<!--StartFragment-->

Measuring
a Local Independent Film Culture

Alice
Liao

Professor
Christian Sandvig

Unorthodox
Method

Fall
2008

A qualitative versus a quantitative
approach to research and establishing knowledge has had a long-standing and
highly contested history. Empirical scientists support the argument for a
quantitative approach. To distinguish true scientific method from
pseudo-scientific method, Karl Popper advocates for falsifiability as the
criterion for a scientific status of a theory. A scientific theory, in contrast
to the explain-all theories such as Marxism and psychoanalysis, must result
from risky predictions, have high restrictions on alternative interpretations,
and be refutable and testable[1].
To Thomas Kuhn, scientific researchers, particularly in natural sciences, do
not encourage novelty or revolution, but reinforce an existing set of beliefs
and practices guided by paradigmatic rules. A paradigm shift at the point of
crisis, resulting from long-standing failures, provides an opportunity for restructuring
the discipline. A
consequence of a sequence of paradigm shifts is the adapted set of instruments
we call modern scientific knowledge [2].
Although Kuhn’s view of science is enthusiastically taken up by those in the
social sciences, Kuhn himself does not agree to extend his construction of
paradigm outside Normal Science, and maintains that “the primary determinants
of the outcome of a scientific episode are to be found within science[3].”
In other words, the paradigms in science not only shape but also determine what
questions to ask and what results to expect, and hence produce a particular
kind of knowledge permitted in a given paradigmatic framework. In their
configurations, large parts of science are refutable, and yet only in
compliance with alternative sets of beliefs and practices established 
in the subsequent paradigms.

On the other hand, many theorists have rejected
with this rigid view on science and knowledge. As a philosopher of science,
Paul Feyerabend argues strongly against for science to be run according to
dogmatic and universal rules, and instead argues for the adoption of multiple
methods to test and change perspectives of a theory and, ultimately, about
science. Chauvinism of science has turned institutions and intellectuals into
slavery “in the guise of progressive theories,” and colonizes other forms of
human life outside of science. He concludes that the separation between science
and non-science “is not only artificial but also detrimental to the advancement
of knowledge[4].”  In short, Feyeraband refutes the
totalitarian view of science as the only legitimate way to produce of
knowledge. De Solla Price historicizes the separation of science and
technology, and foregrounds miscellaneous techniques that produced what is now
considered “scientific knowledge” in a history prior to standardization of a
“scientific method” in the mid to late nineteenth century. Techniques and
craftsmanship are what drive the advancement of science and yet often are
delegated to a role subservient to theoretically trained “scientists[5].”
In short, de Solla Price similarly highlights the importance of alternative
methods to science to produce knowledge. Giddens discusses the demise of
orthodox consensus in social sciences, its subsequent profusion of pluralist
perspectives, and a new phase currently emerging as synthesis. He posits that
earlier orthodox consensus wrongly adopted the mode of natural sciences, which
is actually interpretive of natural laws in the context of theoretical systems,
not simply deduction, and proposes an ethnographic work in conducting social
science research which consider human knowledgeable activity and social
reproduction of conventions, and can in turn “display the discursive form of
the aspects of our mutual knowledge, the taken-for-granted practicalities of
our conduct[6].”
In short, in an attempt to position social sciences in the same scientific
status as natural sciences, Giddens reinterprets Kuhn’s notion of paradigm by
displacing it with Merton’s notion of paradigm, and in effect, subsumes the
research mode of natural sciences to that of social sciences and therefore
deprioritizes the dominant scientific mode of production of knowledge.

Some researchers have pointed out that
this dichotomy and its incommensurability reside on the epistemological level
and their fundamental assumptions about truth. Smith and Heshusius argue that a
recent leap to synthesize quantitative and qualitative approaches closes down
important conversation about the incompatible epistemological assumptions of
these two approaches. While quantitative approach seeks independently existing
social reality, that is, it considers truth as the correspondence between words
and existing reality, qualitative approach believes that social reality is
mind-constructed, that is, it considers that truth is based on social and
historical agreement and is thus never value-free. Thus, to trivialize these
two approaches as simply variations in technique within the same assumptive
framework, and thereby to call for collaboration, is counterproductive to our
understanding of the underlying epistemological differences about truth and
value behind these two approaches. In this sense, method is to be understood
not as a set of techniques and procedures but as the logic of justification and
elaboration that inform the practices. Indeed, “epistemological position
constrains how condition is conceptualized, what techniques need to be
performed, and what is accepted as truth.” Even when same techniques are
performed, the consequences will remain different: with a quantitative approach, it is the set of
techniques that are validated; with a qualitative
approach, it is a set of  hermeneutics that are
examined over endlessly. In
the end, they conclude that the trend for compatibility, exemplified in Guba,
Guba, and Lincoln, LeCompte and Goetz, and Miles and Huberman, are in
fact efforts to capture qualitative inquiry by means of quantitative inquiry,
and that it is critical to reexamine the claims for collaboration and
compatibility in order to keep the conversation open[7].
In discussion of the development of feminist epistemology and methodology, like
LeCompte and Goetz who proposes not to dwell upon epistemology of modes of
inquiry because researchers have already blended both modes in practice,
Maynard argues, in addition to the feminist orthodoxy of qualitative approach,
for recognition that the quantitative approach that may also make valuable
contributions to our understanding and improvement of women’s lives and
experiences. While challenging the qualitative orthodoxy in feminist
methodology, she insists on the practical and social implications a feminist
epistemology bears. Pointing to the dichotomy between foundationalism and
relativism, Maynard corresponds with Harding’s concern about the implications
and applicability of a feminist epistemology to real consequences regarding
women’s social life[8]. She argues
that a feminist standpoint and feminist postmodernism are confusing as to whose
standpoint it refers to and the difficulty in making political intervention. On
the methodological level, on the other hand, the current prevalence of feminist
postmodernism makes it “difficult to see how some of the issues currently at
the forefront of epistemological concerns could really be empirically explored
in anything other than qualitative work[9].”
Therefore, while the dichotomy in feminist epistemology may be difficult, or
even impossible, to reconcile, the methodology for conducting research and the
goal of understanding and improving women’s lives should not be philosophized
or dematerialized and thereby subsumed under epistemological paradox.

These epistemological debates indeed bear
with them influences and implications in any research design. Researchers
justify their chosen methods by positioning their methods in relation to their
existing disciplinary traditions with an anticipated, specific contribution to
the body of knowledge, however it is defined. These disciplinary traditions in
turn are the result of their own sequential paradigmatic competition derived
from particular epistemological struggles. That is to say, when a researcher
sets out her research design, the method of her choice is already laden with
paradigmatic and epistemological values. In this sense, methodology then can be
conceived as styles of reasoning and rhetoric of persuasion. In discussing the
methodology of economics, McCloskey proposes to conceptualize science as
conversational norms of civilization, and methodology, instead of being a
philosophized imposition on practitioner, as standards of persuasiveness that
make an attempt to contribute to the conversation of knowledge. Researchers are
thus exempted from the burden of having to solve the entanglement of
epistemology and methodology because, McCloskey asserts, on the one hand,
science does not need to bear ultimate epistemological inquiry, and, on the
other hand, the rhetoric of science entails “art of discovering warrantable
beliefs and improving those beliefs in shared discourse,” that is, research
needs only make believable claims that are appropriate to its given context, in
regard to its discipline, paradigm, and audience[10].

Similarly, Swales also skirts the complex
relationship between epistemology and methodology in his discussion on writing
scientific research articles, and by taking the research article as a genre
which in turn informs the practices involved in conducting a research. If we
accept McCloskey’s proposition to consider science as a conversation, then the
standards in the science rhetoric correspond to Swales’ characterization of the
genre-specific conventions in writing research articles. Tracing the emergence
of the genre, Swales notes the important influence of the traditions of
scientific publishing treaties in the seventeenth century. Robert Boyle
established a proper foundation for scientific knowledge by transforming
“claims and speculations into generally-accepted knowledge by way of the
experimental matter of fact.” Swales contents that Boyle’s strategies for
writing research articles, such as virtual witnessing, replication, detailed
illustration, and impersonal language, make a rhetoric of science, which uses
rhetorical persuasion to achieve fact-like consensus among science community,
in the guise of “fact speaks for itself[11].”
These writing strategies reciprocate to the practices of the research, such as
the criterion of replicability, which may be argued to have been the flip side
of Kuhn’s falsifiablity. Therefore, in McCloskey’s and Swales’ configurations
of science and knowledge, science is an attempt to contribute to a conversation
of knowledge, methodology is the rhetoric of persuasion of science, and
research then does not have to produce epistemological truth, in either
rationalistic or naturalistic sense, and can contribute a contextually valid
finding to the body of knowledge.

It is with these qualifications I hope to
position my research. Acknowledging the limitations of any style of inquiry and
of the contextually-bound knowledge it produces, this research investigates the
correlation between availability and circulation/reception of independent films
in a given region. The hypothesis is that the more independent films that are
available, the higher the consumption of independent films, and also the more
prevalent film culture is in the region. I choose the Boston area because it
has long had a reputation as a center for independent film production[12].
Broadcasters, academics, independent production and exhibition scenes all
contribute to the vitality of Boston film culture. The geographical
delimitation of the “Boston area” varies according to research and government
institutions. As defined by Metropolitan Area Planning Council, the Boston area
consists of eight subregions and their principle cities: Minuteman (Route 2
corridor), MetroWest
(Framingham), North Shore
(Peabody), North Suburban (Woburn), South Shore
(Route 3
corridor), SouthWest (Franklin), and Three Rivers (Norwood)[13].
The Census Bureau provides regional data on a county or city basis and some of
its data will be used in this research. According to the Bureau, the Boston
area refers to four counties that are geographically approximate to Boston
city: Plymouth, Norfolk, and Suffolk (Boston-Cambridge-Quincy MSA) and
Middlesex (Cambridge-Newton-Framingham )[14].
On the other hand, de Smith argues that a location does not have to coincide
with an existing zone, and may be defined according to the purpose of a
research[15].
Therefore, I will define the Boston area as four adjacent counties to Boston
city: Suffolk County, Norfolk County, Middlesex County, and Plymouth County[16].

This research design consists of multiple
measures in order to cross validate the findings with each. As Webb and
Campbell point out in Unobtrusive
Measures, the major objection they have against the dominant methods of
interview and questionnaire in social science research is not the methods
themselves, but that they are used alone. Because each measure has its
limitations, “it is the necessity for a multiple operationism, a collection of
methods combined to avoid sharing the same weaknesses[17].”
The multiple measures employed in this research use sources from running
records, private records, and survey. This research expects to find growth of
independent film culture in the Boston area across time.

The first measure is funding and resources for
local filmmaking. According to the Massachusetts Film Office, production tax
credits have been a major incentive not only for major studios in Hollywood to
shoot in Massachusetts, especially in Boston, but also “with the spending
threshold lowered to $50,000 and with digital media projects” now eligible,
Massachusetts has extended the benefits of the film tax credit to thousands of
locally based, small independent and documentary filmmakers[18].”
From its records of locally-made films from 1903 to 2007, the researcher can
observe that between 1903 to 1965, there was less than one film made locally;
from 1967-1977, an average of 2.4 films were made annually; from 1978 to 1989,
the annual average was 5.8; from 1989 to 1999, the average was 10.2; 2000-2008,
the average was 8.6[19].  These numbers indicate a long-term
growth in local filmmaking.

Local financing sources are also factors
that influence local film culture. These financing sources include Documentary
Educational Resources, Inc., FilmPro Finance LLC, Douglas Kirpatrck, P.C.,
Newbury Film Series, Boston Motion Picture Awards, The Color of Film
Collaborative, Inc., Giving New England, Associated Grantmakers of
Massachusetts, Inc., Massachusetts Media Fellowships, New England Foundation
for the Arts, Massachusetts Cultural Council, and The Center of Independent
Documentary (CID). The researcher can look up the archival records of these
institutions for their annual grants to local filmmaking and numbers of titles
made, and trace whether the amount of grants or titles increases over time. For
example, The Center of Independent Documentary, founded in 1981, has been
giving fiscal sponsorship to local documentarians on issues of social and
cultural concerns. CID has sponsored 135 documentaries since. The researcher
can compare its annual grants and number of titles made in the past
twenty-seven years, and may find an increase in both numbers. Another example
is the Massachusetts Cultural Council. Founded in 2003, MCC has launched five
funding programs, under which Adams Arts Program for Creative Economy and
Organizational Support have funded local art-related filmmaking on annual
basis. The research can similarly trace the records of the amount of grants and
number of titles made in the past five years in order to identify a general
trend in local filmmaking.

The second measure is the number of film
festivals and, if possible, their revenues, in the Boston area. Currently
running film festivals include the Independent Film Festival of Boston, Boston
Film Festival, Boston International Film Festival, Boston Irish Film Festival,
Boston Jewish Film Festival, Boston French Film Festival, The Gay and Lesbian
Film Festival, African Film Festival, Human Rights Watch Festival, Roxbury Film
Festival, Provincetown International Film Festival, Martha’s Vineyard
Independent Film Festival, The Woods Hole Film Festival, Boston Underground
Film Festival, Boston Latino International Film Festival, Boston Motion Picture
Awards, MassBay Film Festival, Plymouth Independent Film Festival, and New
England Film Festival[20].
The researcher can examine the historical records of a single festival to trace
the changes in numbers of film submission, screening, and attendance. Take
Boston Film Festival for example, which celebrated its 24^th
anniversary in September 2008. The researcher can compare the numbers of film
submission and revenue between 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. On the other hand, the
researcher can also compare the total number of existing film festivals in
these three decades. Among these nineteen film festivals, only two were
launched in the 1970s, four in the 1980s, five in the 1990s, eight in the
2000s. Not only is there an increase in the number of new festivals launched in
each decade, but the total number of film festivals also increases accordingly[21].

The third measure is the numbers of
production and distribution companies, and the number of people involved in
local film industry. NewEnglandFilm.com is the major film production resources
for the Greater Boston area. From this website, the researcher can find the
numbers of currently available production companies, actors/actresses, casting
companies, crew, distribution and marketing companies, post-production
companies and so on[22]. However,
because these numbers only indicate people and companies that are currently
available, historical information is needed for a comparative analysis.
Reviewing the archives of this website on the Wayback Machine since 1998, one
feature that has endured in the past ten years is job postings[23].
The numbers of jobs posted may indicate the size and vitality of local film
culture at a given time. For example, the researcher can compare the number of
jobs posted on the first entry of the year in every two-year interval: 15 jobs
in 1998, 38 in 2000, 112 in 2002, 177 in 2004, 194 in 2006, 378 in 2008. This
growth in job posting indicates the growth of the local film industry. In
addition, from January 2002 on, features of industry directory and production
resources have also become available on the website. The researcher then can
also count the numbers of production and distribution companies, talent and
crew, and so on, and compare the changes in number over time.

The fourth measure is the number of
independent film theaters and screening venues, and, if possible, their
revenues. The major independent screening venues and theaters are the Harvard
Film Archive, the Museum of Fine Arts, the Brattle Theatre, the Coolidge Corner
Theater, the Landmark Kendall Square Cinema, the Capitol Theater, the
Somerville Theater, and the Embassy Theater,[24]
which regularly screen foreign, art house, independent, and/or cult retro
films. The Brattle Theater, for example, has been in existence for over one
hundred years, and was transferred to a repertory cinema theater since 1953[25].  Annual programming of a Film Noir
series has been its trademark, but it also screens other repertory, foreign,
and independent films. Frequent attendants of the Brattle Theatre are local
students, faculty, and those who work in local film industry. Because of this
theater’s long history, the researcher can compare its box office sales
annually or on decade basis to trace the popularity of non-mainstream films in
the Boston area in the past five decades. Harvard Film Archive is another
example. Founded in 1979, it has scheduled year-round film series, frequently
with directors in person to discuss their work with the audience, and has an extensive
collection of rare film prints, videos.
Not only it is a great resource for local filmmakers and film community, its
revenue similarly reflects the popularity of non-mainstream films. A comparison
between these two theaters’ revenues annually or by decade may also yield a
fuller picture of the trend in Boston film culture than by taken separately.
The same comparison should also be made over time for the other theaters.

The fifth measure is the number of movie
rental stores in the Boston area. The best way to find out about local business
is through the Yellow Page, which is now available at yellowpages.com. The
hypothesis is that the more movie rental stores are available, the more people
have access to movies and thus the consumption of films is higher. A cross-time
comparison of the trend of local movie culture can be assessed by a count of
the number of movie rental stores available at a given time. Wayback Machine
has records of local movie rental stores in the Boston area from 1997 to 2007[26].
However, because the search engines in the archive no longer work, this is a
failed attempt to count local movie rental business online. On the other hand,
the Library of Congress website provides potential data for this research. The
website states that the Library of Congress carries archives of U.S. telephone
directories from 1976 to 1995 on Phonefiche and directories before 1976 on
Microfilm, available in the History and Genealogy Reading Room in Washington,
D.C[27].
So the researcher can go to the Library of Congress in person to look up these
archival records.

Since nowadays there have been multiple ways
for viewers to access movie content without physically visiting movie rental
stores, the sixth measure is to assess digital movie content providers in the
Boston area. These movie content providers include mail-order movie rental
companies and digital service and content providers that offer a feature that
allows customers to download/rent movies for a fee on demand. The two major
mail-order movie rental companies are Netflix and Blockbuster. As the upstart
mail-order DVD rental service, Netflix has changed the business model of
traditional movie rental business. Netflix started its subscription plans in
1999, went public in 2003, and, as of January 2008, is carrying more than
90,000 titles with more than one million subscribers[28].
In addition, in 2006, Netflix has also started buying theater distribution
rights for independent films, and has become the largest independent film
distributor in the United States[29].
As a successful new type of movie rental business, which has grown more than
500% in the past four years[30],
Netflix has kept its distribution model a secret from the public. Listology and
Hacking Netflix have been trying to identify and make known some of Netflix’s
distribution centers, and the only location they have found in Massachusetts is
in Brockton[31].
However, based on my own experience of living in Boston and subscribing to
Netflix for three years, the Netflix DVDs I received actually came from Worcester,
which is confirmed by Netflixfan blog[32].
This research can then assume Worcester as the distribution center of Netflix
for the Boston area. Once the location of distribution is identified, the
researcher may contact this particular distribution center for its records of
the number of DVDs it mails out each year, and trace the trend in these
numbers. On the other hand, in order to compete with the online upstart
Netflix, Blockbuster, with its in-store rental business withering away,
launched “Total Access” program in 2004, which allows DVDs to be delivered
through the mail and also for customers to exchange DVDs in person at
Blockbuster stores[33]. While the
movie-rental numbers in local Blockbuster stores are already covered in the
previous measure, the researcher can also identify its local distribution
center to obtain the numbers of DVDs it mailed out annually in the past four
years in order to trace whether there has been a growing trend in the business
of mail-order movie rental in the Boston area. Coincidentally, Blockbuster’s
Boston-area distribution center  is
also located in Worcester[34].
The complication with the case of Blockbuster is that, unless its customer base
expands in the past four years, the trend in one movie-rental service will be
offset by the opposite trend in the other service. For example, if the premise
is that Blockbuster retains the same number of customers in the Boston area,
the more people rent movies through the mail, fewer movies will be rented in
the stores. Therefore, the research has to gain data of the approximate number
of Blockbuster subscribers annually in order to make sense of the fluctuation
numbers in these two movie rental services.

The seventh measure is the coverage of
independent films in local newspaper. Two major local newspapers are the Boston Globe and Boston Herald. The Boston
Globe is New England’s largest circulation newspaper, and a digitized
version is available on NewsBank program from December 12, 1979 to the present[35].
The researcher can look into the amount of coverage of independent films in the
Boston Globe in comparison with that
of mainstream movies, or of coverage of independent films in other cities, in
order to determine if the popularity of independent films in the Boston area is
relatively high. The researcher can also compare the amount of coverage in the
1980s with that in the 1990s and the 2000s to determine whether the coverage of
independent films in this area has increased over time. The researcher can
repeat previous steps to research the Boston
Herald as well, which is available on NewsBank from July 1991 to present.
On the other hand, the Boston Phoenix
is the most prominent alternative newspaper to mainstream media[36].
What makes the Boston Phoenix
particularly of interest in studying Boston film culture is its collaboration
with Boston University Department of Film and Television to hold cinematheque
that presents independent films and videos weekly at College of Communication
at BU, often with the filmmakers in person for after-screening discussions.
While previous programming of cinematheque is not publicly available, the
researcher can contact the director of Film Studies Program at BU, Roy
Grundmann, to obtain detailed information regarding specific films screened and
attendance for each. The researcher can also conduct similar content analysis
with the Boston Phoenix as with the Boston Globe. UIUC Library carries old
issues of the Boston Phoenix on
microfilm available from 1972 to present.

The eighth measure is local film-related publications.
Weekly Dig, founded in 1999, is
“Boston’s best and only weekly entertainment magazine[37].”
This magazine provides information and reviews of underground and alternative
music, film, and theater scenes in the Boston area, and copies are available
for free on college campuses, coffee shops, bars, and elsewhere. Ninety percent
of the Weekly Dig readership has
attended college, and sixty-six percent of the readership is between eighteen
and thirty-four [38], which is a very similar demographic to
the demographic of film festival-goers[39].
With this correspondence, the researcher may conduct a content analysis of the
film information and reviews offered by Weekly
Dig, especially during the times of film festivals, and trace whether its
reportage bears positive/negative/neutral influence on the attendances of these
film festivals.

The ninth measure is the local television
programming of independent films or documentaries. WGBH, the public television
powerhouse founded in 1951, is a public service media for New England and the
largest producer of PBS prime-time programming. In the past more than fifty
years, WGBH, with its production units of Nova,
La Plaza, and Frontline, has produced numerous award-winning documentaries on
social, historical, and political issues, such as civil rights, history of
African and Latino Americans, experimental visual arts, the Vietnam War, the
House of Representatives, biotechnology, women in science, history of science,
evolution, terrorism, justice, and health[40],
among which five documentaries enjoyed theatrical releases[41].
As prolific and influential as WGBH is, it requires some kind of data
transformation in order to evaluate the signification of the avalanche
production of documentaries by WGBH. One way to trace the trend of Boston film
culture is through a count of annual or decade-based titles of WGBH in the past
fifty years. Because WGBH is a local public television station, its supply of
documentaries and other independent film reflects the contemporary demand in
local communities. While the titles on WGBH website are overwhelmingly numerous
and are not listed chronologically, the research may sample individual
production units as representative of the overall production of WGBH. For
example, the researcher may assume a steady ratio of Frontline production to WGBH overall production, and trace changes
in the number of titles produced by Frontline
annually to estimate WGBH production. In a count of five year intervals, Frontline produced twenty documentaries
in 1985, twenty-nine in 1990, twenty in 1995, fourteen in 2000, fourteen in
2005, and fourteen in 2008[42].
The decline in Frontline documentary
production may indicate  that the
assumption of ratio stability between Frontline
and WGBH is inaccurate, or it may indicate that documentaries on social
concerns for the past ten years might have fallen out of favor with local
community. The researcher can then look into another production unit for
comparison. Nova, the production unit
for science series documentaries, has produced thirteen programs in 1996,
nineteen in 1998, twenty-two in 2000, fifteen in 2002, fourteen in 2004,
nineteen in 2006, and twenty-two in 2008[43].
The numbers here do not indicate an apparent decline, but instead two cycles
between 1996 and 2000 and between 2000 and 2008. The comparison between Frontline and Nova may suggest a shift in local taste instead of a change in
quantity of local documentary consumption. On the other hand, the researcher
may also investigate the financing structure within WGBH and the cost of production
of these units in order to explore plausible rivalry hypotheses and more
accurately interpret these numbers.

A second comparison that can be made is with
the data available from WGBH and data from other local television stations. The
researcher can search for similar data, such as number of titles of
documentaries and independent films produced annually in other cities, and
compare those data with the data from WGBH. For example, if, WGBH
hypothetically produced more films than KLRU, the public television station in
Austin, TX, during the 1980s, this comparison may yield the knowledge that
contemporary viewers in the Boston area were fonder of documentaries
programming than those in the Austin area.

Since film production and reception in the
Boston area is greatly intertwined with the broadcasters, independent
producers, exhibitors, and academics, the tenth measure is the number of
college film programs and the number of student enrollment in the Boston area.
Not only in the Boston area, but also nationally, Patrick Healey observes that
there has been a boom of interest of students in majoring in film since 1995[44].
Among all eighty-seven colleges and universities in the Greater Boston area[45],
a rough count of eighteen schools offer film either as major or minor program
of undergraduate and/or graduate study[46].
The researcher can look into when these film programs were launched, how many
there were in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, how many students they have
accepted each year, and how big the make-up of film student population is at
any given year. If the data show that there has been a trend of growth in the
number of film programs and film students, this trend may reflect an increase
of prevalence of film culture in the Boston area in general.

The last measure is the only one that does not
involve an archival research: survey. As Webb and Campbell note, the problem
with survey is not in the method itself, but in its being used alone. In this
research design, because there are ten other measures, the survey can be
assessed with these aggregated date to reduce uncertainty. The use of survey
here may yield important information that is not obtainable through archival
records. In fact, as Raymond Lee observes, the use of unobtrusive measures is
often justified as a complementary measures rather than alternatives to other,
more intrusive methods[47].
With this research in particular, demographic information of attendees to film
festivals, independent theaters and venues, or even film schools can only be gathered
through survey. Demographic questions included in this survey are selected from
some of those in the Census Bureau: age, sex, race, educational attainment, and
income. In addition, this survey adds a question of residence in order contrast
this self-reported information with the demographic data provided by the
Bureau. The survey will be conducted at the independent movie theaters and
screening venues proposed in measure four and at the film festivals proposed in
measure two; the geographical area covered here are the four counties stated
earlier: Plymouth, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Middlesex[48].
As Lee suggests, “there is no reason to suppose that levels of agreement
between survey data and official records will necessarily be high[49].”
Indeed, this discrepancy may help generate more specific information needed for
this research. For example, according to the Bureau data, Norfolk County and
Middlesex County are comparable in educational and income levels, followed by
Plymouth County, with Suffolk County at the bottom. However, if the survey data
yield information that attendees to these independent theaters and film
festivals from these four counties show more similarity in educational and
income levels than in the Bureau data, the researcher may hypothesize that the
internal discrepancies of education and income within a county which cannot be
shown with Bureau data can actually be addressed here. For example, if we
assume equal response rate among respondents from these four counties, and find
comparable educational and income levels and comparable number of attendance of
attendees to these film activities, instead of in proportion to respective
income and educational levels stated in Bureau data, the researcher may propose
a hypothesis that, despite regional differences reported by the Bureau, these
types of film activities draw in people from a particular class or education
background who actually share a more similar film culture with one another than
with those in their respective official existing county.

A second comparison that can be made with the
survey data is with the demographics of attendees of independent film scenes
from other cities. If there are existing data of the demographics from other
cities, the researcher may measure Boston data against other sets of data to
determine whether a particular education and income level is in fact
characteristic of these demographics. A third comparison to be made is a
longitudinal research of the demographics in the 2000s and in the 2010s and the
2020s, and thus the researcher can trace if certain characteristics endure
while others shift over time. For example, if the survey data in 2010 yield a
result that attendees come from a wide range of education and income
backgrounds, this finding may suggest that independent film culture in the
Boston area has become more popularized and accessible to the general public
rather than just to cultural elites.

In the epistemological discussion, this paper
places the research design in the position of producing contextually valid
knowledge. Prevalence of film culture in the Boston area is knowable only with
the acknowledgement that the findings of this research are spatially and
temporally specific, and that the researcher approaches this design with a
heuristic of expectancy and anticipated results. One expected result is that
independent film culture in the Boston area is on the increase. Among all these
eleven measures, for example, if eight indices converge to indicate a trend of
growth in the consumption of independent films, save for measure five of movie
rental stores and six of mail-order movie rental services that may produce
mutually contradictory results, and measure nine of local television
programming which may produce results that need to be further qualified, the
researcher can propose a strong hypothesis of a growth in popularity of
independent film culture. This is the contextual knowledge that this research
is able to contribute. In addition, even though the results of this research
cannot be generalized to other cities or other historical times that these
datasets do not cover, this research design as a method is highly transferrable
to other times and locations in the United States. While the traditions,
institutions, patterns of production and consumption of independent films in
other countries and cultures may vary to different degrees from those in the
United States, according Tobler’s First Law of Geography, “all things are
related, but nearby things are more related than distant things[50],”
the researcher may safely assume more similar film-related cultural, economic,
and institutional structures of locations within the United States than with
elsewhere. Once other researchers have attempted to replicate this research
method on other locations, their results will either further verify or
repudiate the generalizability or applicability of this method. Measures in
this research that do not apply to other locations may be adjusted or modified,
and other measures that are not included here may also be added in order for
this method to better assess a local independent film culture. An improved
version of this method can then generate higher level of knowledge. One example
of the kind of knowledge this method can produce is that, if a researcher
applies this method to an unlikely place, or a highly likely place, of a
vibrant independent film culture, she may have surprising findings produced
with these measures. For example, people may generally assume that independent
film culture is livelier in big cities with politically liberal attitudes
and/or younger population. The findings with this method may show that
Washington D.C. actually has a more lethargic independent film culture than
Austin, TX. Another example of the potential knowledge is to be produced through
cross-location comparison between any given cities. For example, a researcher
can compare the general independent film culture of the East Coast with that of
the West Coast and find that, while Hollywood remains the center of film
production worldwide, West Coast has a rather weak independent film culture. Or
a researcher may find that, while San Francisco is much closer to Hollywood
than to Boston, it actually shares a more similar independent film culture with
Boston than with Hollywood.

Method, as a rhetoric that persuades a
particular reading of the raw materials gathered by these measures, is the key
to this research. This rhetoric, or method, transforms nonsensical numbers into
plausible evidence to attest a hypothesis upon which the researcher can build
her theory. Therefore, method, indeed, is an attempt through which the abstruse
external world can be made, at least partially, intelligible to human beings.
And however partial this contribution is to the overall body of knowledge, what
this research establishes is that methods, or methodologies, are possible to
produce knowledge, even when epistemological debate does not, or cannot, be
soon resolved.

<!--EndFragment-->