Originally shot on mini-DV and DVC Pro formats.
Proposal
Technological Graveyard
This will be a ten to fifteen minute mini-documentary, shot on digital video, which focuses on America’s e-waste problems and the e-cycling industry. It will combine interviews with footage of e-waste and e-cycling practices.
Introduction
The ways of reuse in American culture have greatly transformed throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. Common household practices, economic strife, and patriotic and environmental duties are the main reasons that Americans practiced reuse in the past. Reuse, however, is not a popular option when it comes to modern technological inventions. The development of consumer culture and the push for technological innovations have created a steady flow of electronics waste, or e-waste, to enter into the waste stream at alarming rates. Electronic waste is defined as unwanted computers, monitors, televisions, audio equipment, printers, and other home electronic devices. While Americans have adjusted their way of life in the age of technology, the ability to deal with the waste that results has been a hard task for the consumers, the electronics industry, the legislators, and the environmentalists.
Most consumers in the United States are unaware of the chemical hazards of e-waste and their ultimate impact on the environment. A typical computer lasts for approximately three years, thus the end-of-life decision of what to do with an obsolete or defunct computer lies ultimately in the hands of the owner. While only a handful of states have passed laws against the disposal of certain e-wastes in landfills and incinerators, most still allow such disposal. The electronics industry and environmental groups are acting to inform the consumers of e-waste’s environmental impact, yet the question still remains, should the disposal of electronics be left solely in the hands of the consumers, or should the industry and government assume a stronger role?
The amount of e-waste has been steadily rising since the end of the 20th century. As a result, the urgent need for quality e-cycling systems has developed. Today’s consumer culture follows technological trends, but the rates of improvements in these devices, and thus the outdating of the previous models, create a lot of hazardous wastes that can seep into the ground water. The environmental problems that these components generate are forcing more legislators to look towards landfill banning as a solution while also forcing the manufacturers to think more environmentally friendly and pay for the recycling of the units that they produce.
The American electronics industry is trying to find ways to effectively re-claim these chemicals and electronics parts, and thus reduce the amount of hazardous materials that enter into the waste stream. According to the National Safety Council, the United States is predicted to dispose of 500 million computers by 2007. The age of e-waste has begun, and America is looking for the right solution.
Theoretical Statement and Research
Figuring out how to deal with the disposal of 2,054,800 tons of electronic wastes per year is a highly debated topic between environmental activists and the electronics industry. However, it is certain that computer monitors and television sets that contain cathode ray tubes, contain other chemicals that are harmful to the environment, especially at their current rate of disposal. These cathode ray tubes are made with leaded glass, used to protect the consumers from radiation, and are the largest source of lead in municipal waste. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there is an average of four pounds of lead in older TV picture tubes and computer monitors. Cadmium, commonly found in laptop computer batteries, and mercury, are two other hazardous chemicals that are found in e-wastes. E-waste is the leading source of cadmium and mercury in the United State’s municipal waste.
The article entitled A Need for E-cycling, by Derek Chezzi, describes the many toxic components of used computers including lead, mercury, cadmium, brominated flame-retardants, and others. He explores what is being done to prevent them from being deposited into the landfills and discusses the available market for such recycled items. His investigations suggest that the recycling of computers is an expensive venture and unless new, cheaper methods of computer recycling and reuse are invented, the computer recycling industry may not survive much longer.
John C. Dvorak’s article Our Legacy: Computer Junk, gives details about the rate of computer disposal in the United States and the available resources for proper disposal. “By 2005, more than 63 million PCs will be retired, according to a study by the National Safety Council. An estimated 20 million PCs became obsolete in 1998, and most of these are still in storage. The remainder of the PCs were disposed of, with fewer than 6 percent being recycled” (Dvorak 52). He also provides statistics on the amount of certain hazardous chemicals in computers similar to those stated by the EPA.
With the growing number of concerns over the environmental effects of electronics disposal, many different sources are working to find a solution. Certain companies and organizations within the electronics industry have started their own campaigns and programs to promote computer recycling.
One industry leader, Sony Electronics, launched their five-year “Sony Only” campaign in October of 2000. This campaign’s goal is to convince both commercial and residential customers to bring in their used Sony electronics to designated recycling drop-off points free of charge. (Gross, 28)
The United States Environmental Protection Agency is cooperating with the electronics industry to promote the Design for the Environment (DfE) campaign, which encourages the manufacturing of easily recycled products by using more recyclable materials in the manufacturing process. As a result of this campaign, both Apple and IBM have developed more environmentally friendly systems that are easy to upgrade and recycle. (Macauley, 15)
The EPA also launched the new Plug-in to E-cycling campaign under their Resource Conservation Challenge in January of 2003, which is a partnership with Apple, AT&T Wireless, Best Buy Company, Brother, Dell, Envirocycle, Epson, Intel, JVC, Lexmark, NxtCycle, Panasonic, Recycle America Alliance, Sony, Sharp, and Staples. This program is “intended to raise American’s awareness of the value of reusing and recycling electronics and to provide them with increased opportunities to do so across the country” (Agency Group 09). Electronics are made from many different valuable materials. 112 million pounds of e-scrap were collected in e-cycling processes in 1998 alone. Hopefully this campaign will increase the number of recycled computers from the 11% reported in 2001. This program is one of the EPA’s responses to the quick changes in technology, and thus the rapid rate of disposal for outdated technology.
The Electronic Industry Alliance (EIA) is a “national trade organization that includes many U.S. manufacturers, representing more than 80% of the $430 billion electronics industry.’ Despite their claims that e-waste comprises less than 1% of the municipal solid waste stream, they have created the Consumer Education Initiative, a web-based information source that works to educate the consumers about the importance of reusing and recycling electronics while also providing them with information on local reuse and recycling opportunities. The alliance also supports a grant program that provides funding to region and state recycling initiatives. The companies that support this program include: Canon, Hewlett Packard, JVC, Kodak, Nokia, Panasonic, Philips, Consumer Electronics north America, Sharp, Sony, and Thomson Multimedia. The EIA explains that the industry is partnering with federal, state, and local government on this project because they believe that “all stakeholders, consumers, manufacturers, retailers, governments, and recyclers have a role to play in helping promote the re-use and recycling of used electronics.” (EIA)
In Rest in Pieces, PC. Kenneth Terrell explores the different places that accept and carefully recycle or dispose e-wastes. Some of the organizations mentioned include the National Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative, Goodwill industries, Salvation Army, Computers for Schools, and some of the electronic distributors themselves. Some of the collection sites will take the merchandise for a charge, but most are just interested in reusing them within the community.
The academic community realizes the amount of e-waste that it is being produced and disposed, and they are working to find ways to efficiently predict how Americans will salvage or recycle the technology when provided with different options.
Anna Nagurney and Fuminori Toyasaki at in the Department of Finance and Operations Management, Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, have created a framework for e-cycling. As detailed in their article entitled, Reverse Supply Chain Management and Electronic Waste Recycling: A Multi-tiered Network Equilibrium Framework for E-cycling, they describe this framework as “an integrated reverse supply chain management framework that allows for the modeling, analyses, and computation, of the material flows as well as the prices associated with the different tiers of the decision-makers in the multi-tiered electronic recycling or e-cycling network” (Nagurney, 2). This research represents just one of the efforts to predict the patterns of recycling behavior under certain circumstances. This model alleviates some of the problems of predicting such behavior and is also a valuable resource to legislators who are considering their options in regards to e-waste.
According to an article entitled Planning the E-scrap Reverse Production System Under Uncertainty in the State of Georgia: A Case Study, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology recently completed a study on electronic waste recycling and management. This team of scientists developed a mathematical formula that is “a scenario-based robust optimization model for supporting strategic e-scrap reverse production infrastructure design decisions under uncertainty” (Ammons, 1). Their formula can be used to predict the success of different processes by which they obtain discarded electronics, disassemble them, and develop ways to reuse their separate components.
In Dealing with Electronic Waste: Modeling the Costs and Environmental Benefits of Computer Monitor Disposal, Molly Macauley, Karen Palmer, and Jihih-Shyang Shih present their research that deals with problems surrounding the current methods of e-waste disposal and the legislative actions taken by some governments that are working to decrease the amount of e-waste entering the waste stream. “Some experts predict that approximately one billion pounds of lead from computers and other electronics will enter the waste stream within the next decade in the United States alone” (Macauley, 13). They have constructed a Computer Monitor Policy Simulation, or COMPS model. This model “tracks the disposition of residential and nonresidential (business and government owned) monitors in the United States once they are retired at the end of their useful lives” (Macauley, 16). By applying this model they found that without legislation requiring the recycling of used monitors, very few monitors would be recycled. They also discovered that the average disposal cost (including their estimated value of the health risks associated with incineration) is quite low. They claim that “policies to reduce the disposal of monitors in landfills and incinerators are costly due to the high costs of storage for some consumers and of recycling as an alternative” (Macaueley, 21). Their research provides an interesting look at the problems associated with proposed solutions to the environmental e-waste dilemma.
Many governments, whether local, state, national, or international, have taken legislative steps towards reducing their e-waste. Other governments and environmental groups watch these initiatives closely. While many environmental groups feel that the United States is behind in environmental policies regarding electronic waste, many states are taking the issue into their own hands.
Macauley, Palmer, and Shih explain how Massachusetts has come up with a solution to the bay state’s e-waste problems. “In Massachusetts, the Department of Environmental Protection banned the disposal of CRT’s from its landfills and incinerators beginning in April 2000 and established CRT collection and recycling programs. Under these programs, several communities received grants to fund the initial year of a local recycling program” (Macauely, 15). Section 310 CMR 19.017(3) is a waste specific restriction that restricts the disposal of CRTs at landfills, transfer facilities, and combustion facilities. By its own estimates, before the ban the state disposed of approximately 75,000 tons of defunct electronic equipment by placing them in their landfills and incinerators. (Gross, 28)
Massachusetts is one of two states that have taken such actions to reduce the amount of CRT disposal. California also banned televisions and computer monitors from their landfills in 2001 and 2002, and their legislators are currently exploring proposals for new policies that promote the CRT recycling and recovery. Senate Bill 20 bans the disposal of cathode ray tube monitors and TV’s in landfills because of their lead content. Environmental activists have criticized this legislation because it allows for the exporting of these harmful wastes to other lesser-developed countries. Several other states, finding that they too are at a loss with what to do with the lead leaking into their ground water, are considering similar legislation.
Pennsylvania makes grants available to counties wishing to develop their own electronics pollution prevention and collection programs. These grants are part of the commonwealth’s Small Business and Household Pollution Prevention Act. Other grants are available through the Pennsylvania Household Hazardous Waste Funding Act. These grants are given in order to “reimburse municipalities for 50 percent of the operational costs associated with household hazardous waste collection” (Gross, 28).
Washington State is considering e-waste legislation again in 2004 after a failed attempt in 2003. The proposed bill would place the responsibility of e-waste in the hands of the manufacturer by requiring them to develop and finance their own e-cycling plans while also providing support for collection sites. The deadline for meeting these requirements under this new bill has been set for June 30, 2005.
E-waste is also a growing national concern. While no e-waste legislation has successfully passed through Congress, e-waste is still covered under federal restrictions on hazardous wastes, and therefore it is a problem for large companies who need to dispose of their out of date systems.
In 1998, Congress created the 21st Century Classrooms Act for Private Technology Investment. This act allowed companies that donate their used computers to public or private K-12 schools to deduct their full purchase costs from their adjusted gross incomes. This act encourages computer reuse amongst America’s corporations and provides a valuable resource to the schools. (Gross, 28)
Macauley, Palmer, and Shih explain the national restrictions that are placed on companies with large amounts of e-waste. “In the United States, nonresidential consumers with large quantities of used monitors are subject to federal regulations for managing this equipment as hazardous wastes under the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act” (Macauely, 14). However, households disposing of computers are excluded from the RCRA’s definition of hazardous waste.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, enacted by Congress in 1976 and amended in 1984, is a major piece of legislation that concerns America’s municipal waste. “The act’s primary goal is to protect human health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal. In addition, RCRA calls for the conservation of energy and natural resources, reduction in waste generated, and environmentally sound waste management practices” (EPA). This piece of legislation enables the Environmental Protection Agency to initiate programs that work towards these goals.
The EPA is teaming up with the Federal Environmental Executive and numerous other federal agencies to launch a program called the Federal Electronics Challenge for federal facilities. The program is “intended to improve environmental awareness, both purchasing and end-of-life-management decisions” (EPA). The United States EPA is also working hard to ensure that e-waste in America doesn’t go unnoticed in the next decade with some of their other awareness projects.
One of the EPA’s projects is the Resource Conservation Challenge. This program works to create relationships with equipment manufacturers, educate the consumer population, and provides state and local governments with support for their efforts. The EPA hopes to increase the national electronics-recycling rate to 35 percent while cutting the generation of 30 harmful chemicals by 2005. (EPA)
The agency has also teamed up with the Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool project (EPEAT), a group of interested stakeholders who are dedicated to designing a tool for evaluating the environmental attributes of electronics. These stakeholders, including manufacturers, are working to find a solution to the e-waste problem in the United States by exploring the many ways that e-wastes can be salvaged.
While the United States works to solve the electronics waste problem within its own borders, other countries around the world are dealing with the same predicament.
Advocacy groups in the United States are urging for ratification of the United Nation’s Environmental Programme’s 1989 Basel Convention Treaty and its 1994 Amendment. The Basel Convention, which has already been ratified by 148 other countries, requires that all member countries reduce their hazardous waste exports to a minimum while also dealing with the amount of hazardous waste disposal within their own borders. The U.S. has signed this treaty, but not ratified it. (Chappell, 1)
The amendment to this convention requires that all countries that are a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD), including the United States, be banned from exporting hazardous wastes to lesser-developed Basel Convention member countries. Only a fraction of the Basel member countries have ratified the amendment, however they include most of Europe and China, which is the country that receives the most exported e-waste. (Chappell, 2)
The Basel Action Network (BAN) and the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) published a report in 2002 which stated that fifty to eighty percent of electronic waste collected in North America under the pretense for recycling was in fact sent to recyclers in developing countries such as China, India, and Pakistan, where these wastes were simply dumped into their environment or recycled using harmful, polluting operations. This report tells the story of how e-waste is a world problem that needs to be addressed and not just shoved off onto other countries. It shows that the environmental and political damage of e-waste is much larger than many Americans realize. (Byster)
The European Parliament has proposed two electronic waste directives in the last few years. The first one is known as the Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). It intends to reduce the manufacturing of environmentally harmful components and also encourages reuse and recycling by requiring the manufacturers to finance these efforts. The second directive is known as the Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (RoHS). The goal of this directive is to minimize the environmental impact of the disposal and recycling of electronic wastes by forcing the manufacturers to stop using lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and brominated flame retardants PBDE and PBB in products to be marketed after July 1, 2006. With this directive, the European Parliament hopes to eventually do away with the use of hazardous substances in the manufacturing of electronic products by 2006. (Macauley, 15)
In 2001, Japan, whose electronics industry leaders include Canon and Fujitsu, passed their own form of e-waste legislation called the General Law on Constructing Environmentally Sustainable Society. This law requires the manufacturers to recycle certain parts of their electronics while also disclosing the use of chemicals in these production plants. Japan, like the European Union, believes that the responsibility of e-waste disposal belongs to the manufacturers.
In the article entitled Politician’s Dither as E-waste Grows, but Industry Moves On: Canada Dumps 140,000 tons of Computers a Year, but Doesn’t Have a Tech Recycling Program, Liam Leahy describes how Canada has been struggling with their e-waste problem. “An estimated 4,750 tons of lead is contained in PCs and TVs disposed of each year in Canada. By 2005, PCs alone will account for 4.5 tons of cadmium and 1.1 tons of mercury in Canadian landfills” (Leahy, 2). The Canadian Environmental Protection Agency had developed a program that deals with e-waste in four phases. “EPS Canada has identified four required phases to introduce a national e-waste program: Policies defining the problem and the creation of a national roadmap for e-waste management; establishing industry support; creating a detailed national strategy and governance; and, the implementation stage” (Leahy, 2). The only thing stopping the implementation of this strategy is funding. Like so many other governmental bodies, the only obstacle to solving the e-waste problem is how to finance such an expensive endeavor.
Functions and Qualifications
I will be producing, directing, and editing the entire production. I will also be involved with the shooting, but I’m currently recruiting friends to help with this task. My friend Parker Davidson, who is a film student at Georgia State University, will be assisting me with my filming in Atlanta by shooting my interviews
My friend Henry Verner has also offered his experience as an editor to assist my editing process. It is still undetermined whether our schedules and/or finances will allow for his assistance.
I also plan on involving some of my fellow classmates at Emerson College to assist me in the various post-production operations as they are scheduled.
Intended Audience
The intended audience for this project will be individuals or organizations that are interested in American environmental concerns and the current issues surrounding America’s e-cycling industry. It is a film that will explore these topics, and thus will be of great interest to these individuals and groups. It will ultimately appeal to the regular viewer of educational television, such as The History Channel or Discovery Networks
Possible Distribution Outlets
The various possible outlets for this film would include, but are not limited to, The Public Broadcasting System, The History Channel, Discovery Networks, and educational distributors. These channels would be interested in this work because of its educational value. Another distribution outlet could be the festival circuit.
Estimated Budget: Out-of-Pocket
* Gas, food, expenses for interviews $1,000
* Mini DV tapes (30 @ $5/ea.) $150
* 80-GB external portable hard drive $400
* 8-Track Digital Audio Tapes (4 @ $15/ea.) $120
Total $1,670
Feasibility
The six months allotted for the production of this project will be enough time to complete a satisfactory final cut for board review. Financial sources will include, but are not limited to, grants, personal student loans, and financial assistance from Thomas and Denise Slay. The equipment that will be used for this project will be provided by the Emerson College Equipment Distribution Center. I will recruit the people that will be involved with this project when they are needed at various stages.
Narrative Description
The introduction will introduce the topic with a techno style song in the background. It will open with a few parts of the interviews that define e-waste.
End-of-Life
This portion of the documentary will discuss what e-waste is exactly while explaining it’s potential harm to the environment. I will use both interviews and b-roll footage to show the abundance of obsolete computers that pose a severe threat to the environment. It will pose the question ‘what is to be done’?
The E-cycle
This part of the documentary will focus on the research and legislation related to e-waste in the United States. I will mostly use interviews with some b-roll to explain how the American research community and governments are reacting to this problem.
The World Is Watching
This part of the documentary will focus on the foreign and international regulations on e-waste and how America interacts with them. I will use interviews and b-roll to explain why environmental groups think that America is behind on their e-waste policies in relation to the rest of the world.
Evaluation
I plan to assemble a sample group of my intended audience and screen the rough cut of the video before administering a questionnaire that affords them the chance to critique the content and style of the piece. This will allow time to change and correct any problems that the group may notice in the piece before the final cut is produced.
Production Schedule
Research and Proposal September 1 through November 15
Production December 18 through January 31 7 days location interviews
3 days of copying photographs
4 days of b-roll shooting
4 days driving
4 days flying
Post-Production February 1 through March 30 1 week for logging
1 week for transcripts
1.5 weeks for edit plan
3 weeks for rough cut / evaluation
1.5 weeks for revision
Clearances Needed
A2 Form for proof of student status
A3 Form for proof of insurance for location shoots
Talent Release Forms for each person required to have one
Copyright permission for:
Footage from other films
Photographs and graphics
Music
Project Stages Checklist
Stage Completion Date
Grant Proposals Completed by November 15
Interview Scheduling Completed by December 1
Shooting Completed by January 30
Logging Completed by February 7
Transcripts Completed by February 14
Edit Plan Completed by February 25
Rough Cut Completed by March 17
Evaluation Completed by March 22
Final Cut and Production Book Completed by April 1
Final Paperwork Completed by April 28
Production Phase
PROJECT JOURNAL
October 10, 2003
Computer Re-Use Research
I’m having a really hard time locating any significant research on computer recycling. Maybe it’s just the school’s resources are lacking, but that’s okay because I have plenty of other reuse information that should prove helpful to forming my proposal.
I will keep looking though, because I’m really more interested in the contemporary issues of reuse and recycling and it concerns me that it’s so hard to find any information.
October 25, 2003 11:28 am
Proposal Time
I'm still working on piecing my proposal together. It seems like an endless task. I can't find enough research to fill out certain portions of my idea. I need more information from the first half of the century.
My goal is to have the first draft by the 'due' date (typical for me) and have the revisions in order before I leave for Samhain next week.
Back to Work.
November 18, 2003 6:36 pm
Coming Along
I haven't posted in a while, but I thought that I should add something.
I turned in my proposal on time and still have to make some minor adjustments before turning it in for final clearance.
I have set up a couple of interviews, but still have a few more to schedule. I have, however, had a change in plans. It seems that I will work on my thesis while living in Atlanta and fly to Boston a few times throughout the month in order to check with my advisers.
All in all, things are coming along rather nicely.
December 18, 2003 6:58 pm
The Library of Congress
I drove down to DC yesterday, what a fun drive.. especially when you have eight hours of 'me time' to think about things. I felt so refreshed this morning. But onto more important things...
I am currently at the Library of Congress. I LOVE THIS PLACE! despite the fact that it took me almost two hours to get registered, have my id made, and get oriented. It is an awesome resource... I could definitely get used to researching here.
I am currently in the Photographs Reading Room. It's indescribable how much stuff I have access to here. Did I mention that I love this place?
January 12, 2004 8:47 pm
The Hometown Junkman
I went to interview Mr. Jordan of Jordan Sales and Salvage in Fayetteville, GA today. He was really sweet and very interesting to talk to. I was somewhat forgetful though and forgot my XLR cable for the lav mic, so I had to go back to my house to pick it up. He was very understanding.
The interview itself was very fun. Some of the things that he said sent shivers down my spine as I listened to them just thinking how wonderful the voice over would sound. The only problem that I might have is the background noise from the traffic passing behind him. I think that the lav focused on his voice and I hope that the cars won’t be too much of interference.
The b-roll that I shot around the junkyard should also turn out well. There were so many cool shots and interesting angles. I felt challenged by the multiple aspects that I could take.
January 14, 2004 10:29 pm
Georgia Tech Interviews
I went to Georgia Tech to shoot some interviews about their e-waste research for the contemporary part of my documentary. The first interview was absolutely wonderful. The man was so well spoken that once again I found myself thinking about how wonderful the voice over would sound. Even my friend Parker, who was helping me in the morning, was impressed with the way that he answered my questions. The only problem that I have with him was that he was British… not that I have anything against British people, but as someone who is trying to do a documentary on American resourcefulness, having a British accent doesn’t exactly fit in, but he knows what he is talking about when it comes to American e-waste so that is all that matters.
The second interview was also very informative and went rather well, but it just wasn’t as good as the first, but oh well. The other two interviews, in the afternoon, were with the graduate student assistants on the project. They were both foreign and couldn’t speak English really well, so I found myself skipping over questions that I knew were answered well enough by the first interviews. Mainly, I just did the interviews to be polite at that point because I don’t know how I am going to be able to put them in the documentary. It was hard for me to understand what they were saying, so I know that it would be hard for my audience.
January 16, 2004 10:51am
Hit and Miss
I was supposed to interview Ms. Strasser today. She is the woman who wrote the book that inspired me to do this documentary in the first place. However, when I woke up and checked my e-mail she had hurt her back and could not do it today. So we might be rescheduling for Monday or another time in the future. I am SO NERVOUS about this interview.
January 19, 2004 9:10 am
Lav Problems?
I interviewed Ms. Strasser on my way out of town (D.C. to Boston) today. I felt really bad when I headed over there. I mean physically bad. I was really weak and tired and a little bit nauseous, but the nausea may have been from nervousness.
It was really hard for me to set everything up and concentrate on what I was doing. I realize today that I forgot to white balance. I am going to look at the footage in the next week and make sure that it is okay, I’m sure that she would be willing to re-do it if necessary, but I hope that it won’t be. Another problem that I noticed was an electronic buzzing sound in the headphones when she talked. It may have been the lav, but I hope that it, whatever it was, wasn’t recorded. I checked everything and changed the cables, but nothing would make it stop and my time was limited, plus I still didn’t feel very well, so I went ahead with the interview.
She was really nice and easy to talk to though before and after the interview. She is a very interesting person with a lot of insight on the subjects that she researches. During the interview, however, she had problems completing her thoughts and would often have to start over or rephrase things. Normally, I would have been okay with this, but I was irritable from feeling bad, and therefore a little irritated, but I still smiled, because she was taking to time to help me out, and I definitely didn’t want my tiredness to be interpreted as rudeness, but I did however, find myself wondering off into lala land during some of her answers, this may have hurt the interview. Note to self… start taking some immune boosters
February 8, 2004 10:27 pm
Capitol PC Users Group, REBOOT Program
The CPCUG is a volunteer group in Washington D.C. that works with the community on their PC computer proficiency and issues. They have a REBOOT program that fixes abandoned computers in good condition and donates them to schools and needy families.
I e-mailed them for an interview since I am spending approximately every other weekend down there anyway and I got a response from the REBOOT coordinator, Gerald Rosenkrantz.
Basically he told me that he would be willing to do the interview, but he is on a bird-watching trip in Texas until March 11. A BIRD WATCHING TRIP! Any excuse….
But he did say that anytime from then through the end of May (when he’s going on another trip) would be fine. I loosely scheduled for the middle of April.
February 10, 2004 2:19 pm
The EPA Responds
I finally got a response from Claudette Reed from the EPA regarding my request for an interview. Unfortunately she is located in Philadelphia, so traveling that far out of D.C. next time I fly in might be too much for a days worth of shooting. She thinks that she might be in D.C. on the 23rd though, but she’s not so sure yet.
February 17, 2004 3:03 pm
More EPA Blow Offs
Katherine Kaplan e-mailed me on behalf of herself and Clare Lindsay (both at the Office of Solid Waste, EPA in D.C.) to say that while my “project sounds exciting” neither of them are available for an interview this weekend.
P.S.- I sent the e-mail two weeks ago and followed up with the one they finally responded to three days ago.
February 20, 2004 9:10 pm
Digitizing Problems
I went into the lab today to start digitizing some of my footage and was sorely disappointed.
My interview with Mr. Jordan was beautiful for the first two seconds of the footage, but then the color went to blue. AGHHHH! Those darned EDC brats giving me an empty battery. Granted, I admit that I should have known that I needed to white balance again after changing the battery, but it didn't cross my mind. But, if the battery had been charged in the first place then maybe I wouldn't have had this problem.
I'm so aggravated with those snot-nosed brats right now. Every time I go down there they halfway know what's going on, and it annoys me even worse that I'm paying them with my tuition.
So in conclusion, not please with the Jordan footage, but the beginning of the GT footage seems to be fairly good. I'm a little worried about the sound though. It seems that there is a little buzzing, but I hope that disappears when I look at it without digitizing.
My fingers are crossed because I used that same lav on all of interviews thus far.
So after I got kicked out of the lab around 4, I went to the library and did some more e-cycling and e-waste research. I think that I am going to try and turn my documentary into more of a focus on this issue, since I think that it is the most pressing.
March 03,2004 6:45 pm
More Research
I did some more e-waste research this afternoon. It’s hard to find any reliable information on the topic, especially American’s handling of it. That’s all, more research, a little more frustration in looking for a seemingly non-existent topic.
March 15, 2004 7:13 pm
Sending out E-mails
After meeting with Jan and Dr. Fry and discussing my idea to narrow the focus of my documentary, they agreed to it, and I began my hunt for interviews. I still have to rewrite my proposal, I’ll get right on that.
Today, however, I sent out a few e-mails to more e-cycling and e-waste contacts asking for interviews and/or direction to other contacts and information. I’m so lucky to be living in Massachusetts, a state that was the first banned the landfill disposal of CRT tubes, and I’m even lucky still to have a place to stay in D.C. for my interviews there.
March 19, 2004 8:03 pm
Apple PC Users Group
I have been playing e-mail tag with the gentlemen at the Apple PC Users group (contact: Jim Ritz) concerning their current e-cycling campaign. They have agreed to an interview this weekend, but have still not confirmed what day or time. Either way, I’m excited that they have agreed.
March 24, 2004 8:14
D.C. Interviews for the Weekend
Over the last few days I have scheduled interviews with Gerald Rosenkrantz (CPCUG’s REBOOT coordinator), Jim Ritz and Lorin Evans (Washington Apple Pi’s e-cycling program), and the most exciting addition, Heather Bowman, of the EIA (Electronic Industries Alliance).
March 29, 2004 10:34
D.C. Interviews
I finished my round of D.C. interviews yesterday. On Friday I spent most of the day at Washington Apple Pi. I spoke with Mr. Evans for an hour or so and then shot some b-roll until Mr. Ritz arrived. After shooting the interview with Mr. Ritz I was expecting to shoot with Mr. Evans, but it appeared that Mr. Evans never intended to be interviewed (camera shy) so I only walked away with one interview. (*Note* don’t let subjects sit in swiveling chair, they tend to swivel when nervous.)
On Monday I interviewed Heather Bowman at the EIA. I think I got some really good answers, but I think the tripod wasn’t leveled. The picture behind her doesn’t look straight.
Later in the afternoon I went to CPCUG for the interview with Mr. Rosenkrantz only to discover that he had left town on Saturday for a family emergency. Unfortunately, no one there knew that I was coming or anything about my project, and Mr. Rosenkrantz apparently forgot to inform anyone about the situation so I walked away with nothing. Still the Bowman interview was worth the entire weekend, even the traveling with heavy, bulky equipment.
April 9, 2004 10:38am
Randi Mail
Randi Mail of the Cambridge Department of Public works responded to my e-mail this morning. Apparently she wants to speak on the phone first, so I am going to call her this next Friday. I think it’s a little strange that she’s asking to speak on the phone first, but at least she is willing to speak to me, and bonus! the department is just down the street from my house!
April 16, 2004 1:48pm
Phone with Randi
So I called Ms. Mail this afternoon, as she had asked last week, but the first time I called (when she had asked me to) she wasn’t there, so she called me back ten minutes later.
Anyway, the phone conversation was strange. She wanted to know every detail about my project, but every time I told her that I could send her my proposal she said that wouldn’t be necessary. Even after my long explanation she didn’t want to commit to it until after I send her the questions list that I intend to ask her. So that’s what I’m doing now, composing a questions list for her.
Though she did also give me some contact info for a guy named Robin Ingenthron who works in recycling computers and used to work for the MDEP when they were dealing with the CRT ban, so that was really helpful.
April 22, 2004 2:34pm
Greg Cooper and the Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection
I got an e-mail from Greg Cooper today saying that he would be willing to meet with me, preferably Fridays. So yay! He’s a really great opportunity because he gives me some of the legislative perspective that I so desperately need for the project.
April 28, 2004 5:36pm
E-mails Abound
I got four e-mails today, all apparently good. The first was from Randi Mail. I had to e-mail her to see if she was still interested after I sent her the questions. She e-mailed me back, she’s still interested, but she still didn’t set a date. Apparently she still has to talk to her ‘superiors’. Ugh, the yellow tape.
The second was from Greg Cooper confirming out interview date and time. I’m still really excited about this.
The third was from Anna Nagurney at UMass Amherst telling me that they would be willing to have an interview with me, but it may be tricky to schedule, but I’m on it because I would like more academic footage.
The fourth was from Robin Ingenthron, from Good Point Recycling. He said he would be willing, and may be in Boston next week, otherwise I will have to go to Vermont. Vermont’s not so bad. I haven’t really spent any time there yet.
May 4, 2004 6:37pm
Going to Vermont, More with Randi
Well, it seems as though I’m going to Vermont. Robin didn’t make it to Boston. I think it will be good though because I need some b-roll footage and I can get some by going out there to the facility. It should be beneficial for many reasons I hope.
Randi Mail finally got back to me. She sent my questions back with the relevant ones highlighted… I don’t really appreciate that, but I suppose that’s the way she wants to do things. She also finally set a date. One more interview. I suppose I can’t have too many.
May 12, 2004 5:46pm
Cooper, Ingenthron, and Nagurney
I interviewed Greg Cooper this afternoon. Mental note- take pens away from interviewees. Other than his nervous twitches I really liked his answers. I think he gave me a lot of good footage.
Tomorrow I make the drive to Vermont for my interview with Robin. I’m a little nervous because of the drive, but excited for the footage. I’m going to be a b-roll queen tomorrow. Plus I get to see Vermont.
Also, Anna Nagurney set a date for the UMass interviews. I’m going to do them while I’m moving down to D.C.. That way it’s on my way out of town and not too far out of the way.
May 21, 2004 10:56pm
UMass Interviews
This was an almost wasted day. I got lost in Amherst, and therefore got there late. So late that I couldn’t interview Dr. Nagurney. I did have the opportunity to interview the student, who was not a very proficient English speaker, but I had made the drive and I didn’t know how to tell him that I didn’t need his interview so I did it anyway. When I let him look over the list he circled five questions.. FIVE QUESTIONS! …and told me that he could answer those. So I asked him those five questions, packed up, and started my long drive down to D.C. I’m taking a break now for a week or so while I move, but I will be back to work soon enough.
June 2, 2004 6:47pm
Digitizing Fun
I’ve been working on digitizing some of my footage this week. I’m finding it a frustrating process. Not because I’m actually having problems digitizing, but I’m actually having issues with wishing I could go back and re-shoot some of the interviews. I’ve really screwed up some. One major problem I have is lighting, though I’m still concerned that I may be missing something with the lavs. I need to make a mental note to talk to the EDC people about that either before I have another interview or when I turn the equipment in.
June 11, 2004 8:14pm
The End of an Era
I’ve been finishing up my digitizing this week, but I’m still frustrated with myself for many different reasons. One: I have a light in the shot for most of Robin’s footage, and most of the time, while he’s talking…sigh…. I’m moving the camera to try and get it out of the picture. Thank god for b-roll is all I have to say. Two: the nervous fidgeting of the interviewees. They seem to always be doing something that distracts from what they are saying. I wish that I had the balls to point it out and put a stop to it… but I just didn’t want to seem rude to people that were helping me out. Oh well..
Other than that there are technical issues (bad lighting on Jane, strange one channel audio on Matt and some of Robin), but those can be somewhat repaired while editing I hope. Now I’m heading down to Atlanta for a friend’s wedding so there may not be much to report next week.
June 18, 2004 5:32
Paperwork
I decided to try and get a head start on my paperwork this week, and boy I’m glad that I did. I didn’t realize how much stuff I needed to do. All this PLUS anal formatting. I’m sure I’ll do fine, but all I’ve done so far is type up a basic edit decision list. This will hopefully help me next week when I get home and start to actually edit it.
Honestly, I’m a little worried. I’m worried that I don’t know how to arrange this properly, I’m worried that I’m making completely competent people look otherwise incompetent, and I’m afraid of making myself look incompetent. Truthfully, I think that’s why I’ve waiting so long to begin the editing process.. out of fear.
June 24, 2004 7:18pm
Editing, Somewhat
I started piecing it together this week. I got through the intro and the first section, End of Life. I’m finding it very hard not to start glossing it over before I’m finished piecing it together. I want to fix the audio, tweak the brightness, add the b-roll, but NO…NO NO NO NO! I need to piece the story together first. Focus Shana, focus…. The story is the most important element.
I’m also still worried that it’s going to be boring. Hopefully the b-roll and audio track will jazz it up a little bit. Of course I need to keep reminding myself that this isn’t supposed to entertain, it’s supposed to inform.
July 2, 2004 8:32pm
Rough, Rough Cut
I’ve finished my assembly edit. It was really easy to put it together. Almost too easy. I feel really strange about it though, like I can understand and follow it, but I’m not sure if everybody else will. I guess that’s the point of the research though. Now onto the research phase. I need to get the questionnaire together now that I have the rough cut done. Now I know what I should be asking about, sort of…
July 9, 2004 7:16pm
More Rough Cut
I just couldn’t leave it alone. It seems like it’s all in place, but I’m still missing something, or at least I feel like I am. I probably need narration, but I wouldn’t know where to begin, or that I even have time. I would need to script it, then record it (I don’t know how to do that when I’m so far away from school and the necessary equipment), then I would need to edit it in. I think it’s too late for that, but I’ll include in my questionnaire none-the-less.
July 16, 2004 10:38am
Research Questionnaire
I sent off the questionnaires today to the people who responded to my livejournal post. I asked them to respond ASAP, but we’ll see if that works. I feel uncertain about the questionnaire. I got some corrections from Jan, but Don, well I haven’t been able to contact him, nor have I heard from him. It seems as though he dropped off the face of the earth for this project. Oh well, Jan offered some good advice. So now I’ll just sit back and wait for the responses. Waiting is killing me.
July 23, 2004 4:52pm
Final Cut from Research
The results of the online survey weren’t what I expected. Not many of the people who said they would help me out actually took the time to take the survey. This means I wasted money and energy on at least four people.
Oh well, the main piece of advice that I got from this research is that the piece needs narration. Too bad it’s so late in the game that I can’t add narration. There were, however, some other critiques that I could apply, such as spelling errors, and more specific ones.
Though I can’t fix the most important suggestion, it did give me a few days worth of work, and overall I feel better about the piece as a whole. It seems from the responses that it wasn’t quite as boring as I thought,,, at least for its purpose it’s not all that boring.
July 30, 2004 3:32pm
Final Cut and Paperwork
I’ve been polishing up the project while working on paperwork. The amount of paperwork and formatting is overwhelming. For an art school they sure do want this thing to be as uniform as possible. It’s probably, no wait, it is the most structured piece of work that I have ever done (the paperwork part).
It seems that I had forgotten how much had to be done the last time I decided to start the paperwork. Now, I feel that I am almost over my head.
August 4, 2004 4:14pm
Paperwork
I spoke with Jan today. Flew all the way up to Boston, but it was worth it. She liked my rough cut. (I showed her the rough cut because I wanted to see if she had any extra advice for the final version.) A lot of her observations were the same, but overall she seemed impressed. So much so that she mentioned the festival circuit.
She also took what paperwork that I had finished. Most of all it’s good with a few minor fixes. It looks like I’m done. Well, almost. But still after today I feel closer to done than ever!
Completion Phase
Copyright Ownership Statement
I, Shana A. Slay retain the copyright for this project. I grant Emerson College classroom, library, and promotional user rights.
Should I choose to distribute this video project I would need to obtain copyrights for the following images and music:
Sure-As-Not/Sure-As-Knot
Afro-Celt Sound System
Martin Russell, Producer
Exporting Harm
Basel Action Network and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
I realize that this piece may only be used for education uses until the clearances listed above are obtained.
I changed a few things from the proposed commercial budget. Above the line, I changed director to director of photography. I, the producer, was also the director. While I know that is not recommended to direct and produce a piece, it was the only budgeted option that I had in reality.
I also changed my number of MiniDV tapes from 100 to 25. I realized while shooting the piece that I would not need that many tapes for such a short documentary. I used closer to 25 tapes.
Lastly, I changed the Avid editor to a Final Cut Pro Editor since the project was actually edited on Final Cut Pro 3.
Actual Budget: Out-of-Pocket
* Gas, food, expenses for interviews $1,000
* Mini DV tapes (30 @ $5/ea.) $150
* 80-GB external portable hard drive $400
Total $1,670
I deleted the audio tapes because I never actually bought or used any. I also added an additional $500 for the gas. food, expenses, and interviews portion since it did cost me approximately that much more. Other than these minor fixes there were no other changes to the actual out-of-pocket budget.
Actual Production Schedule
Research and Proposal September 1 through March 30
Production December 17 through May 21 7 days location interviews
3 days of copying photographs
4 days of b-roll shooting
8 days driving
6 days flying
Post-Production June 7 through August 11 1 week for logging
1.5 weeks for edit plan
3 weeks for rough cut / evaluation
1.5 weeks for revision
There are a few differences between the proposed production schedule and this actual production schedule. The dates are the most important.
I actually turned in two proposals during the research and proposal phase. After I had finished my proposal for Another Man’s Treasure: Reuse in 20th century America, I decided that I was more interested in the section on ate twentieth century e-wastes, so I began to focus my research from there. Over the next few months, while also shooting interviews for Another Man’s Treasure, I decided that I wanted to focus all of my efforts on America’s problem with e-wastes.
I also changed the length of the traveling days. Driving, when calculated on a 9-hour workday scale, actually amounted to eight days in a vehicle. This is also true with the flights, but one reason that so much time was spent flying was in part due to my flying status with Delta Airlines, (also noted in the revised actual budget). I fly on a non-dependent family stand-by pass that allows me to pay a lot less, but it is never a guarantee of a seat. Most of my time traveling by air was spent waiting for an open flight in airports.
I also eliminated the transcript section of my post-production schedule because I did not actually transcribe the entire project.
Self-Criticism
There are plenty of things that I would have liked to have seen turn out differently with this project, but here I will list the things that I could have done differently that might have produced a more favorable outcome
In the pre-production process I wish that I had made a quicker decision to change the focus from the broader topic to the narrow e-waste topic. I, as always, wish that I had worked harder to find more research and interview leads. I also wish that I had e-mailed the sources that I had to ask if they knew of more sources that I should contact. I only thought to do this halfway through my production process.
I also wish that I had compiled a list of contacts while I was researching, and contacted them immediately instead of contacting them as I planned on having time in their area and then adding them to my final contact list after I received a response from them.
I could have used some help with the shooting, and I should have more actively looked for help. If I had asked for help with the shooting the interviews may have had better lighting and I would have had more time with some of the interviews. I also would like to have asked more focused questions in the interviews. If only I could have imagined how they would turn out in the editing process, I would have asked more follow up questions or rephrased the important ones to get more versions of the responses that I needed for my three sections.
I encountered many other problems with my project in the post-production process. The first problem was holding out for more interviews before starting the process. If I knew then what I know now I would have started the process long before I actually did. I encountered a lot of problems in the editing process that could have been easily remedied during the production process.
I also wish that I could have gotten more feedback. I got the opinions of a lot of people as my work was progressing, but there was only one person who saw it at different stages and offered helpful advice. I also need to get over my fear of showing someone a rough piece. I’m a perfectionist and it’s really hard for me to willingly show someone an incomplete work.
Overall, my faults in this project come with not preparing for the possible problems, not focusing my attention where it needed to be at times, and being to afraid to ask people for help at the various stages.
Evaluation Research
For evaluation of the project I attempted to find a group of people who met the criteria outlined in the intended audience section of the proposal. I did this by posting to livejournal communities whose members were interested in environmental concerns. Livejournal is a web-based community of personal journals with communities for specific interests. I posted a livejournal entry to a few communities asking for volunteers to view and evaluate my documentary. I received nine replies and sent all nine of these willing participants my rough cut along with a paper copy of the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was also administered via my livejournal account. With this account you are allowed to create surveys for your readers. I created my questionnaire and posted it on-line for fast compilation and easy comparison of results. (Appendix B) The only downside to this method was the inability to post all of the directions. To remedy this I instructed the participants to look at the paper copy and read the instructions, typed in bold, to help them navigate through the survey. Another problem with using this medium was splitting the survey up over three different posts because livejournal would only allow fifteen questions per post and I wanted to offer the option of not having to enter the demographic information online.
The Questionnaire
I’d like to start by asking you some general questions about your recent television documentary viewing preferences.
1.) How often do you watch television documentaries?
1 Several times a week
2 A few times a month
3 Occasionally
4 Never
5 Don’t Know
2.) What type of documentaries do you watch? (Check all that apply.)
1 historical
2 political
3 political satire
3 scientific
4 environmental
5 medical
6 crime
7 military
8 entertainment
9 biography
10 news
Now I’d like to ask you some general questions about “Technological Graveyard.”
3.) Did you understand the topic of “Technological Graveyard”?
yes no
Please explain: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.) Were you informed by the topic of “Technological Graveyard”?
yes no
Please explain: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.) Were you entertained by the topic of “Technological Graveyard”?
yes no
Please explain: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.) Do you have any remaining questions on the topic of “Technological
Graveyard”?
yes no
Please explain: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement about “Technological Graveyard”?
7.) The subject matter is important.
Strongly Agree Agree / Disagree Strongly Disagree
8.) The people interviewed were informative.
Strongly Agree Agree / Disagree Strongly Disagree
9.) The people interviewed were entertaining.
Strongly Agree Agree / Disagree Strongly Disagree
10.) The statistics provided were relevant.
Strongly Agree Agree / Disagree Strongly Disagree
11.) The documentary would benefit from narration.
Strongly Agree Agree / Disagree Strongly Disagree
12.) Of the three sections, which provided the most relevant information?
End of Life
The E-cycle
The World is Watching
Don’t Know/No Response
13.) Which section was the most entertaining?
End of Life
The E-cycle
The World is Watching
Don’t Know/No Response
14.) In your opinion, what were some of the strongest aspects of this documentary?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
15.) In your opinion, what were some of the weakest aspects of this documentary?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The following questions pertain to demographics. This information is used to group your answers with those other people who are participating in this review. If you do not feel comfortable answering these questions on my livejournal then please check no response and send me an e-mail.
16.) GENDER:
MALE FEMALE
17.) Which of the following age groups do you belong to?
18 to 25
26 to 35
36 to 45
46 to 55
56 to 65
65 +
Don’t Know/ No Response
18.) Which of the following best describes your racial or ethnic background?
White / Caucasian
Black / African-American
Hispanic
Asian
Native American
Other:_____________
No Response
19.) Which of the following best describes your individual yearly income?
Below $20,000
Between $20,000 and $40,000
Between $40,000 and $60,000
Between $60,000 and $80,000
Between $80,000 and $100,000
Above $100,000
Don’t Know / No Response
This concludes the questionnaire. Thank you for taking the time to view the video and answer these questions. Do you have any comments that you would like to add?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rationale/Justification
Q1- The purpose of this question was to determine the documentary viewing habits of the respondents. This shows which respondents have more experience in viewing documentaries and thus have more experience with my type of project. One of he problems with this question is that the term ‘television documentary’ is not clearly defined. Another problem with the question is the wording of the responses. Terms like several, few, and occasionally can mean different things to different people. It also didn’t provide me with too much useful information in terms of my final edit.
Q2- This question also has the purpose of determining the documentary viewing habits of the respondents. One of the problems with this question is that some of the documentary categories overlap, for instance some people watch ‘historical crime documentaries’. It’s also not an all-inclusive list that doesn’t offer a ‘none’ or ‘other’ category.
Q3-Q5- The purpose of these questions was to determine whether the project was easy to understand, informational, and entertaining. They asked a simple yes/ no question and then asked the respondent to explain their answers so that I could fix the problems that they pointed out in their detailed responses. One problem with these questions is that the word ‘topic’ is vague and not defined. It’s hard to tell what is meant with the word topic. Maybe it would have been better to use the term ‘subject matter’. Another problem with these questions is the phrasing ‘please explain:’. It doesn’t tell the respondent what exactly they should explain and leaves it up to their interpretation.
Q6- The purpose of this question was to determine whether there were any remaining questions pertaining to the topic of the documentary. One problem with this question is that the ‘please explain:’ section would not be relevant if the respondent answered ‘no’. Another problem with this question, like the ones before it, is the phrasing ‘please explain:’. It doesn’t tell the respondent what exactly they should explain and leaves it up to their interpretation.
Q7- The purpose of this question was to determine whether the respondents thought that the project’s subject matter was important. The problem with this question is that the respondent could question ‘Is the subject matter important to what?’ It could use a little clarification. Another problem with this question is the lack of a ‘don’t know’ or ‘no response’ option.
Q8- The purpose of this question was to determine whether the respondents thought that the interviews were informative. One problem with this question is the term ‘people interviewed.’ It could have simply read ‘The interviews were informative.’ Another problem with this question is the lack of a ‘don’t know’ or ‘no response’ option.
Q9- The purpose of this question was to determine whether the respondent thought that the interviews were entertaining. . One problem with this question is the term ‘people interviewed.’ It could have simply read ‘The interviews were entertaining.’ Another problem with this question is the lack of a ‘don’t know’ or ‘no response’ option.
Q10- The purpose of this question was to determine whether the respondents found the statistics relevant to the project. One problem with this question is the word ‘relevant.’ A respondent could ask ‘Were the statistics relevant to what?’ Another problem with this question is the lack of a ‘don’t know’ or ‘no response’ option.
Q11- The purpose of this question was to determine if the respondents thought that the project would benefit from narration. The main problem with this question, like all the others in this section, is the lack of a ‘don’t know’ or ‘no response’ option.
Q12- The purpose of this question is to determine which section the respondents found more informative. This question should have been followed by another question that asked which section they thought was the least informative, and thus pointing out the section that needed the most restructuring.
Q13- The purpose of this question is to determine which section the respondents found more entertaining. This question should have been followed by another question that asked which section they thought was the least entertaining, and thus pointing out the one that needed the most restructuring.
Q14- The purpose of this question is to determine what the respondent thought some of the strongest aspects of the documentary were. This information helps determine which parts of the documentary to preserve while assembling the final edit. One problem with this question is the vagueness of the term ‘aspects.’ The use of this term makes the question very general in a section of the questionnaire that should be more specific.
Q15- The purpose of this question is to determine what the respondent thought some of the weakest aspects of the documentary were. This information helps determine which parts of the documentary to restructure while assembling the final edit. One problem with this question is the vagueness of the term ‘aspects.’ The use of this term makes the question very general in a section of the questionnaire that should be more specific.
Q16- This question could help provide insight into whether female or male respondents feel differently about certain aspects of the documentary by comparing their responses along gender lines.
Q17- This question could help decipher whether a certain age group of respondents feel differently about certain aspects of the documentary by comparing their responses with other age groups.
Q18- This question could help decipher whether a certain ethnic group of respondents feel differently about certain aspects of the documentary by comparing their responses with other ethnic groups.
Q19- This question could help decipher whether respondents with a certain amount of yearly income feel differently about certain aspects of the documentary by comparing their responses with other income groups.
The last question is asked in case the respondents have something else that they wanted to say, but weren’t given the opportunity to answer elsewhere in the survey.
Organization and Flow
The survey is organized with the intention of focusing the respondent’s attention to the questions at hand. I tried to make the survey flow by not putting too many ‘yes’, ‘no’ or likert questions together.
I placed the general questions first since a good survey should always go from general to specific in order to focus the concentration of the respondent by getting them to think about general items before asking them about specific items.
The second section was a little more specific about the project by focusing on the subject matter or ‘topic.’
The third section of the questionnaire is even more specific because it includes likert scale questions that focus on specific elements of the project such as the subject matter, the interviews, the statistics, and the lack of narration.
The fourth section asks more specific questions for the particular sections of the documentary, which provide some of the most valuable information for the final editing process.
The demographic section was placed at the end because it is information that is not so important to the project’s final edit, but rather to understanding what demographics groups gave certain responses when compared to others. I gave the option to e-mail the answers in case the respondents weren’t comfortable divulging that information on livejournal.
Reliability and Validity
The survey is reliable because it asks some pertinent questions for which I wanted answers. It would be more reliable if it could have been pre-tested with the audience for Technological Graveyard.
The questions are reliable because I, along with my advisor, Dr. Roberts-Breslin, and a colleague, Keith Edgemon, all screened the questions for any items that may have caused confusion or bias in the respondent’s answers.
The survey asks questions that were important to my final editing decisions for this project. The responses helped me decide which parts of the project needed more attention, and which parts of the project needed preservation.
Evaluation
The following are the results of the on-line survey. Unfortunately, only five out of the nine respondents took the survey, but the information that they provided was helpful none-the-less.
Q1- The responses to this question shows that 60% of the respondents watch television documentaries ‘a few times a month’ while the other 40% watch them ‘occasionally.’ This shows that the respondents are familiar with the structure and format of a television documentary, and they are capable of offering advice on how to improve mine.
Q2- A majority (80%) of the respondents admitted to watching biography documentaries. 60% of the respondents admitted that they watched historical, entertainment, and news documentaries, while 40% admitted to watching political, environmental, and crime documentaries, and 20% admitted watching political satire, medical, and military. This shows that the environmental documentary genre is not the most popular documentary type with these respondents, but most of them are familiar with the structure of a television documentary.
Q3- All of the respondents responded ‘yes.’ This shows that the topic of the project was clear to the viewer and little work needs to be done to clarify its purpose. Many respondents used the explanation to exemplify their understanding of the topic.
Q4- A majority of the respondents (80%) said that they were informed by the topic of the project. This shows that the project may need some work, however, the respondent that said they were not informed by the topic chose not to explain their answer, and therefore, it is unclear what type of experience they may have had with this subject matter beforehand, and how that could have affected their response.
Q5- A majority of the respondents (80%) said that they were not entertained by the topic of the project. This shows that the project really needs some work on keeping the viewer interested. The respondents said that they were ‘educated, but not necessarily entertained’ and ‘more intrigued than entertained.’ One respondent suggested that narration might help to ‘make it more cohesive.’
Q6- A majority (80%) of the respondents said that they weren’t left with any questions. The one respondent who did have questions, however, used the opportunity to express the fact that they thought that ‘there is so much more ground to cover.’ This response shows that the project, if given more time and resources, should expand the scope of the topic and explore all areas of e-cycling.
Q7- 60% of the respondents agreed that the subject matter was important, while only 40% strongly agreed. This shows that the project’s topic is relevant, and thus of some interest to the community.
Q8- 40% of the respondents said that they strongly agreed that the interviews were informative, while another 40% only agreed. One respondent, the same who answered ‘no’ to question 4, said that they disagreed. Mostly, this shows that the interviews served their purpose to inform the viewer, with the exception of the one respondent who did not explain how it failed to inform them on the previous question.
Q9- When asked if the respondents thought that the interviews were entertaining 20% said that they agreed, and another 20% said that they didn’t know or they had no response. Only one respondent disagreed. This shows that, if given the time and resources, it would be beneficial to find more interviews to throw into the mix, and hopefully make the project more entertaining.
Q10- A majority (60%) of the respondents strongly agreed that the statistics were relevant while the other 40% simply agreed. This shows that the statistics included in the project are appropriate, and thus little work is needed to improve them.
Q11- A majority (60%) of the respondents said that they strongly agreed that the project would benefit from narration, while the other 40% was split between disagree and don’t know/no response. This shows that the project, if given more time and resources, should script and apply a narration. This might help the flow of the piece and as one respondent said in question 5, ‘I think a narrator could make it more cohesive.’
Q12- A majority of the respondents said that they thought the End of Life section provided the most relevant information while the other 40% said that The World is Watching was the most relevant. This shows that The E-cycle section needs to include more information that fits in with the overall project. This section needs special attention to make it more relevant.
Q13- Even though a majority of the respondents (60%) answered ‘don’t know/no response,’ the other 40% agreed that The World is Watching was the most entertaining section in the project. This shows that the other two sections need some work to make them more entertaining.
Q14- Most of the respondents agreed that the statistics were a strong aspect of the documentary. One respondent said ‘The statistics and commentary at the opening of the video show depth and value,’ while another said ‘The information was accurate, socially relevant.’ This shows that the statistics are a very strong aspect of the project, thus it should stay in tact.
Q15- The weakest aspect of the documentary, according to many, was the interviews. One respondent said ‘The people interviewed were a little boring. Not what they were saying… but the people themselves made you want to fall asleep.’ Another respondent also replied ‘It’s a little dry, it needs narration to connect the people you interview.’ Some of the other comments were stylistic errors and opinions that are easily corrected. Mostly, this question shows the need to for narration in this project. The respondents were bored, and therefore they need something to liven it up.
Q16- 80% of the respondents were female, thus creating a need for further investigation into the male perception of the project. The one male respondent was very helpful and offered the most critical advice so it may have been beneficial to try and get more male perspectives on the piece.
Q17- All of the respondents were between the ages of 18 to 25. This presents a problem with this research because I didn’t get any feedback from other age groups that could be included in my intended audience. These age groups may have had different and more critical feedback on the project and the topic itself.
Q18- 60% of the respondents claimed to be ‘white/Caucasian’ while the other 40% claimed ‘other’. This shows that my respondents are slightly diverse, much like my intended audience would be. It is beneficial to know that I have received different perspectives on the project. This is, of course, working under the assumption that ‘other’ does indeed mean diverse. It would have been helpful to see what they would have written in the ‘other’ section had they been provided with one.
Q19- 80% of the respondents have a yearly income below $20,000. The other 20% claimed ‘no response.’ This shows that my respondents aren’t diverse in their yearly income, like my intended audience would be. It would be beneficial to screen this project with more people in different yearly income categories to get their perspectives on the project.
The respondents mainly used to the last question to reiterate some responses that they had made earlier including commenting on the need for narration and a few technical errors. None of the responses to this question offered any further critical assessment of the project.
Overall the research provided useful information that I took into account while constructing my final edit. It would have been more beneficial, however, if I had enough time to do a second round of research with the final edit to see if the problems that were repairable have been repaired and the other problems have been improved.
CLICK HERE FOR EXPANDED POST
