecological study of vegetationchange with time in the lower mile of an arid and semiarid region. Tucson: University ofArizona Press.
Journal of Geography in Higher Education 103
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Hattersley-Smith, G. (1966). The symposium on glacier mapping. Canadian Journal of EarthSciences, 3, 737–741.
Houser, C., Brannstrom, C., Quiring, S., & Lemmons, K. (2011). Study abroad field trip improvestest performance through engagement and new social networks. Journal of Geography in HigherEducation, 35, 513–528.
Hovorka, A. J., & Wolf, P. A. (2009). Activating the classroom: Geographical fieldwork aspedagogical practice. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33, 89–102.
IIE. (2012). Open doors 2012: International student enrollment increased by 6 percent. RetrievedNovember 2012, from http://www.iie.org/en/Who-We-Are/News-and-Events/Press-Center/Press-Releases/2012/11-13-2012-Open-Doors-International-Students
Jackson, J. (2006). Ethnographic pedagogy and evaluation in short-term study abroad. In M. Byram&A. Feng (Eds.), Living and studying abroad: Research and practice (pp. 134–156). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Kay, C. E. (2002). The use of repeat photography to evaluate long-term vegetation change and theland management in South-Central and South West Utah. Institute of Political Economy, UtahState University. Retrieved October 2012, from http://extension.ssu.edu/rra/
Klett, M., Bajakian, K., Fox, W., Marshall, M., Ueshina, T., & Wolfe, B. (2004). Third view, secondsights: A rephotographic survey project of the American West. Santa Fe, NM: Museum of NewMexico Press.
Klett, M., Manchester, E., Verberg, J., Bushaw, G., Dingus, R., & Berger, P. (1984). Second view:The rephotographic survey project. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Klofstad, C. A. (2005). Interviews. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement(Vol. 2, pp. 359–363). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kohlsdorf, M. E., Kohlsdorf, G., & de Holanda, F. (2009). Brasılia: Permanence andtransformations. In V. del Rio & W. Siembieda (Eds.), Contemporary urbanism in Brazil:Beyond Brasılia (pp. 42–64). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Kull, C. A. (2005). Historical landscape repeat photography as a tool for land use change research.Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 59, 253–268.
Latham, A., & McCormack, D. P. (2007). Digital photography and web-based assignments in anurban field course: Snapshots from Berlin. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31,241–256.
Martin, S. C., & Turner, R. M. (1977). Vegetation change in the Sonoran Desert region, Arizona andSonora. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science, 12, 59–69.
Matarrita-Cascante, D. (2010). Beyond growth: Reaching tourism-led development. Annals ofTourism Research, 37, 1141–1163.
Molinsky, A., & Perunovic, W. (2008). Training wheels for cultural learning: Poor language fluencyand its shielding effect on the evaluation of culturally inappropriate behavior. Journal OfLanguage & Social Psychology, 27, 284–289.
Nairn, K. (2005). The problems of utilizing ‘direct experience’ in geography education. Journal ofGeography in Higher Education, 29, 293–309.
Parsons, J. J. (1954). English speaking settlement of the western Caribbean Yearbook. Association ofPacific Coast Geographers, 16, 3–16.
Pinney, C. (2003). Introduction: How the other half. In C. Pinney & N. Peterson (Eds.),Photography’s other histories (pp. 1–14). Durham: Duke University Press.
Putnam, L. (2010). Eventually alien: The multigenerational saga of British West Indians in CentralAmerica, 1870–1940. In L. Gudmundson & J. Wolfe (Eds.), Blacks and blackness in CentralAmerica: Between race and place (pp. 262–264). Durham: Duke University Press.
Rieger, J. (2011). Rephotography for documenting social change. In E. Margolis & L. Pauwels(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of visual research methods (pp. 132–149). Los Angeles: Sage.
Rose, G. (2000). Practising photography: An archive, a study, some photographs and a researcher.Journal of Historical Geography, 26, 555–571.
Rose, G. (2008). Using photographs as illustrations in human geography. Journal of Geography inHigher Education, 32, 151–160.
Sanders, R. (2007). Developing geographers through photography: Enlarging concepts. Journal ofGeography in Higher Education, 31, 181–195.
Scarpaci, J. L. (2004). Plazas and barrios: Heritage tourism and globalization in the Latin AmericanCentro Historico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
104 K.K. Lemmons et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Seidl, A., Guillano, F., & Pratt, L. (2007). Cruising for colones: Cruise tourism economics in CostaRica. Tourism Economics, 13, 67–85.
Sidaway, J. (2002). Photography as geographical fieldwork. Journal of Geography in HigherEducation, 26, 95–103.
Smith, T. (2007). Repeat photography as a method in visual anthropology. Visual Anthropology, 20,179–200.
Sontag, S. (1977). On Photography. New York, NY: Picador.Spencer, A. (2011). Americans create hybrid spaces in Costa Rica: A framework for exploring
cultural and linguistic integration. Language and Intercultural Communication, 11, 59–74.Spronken-Smith, R. (2005). Implementing a problem-based learning approach for teaching research
methods in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29, 203–221.Szarkowski, J. (1966). The photographer’s eye. New York, NY: Museum of Modern Art; distributed
by Doubleday, Garden City, NY.Tillman, B. F. (2009). Measuring globalization’s influence on the cultural landscape: Spatial
succession in the plaza of Ponce, Puerto Rico. Southeastern Geographer, 49, 340–353.Vergara, C. J. (1995). The New American ghetto. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Walker, J., & Leib, J. (2002). Revisiting the topia road: Walking in the footsteps of West and
Parsons. Geographical Review, 92, 555–581.Webb, R. H., Boyer, D. E., & Turner, R. M. (Eds.). (2010). Repeat photography: Methods and
applications in the natural sciences. Washington: Island Press.White, C., & Hart, E. J. (2007). The lens of time: A repeat photography of landscape change in the
Canadian Rockies. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Works, M. A., & Hadley, K. S. (2000). Hace cincuenta anos: Repeat photography and landscape
change in the Sierra Purepecha of Michoacan, Mexico. Yearbook, Conference of Latin AmericanGeograhy, 26, 139–155.
Journal of Geography in Higher Education 105
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
4:48
02
Dec
embe
r 20
14
