First Filming of Architects

12th January. After following the Hazely school project over the course of a few meetings I was finally allowed to film a meeting in progress. The cameras we had ordered had arrived 10 days before, hard disk recording JVC Everio cameras, so this was the first opportunity to test the cameras in situ.

The meeting was to discuss how the Phase 2 development of the school could get a 'good' assessment by fulfilling a certain number of criteria laid down by BREEAM (not too sure what the acronym means). This involved basically going through a checklist to work out what was already included in the plan, what could be included relatively easily, and what wasn't included. The consultant with the checklist, guidelines and spreadsheet was a guy called Daniel Lash from Exeter University. With the two architects, the external consultant, mechanical services representative, electrical services representative, and accounting person the meeting was larger than I'd expected with six people, but proved useful all the same.

The room was a purpose-designed meeting room about 10 metres by 4 metres. It was largely wood panelled but had plenty of glass around to position the cameras with suckers. I basically put a camera high in each corner of the room and zoomed one camera so we had a view of what was on the table. It took me about 20 minutes to set everything up and get the cameras recording. The Cameras ended up being quite a long way away from the table - good for the lack of intrusion, but not so good for audio quality.

With the cameras recording, the meeting basically went ahead as normal. There were some comments about people giving permission for being filmed, but no major protest. Initially I think people were aware of the cameras, but after a while most seemed to relax. After I'd stopped the cameras the general feeling was that they hadn't really noticed after the first 10 minutes.

These were the thoughts that occurred to me as I was sitting observing the meeting (at the end of the table, slightly removed from the 'action').
• All meeting participants should sign a permission form before the meeting takes place (for ethical reasons, for possible legal reasons, and for good research practice).
• Get people to take their shoes off to make them feel more comfortable?
• Cushions to protect the cameras in case they come unstuck (one did, but luckily survived the tumble)
• Show the tape counter on screen for playback and synchronisation purposes
• Get still images or copies of all documents discussed or present. This might be difficult as people have personal notebooks, and there was a computer with documents on. How important is it to get every peice of documentation as opposed to having a general feeling for where the focus of attention is at any one point.
• Should I be in the room or not? It seemed to me that I was a constant reminder of the filming taking place. So even if people had forgotten about the cameras, one look at me meant that they were suddenly reminded. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean people are keeping a check on what they are saying. If I wasn't there 'forgetting' the cameras might mean that the discussion might be a bit freer, but by the same token are we taking advantage of people's 'forgetting'?

Back at the office I transferred the film onto my computer which took about 10 minutes per camera. (At the highest quality setting the camera uses about 4GB per hour of filming.) The basic quality was good. It is possible to make out the drawings, and see roughly what is being attended to. The four separate camera angles also give a very complete picture of the meeting.

In terms of the meeting content, it wasn't as boring as I'd expected. Without a transcription it is difficult to say but there was plenty of interest for analysis.