Author: Carolina Némethy
A Synthesis of the Multimodal Workshop
12th – 14th of March, we had the pleasure to invite several highly competent, international scholars to our multimodal workshop. This provided new ideas and started discussions on how to approach ‘multimodality’ in anthropology.
“What is ‘multimodality’?” is the most frequented question when introducing the field of ‘multimodal anthropology’. Discussions ranged from introducing multilinear forms of storytelling (such as websites and other multi-layered interfaces) to how film can itself be understood as multimodal. Furthermore, we emphasized multimodality as method throughout ethnographic research practice.
Beginning in Autumn 2025, UiT will launch anew the esteemed Master’s program in Anthropology, inviting students to explore such “Multimodal” approaches. Drawing from UiT’s rich tradition in Visual Anthropology, this initiative embraces contemporary cultural and media transformations. Bjørn Arntsen introduced the history of the department’s focus on visual anthropology, previously known as visual culture studies (VCS), and which is now about to take on a new form.
Bente Sundsvold’s presentation brought forth the key element of storytelling in anthropology as ethnographic action. Her own work, part of her overarching project, ‘FUGLAN VEIT’ is itself an ethnographic action towards building interspecies alliances – exemplified with her project on human-bird relations. Her approach emphasizes the senses as enabling the multimodal, and the use of archives (stressing what is already there, collected) as a means of revisiting unused material from the past and bringing it into the present.
Among our special guests, Mihai Leaha from the University of Barcelona called for the need to distinguish the visual from the written mode of anthropology, and the multimodal as a way to tap into different ways of exploring the sensorial. However, it is also important to distinguish between multimodal method and output. The field is not only focused on producing new outputs but must be seen as a method that integrates multimodality as part of its research practices, with all its new considerations. Furthermore, the field provides a pathway for engaging with technologically mediated knowledge, exemplified by endeavors like the exploration of Mars facilitated by rovers.
Paula Bessa Braz delved into multimodality, music and the audio-visual, with particular attention to sound and how sound interacts with the visual media. This interaction goes beyond sound itself, as a form of place-making, different modes of perception and the senses, emotions and sense-making, as well as experience and forms of mediation.
Thomas John from the Institute for Ethnology, WWU Münster, presented a range of multimodal examples from his students in audiovisual anthropology, as well as various online zines, printed and digital graphic novels, and intentionally ‘disruptive’ websites that challenge our ordinary digital experiences as users. He emphasized the non-finality of the ‘digital’, highlighting its capacity for varied, collaborative interaction and diverse experiences.
Jonathan Larcher presented on how to use personal audiovisual archives in ethnography, drawing on two contrasting relationships from Mexico and Romania. His examples drew on how the publicly accessible audiovisual technology had transformed over time, and how to approach audiovisual material stored on personal drives, older digital cameras or phones that may have changed or deteriorated over time. This pointed to the fragility and transience of digital archives.
Richard Fraser’s examples from work among the Orochen in northeastern China took up photography as a means of giving back to the community, which often happened through digital sharing – a multimodal research process. Furthermore, his work involved scanning photographs from the 1919-1921 Ethel Lindgren Collection at Cambridge University to share copies of the archive with the Orochen community which the photos were of, before their sedentarisation by the PRC. Since the collection involved was carried out by and archived in a Western institution, this mode of sharing could be understood as repatriation. Richard emphasizes, however, that themes of decolonizing through repatriation might not be as appropriate if solely in a Chinese context, due to their widespread application in contexts of Western colonization. As such, ideas surrounding digitization also tie to contextual differences in conceptualizations of aesthetics, value and impact.
Trond Waage’s presentation took up approaching multimodality more broadly, through images, and processes of discovery and ethnographic storytelling. He drew on his project on visual anthropology as collaboration across institutions, taking as an example is Sahel-on-Sahel project through which institutions in the Sahel regions collaborate in making ethnographic film. One great example of this collaboration came from our special guest, Sidylamine Bagayoko, who presented on multi-institutional collaboration and how multimodality embeds itself across research politics and practice in visual anthropology.
Finally, Carolina Némethy presented several interactive ethnographies as examples of various outputs that could be understood as multimodal. These documentaries and resources were inspired by a PhD course she had participated in at Leiden University, in which participants learned how to create interactive documentaries and about the possibility to create games as output as well. What should be emphasized, however, is that multimodal ethnography is and should be embedded in the research practice itself.
These discussions are open for feedback and input, just as the field of ‘multimodal anthropology’ continues to expand. We encourage participants, audiences as well as readers of our pages and blog (tromsoanthropology.no) to comment on and share their perspectives, critical or otherwise.