The Light Bulb Went on: A Historiography-Based Approach to Disentangling Audio Description’s Influential U.S. Roots From Its Common Practices

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 REHABILITATION
Sajja Koirala, Brett Oppegaard
{"title":"The Light Bulb Went on: A Historiography-Based Approach to Disentangling Audio Description’s Influential U.S. Roots From Its Common Practices","authors":"Sajja Koirala, Brett Oppegaard","doi":"10.1177/0145482X221116903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: American media-accessibility pioneers in the 1970s and 1980s not only sparked interest in the academic study of audio description, they also originated many practical techniques, protocols, theoretical perspectives, guidelines, and standards that persist in the fabric of this type of work decades later. In this study, we located and analyzed source documents for two oft-mentioned innovators—Gregory Frazier and Margaret Pfanstiehl—to shine light on their individual perspectives through a historiography of their foundational writings and associated media. Method: This analysis was conducted on publicly available source documents, such as Frazier’s landmark thesis and also included a trove of Pfanstiehl’s personal correspondence, as a way to establish particular points of theoretical and historical interest. Results: We found that despite the prominent place of Frazier and Pfanstiehl in audio description lore, neither actually published much writing about what they did and why they did it. Some of what they wrote has been selectively repeated, but other parts have been forgotten. In that respect, this research method could be used to more precisely trace and identify where particular practices emerged, under which theoretical perspectives, and complications. It also can help to show how these ideas were documented and tested during their emergence and domestication, as a way to gauge procedural rigor as well as validity of related findings. Discussion: Audio description scholarship needs theoretical anchors, but it also needs systematic testing of assumptions inherent in those theoretics, which this study helps to identify. Implications for Practitioners: Audio describers invariably will encounter the moment when an assertion of “this is the way we do it” collides with the curiosity of “why?” To promote best practices, the field has to understand where practices came from, how they developed, and as Frazier recommended, put those ideas to “objective” tests.","PeriodicalId":47438,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness","volume":"116 1","pages":"461 - 472"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X221116903","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: American media-accessibility pioneers in the 1970s and 1980s not only sparked interest in the academic study of audio description, they also originated many practical techniques, protocols, theoretical perspectives, guidelines, and standards that persist in the fabric of this type of work decades later. In this study, we located and analyzed source documents for two oft-mentioned innovators—Gregory Frazier and Margaret Pfanstiehl—to shine light on their individual perspectives through a historiography of their foundational writings and associated media. Method: This analysis was conducted on publicly available source documents, such as Frazier’s landmark thesis and also included a trove of Pfanstiehl’s personal correspondence, as a way to establish particular points of theoretical and historical interest. Results: We found that despite the prominent place of Frazier and Pfanstiehl in audio description lore, neither actually published much writing about what they did and why they did it. Some of what they wrote has been selectively repeated, but other parts have been forgotten. In that respect, this research method could be used to more precisely trace and identify where particular practices emerged, under which theoretical perspectives, and complications. It also can help to show how these ideas were documented and tested during their emergence and domestication, as a way to gauge procedural rigor as well as validity of related findings. Discussion: Audio description scholarship needs theoretical anchors, but it also needs systematic testing of assumptions inherent in those theoretics, which this study helps to identify. Implications for Practitioners: Audio describers invariably will encounter the moment when an assertion of “this is the way we do it” collides with the curiosity of “why?” To promote best practices, the field has to understand where practices came from, how they developed, and as Frazier recommended, put those ideas to “objective” tests.
灯泡还在继续:一种基于史学的方法来解开音频描述在美国的影响根源及其普遍做法
简介:20世纪70年代和80年代的美国媒体可访问性先驱们不仅激发了对音频描述学术研究的兴趣,他们还开创了许多实用技术、协议、理论观点、指导方针和标准,这些技术、协议、理论观点和标准在几十年后仍然存在于这类工作的结构中。在这项研究中,我们找到并分析了两位经常被提及的创新者——格雷戈里·弗雷泽和玛格丽特·范斯蒂尔——的原始文件,通过对他们的基础著作和相关媒体的历史编纂,揭示了他们的个人观点。方法:这一分析是对可公开获得的源文件进行的,如弗雷泽的里程碑式论文,也包括Pfanstiehl的私人信件,作为建立理论和历史兴趣的特定点的一种方式。结果:我们发现,尽管Frazier和Pfanstiehl在音频描述领域占有重要地位,但他们都没有发表太多关于他们做了什么以及为什么这么做的文章。他们写的一些东西被选择性地重复了,但其他部分被遗忘了。在这方面,这种研究方法可以用来更精确地追踪和确定具体做法出现的地方、理论观点和复杂性。它还可以帮助展示这些想法在其出现和驯化过程中是如何被记录和测试的,作为衡量程序严谨性和相关发现有效性的一种方式。讨论:音频描述学术需要理论锚,但它也需要对这些理论中固有的假设进行系统测试,本研究有助于确定这一点。对从业者的启示:音频描述者总是会遇到这样的时刻:“我们就是这样做的”的断言与“为什么”的好奇心相冲突?为了推广最佳实践,该领域必须了解实践从何而来,如何发展,并且正如Frazier建议的那样,对这些想法进行“客观”测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: The Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness is the essential professional resource for information about visual impairment (that is, blindness or low vision). The international peer-reviewed journal of record in the field, it delivers current research and best practice information, commentary from authoritative experts on critical topics, News From the Field, and a calendar of important events. Practitioners and researchers, policymakers and administrators, counselors and advocates rely on JVIB for its delivery of cutting-edge research and the most up-to-date practices in the field of visual impairment and blindness. Available in print and online 24/7, JVIB offers immediate access to information from the leading researchers, teachers of students with visual impairments (often referred to as TVIs), orientation and mobility (O&M) practitioners, vision rehabilitation therapists (often referred to as VRTs), early interventionists, and low vision therapists (often referred to as LVTs) in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信