Wild Honey: Caring for Bees in a Divided Land 

RESEARCH STATEMENT

"…I had no prior film-making experience ... I understood that the harvest would, by necessity, take place at night in the forest and I had no idea how I could usefully film in that setting." (Palmer 2019). This candid admission from a human geography researcher attempting to document a nocturnal honey harvest in West Timor marks the beginning of what would evolve into Research-Integrated Documentary (RID) methodology. While researchers often document their work through video, creating professional documentaries requires more than basic recording skills. This research statement examines how the documentary Wild Honey: Caring for Bees in a Divided Land (2019) demonstrates the early emergence of an innovative approach to developing hybrid researcher-documentarians who can communicate complex research to wider audiences. It addresses the development of a methodological framework that enables screen production academics to transform ARC research into accessible documentary formats.

This innovative methodology emerged through direct experience rather than theoretical frameworks, aligning with MacDougall's (2005) understanding of filmmaking as an inherently physical, experiential process. The researcher arrived with only basic video training and camera, filming mostly with eyes tightly shut as bees swarmed toward torch lights, learning to anticipate each wave of bees through "intense bodily reverberations and smell" (Palmer 2019). This visceral experience of documenting research aligns with MacDougall's emphasis on the embodied nature of ethnographic filmmaking, where knowledge emerges through physical engagement with the subject matter.

While the researcher's physical engagement with filming formed the foundation, it was the community's enthusiastic participation that truly transformed what was intended as simple research documentation. As the director recalls, "…everyone in attendance was keen to help out with the film and make it work. A production plan was thrown together on the hop: torches were purchased for lighting, assistants of all kinds stepped in" (Palmer 2019). This improvisational beginning led to storytelling and technical challenges in Timor-based editing that brought the project to me. Drawing on my background in television documentary, interactive documentary, software development and video production teaching, I approached the footage through paper editing. This involved examining interview transcripts, mapping narrative transitions and identifying where title cards could bridge cultural contexts — a process that transformed research documentation into compelling storytelling while preserving research integrity. This initial transformation of raw footage revealed deeper implications for documentary practice.

The "rescue" operation challenged traditional documentary practices and my own established ways of working. Rather than functioning as an auteur, I found myself part of an expanded collaborative network including the researcher, their academic colleagues and community participants. This innovation builds on Keen's (2018) “documentary design” propositions and Sanders and Stappers' (2008) participatory design frameworks, integrating them into documentary practice. The RID methodology, as it evolved over the following projects, transformed researchers into "researcher-documentarians" through structured training and collaboration. The researcher-documentarian becomes the central figure in a documentary production team, working alongside the screen production academic, research assistants and professional specialists who provide essential production expertise. This team-based approach ensures that research integrity and professional documentary standards are maintained. The methodology merges documentary design's iterative, co-creative process with the participatory design's equitable collaboration, allowing researchers to maintain scholarly rigour while gaining documentary skills as part of a broader production collective.

This collaborative production model provides a robust foundation for the RID methodology's core purpose: supporting the translation of ARC research into documentary form for broader audiences. It draws on the participatory documentary principle of collaboratively making a film to shape the narrative and message, utilising participatory design principles to involve stakeholders. By incorporating Ehn's (2008) participatory design principles, researchers are established as active co-creators. This builds on Greenbaum and Kyng's (1991) participatory design framework, which emphasises equitable partnerships and shared decision-making in creative processes.

The editing process in Wild Honey particularly demonstrates how my practice evolved. Drawing from software development experience, I applied iterative workflow principles to documentary post-production. Rather than imposing predetermined structures, we developed protocols for managing diverse cultural perspectives through paper editing, stakeholder review, and community feedback. This approach aligns with Keen's (2018) description of documentary designers as "reflective practitioners" (Schön 2008) who work iteratively, constantly reflecting on their creations and using these reflections to inform subsequent work. Through this process, each creative decision informed the next, enabling a more responsive and culturally sensitive documentary production method.

My experience teaching documentary editing proved invaluable, particularly in working with A-roll-driven narratives that avoid traditional narration. Through years of guiding students, I learned that finding stories within interview content requires confidence and systematic approaches. This insight helped establish protocols for working with research interviews and observational footage, allowing the story to emerge through careful structural development rather than imposed narrative frameworks. These systematic approaches to finding stories within content became central as the methodology matured through subsequent projects.

The methodology that originated with Wild Honey has evolved significantly through subsequent documentaries with innovative processes developing organically, including in the projects Holding Tightly: Custom and Healing in Timor-Leste (Palmer 2021) and Restoring the Spirit: Wai Lia Bere Cave (Palmer 2022). Specific improvements arose from Wild Honey's serendipitous production experience: field recording techniques developed through trial and error, leading to specialised audio-visual kits balancing professional quality with practicality. We developed targeted workshops focusing on essential documentary skills: camera operation, audio recording techniques for interviewing and atmosphere tracks, and strategies for capturing contextual B-roll footage. This training was complemented by intensive pre-production scripting sessions where researchers learned to anticipate documentary needs within their research activities. The methodology, over time, has grown into an established methodological framework, fostering a culture of practice that encourages collective input. Once the approach is established and understood by all stakeholders, everyone involved can iteratively contribute improvements to the methodology project by project.

Complementing the technical training aspects, these improvements extended to post-production innovations to develop specific workflows for managing multilingual content. We established protocols for organising footage that enabled parallel development of Tetum and English versions, ensuring editorial decisions could proceed while maintaining rigorous translation verification. This approach in Wild Honey allowed us to navigate complex cultural concepts like the relationship between honey harvesting and spiritual practices, ensuring these nuances were preserved while creating an engaging narrative flow.

The effectiveness of this collective process is demonstrated through Wild Honey's international recognition and community impact. Distributed by Australia's premier documentary distributor Ronin Films, the film has achieved significant reach across academic and public spheres. Its selection for prestigious festivals, including the American Society for Visual Media Film Festival and the Royal Anthropological Institute Film Festival, demonstrates its success in making high-level research accessible while maintaining scholarly integrity.

The film's influence transcends academic circles, reaching audiences on national television broadcast on GMNTV in Timor-Leste and community screenings in remote villages through Screens Without Borders. Its inclusion in the World Heritage-listed Max Stahl Audio-Visual Centre and the Cultural Ecology of Timor-Leste Archive ensures long-term preservation and accessibility as a cultural resource.

In addition to festival recognition and broadcast reach, the RID methodology illustrates a significant impact on research translation and community engagement. The success of Wild Honey and the emerging RID methodology has paved the way for other ARC-funded documentaries to effectively translate complex research into engaging narratives. A visible influence is the current documentary project 2023-26 Bee Lulik (Sacred Waters), where the documentary component is now integrated into the ARC research proposal from inception. The growing adoption of this approach reveals its broader significance for screen production academics.

For screen production academics, this case study signifies new documentary production pathways. The RID methodology leverages academic expertise and research resources rather than traditional funding methods to narrate stories that might otherwise remain untold.  Screen production academics can transform their practice-led research into professional practice within familiar academic systems. The methodology positions them as co-leaders of production teams that enhance researcher-documentarians' work, maintaining both production quality and research integrity. This approach also creates valuable opportunities to integrate authentic production experiences into teaching pedagogy.

Screen production academics can adapt this methodology by shifting from auteur to facilitator-teacher in documentary productions, similar to pedagogical approaches with students. Employing teaching practices forms a crucial part of the process, merging educational techniques with documentary practices to develop researcher-centred production strategies. Screen production academics can customise this methodology by drawing from their unique expertise and specialisations.

Most importantly, this collective, participatory approach demonstrates how integrating research and documentary practice creates pathways for cultural knowledge to reach broader audiences. As Palmer (2019) reflects, "The making of this film was and remains a collective endeavour. Each time it is shown to audiences...new and often unexpected conversations open-up—about bees and people, borders and relationships." What began with Wild Honey's improvisational night filming has developed into a usable methodological framework (2019-25). This evolution from messy beginnings continues to navigate the complexities of field recording in Timor-Leste while translating research for wider audiences, offering valuable insights for screen production academics integrating professional practice within academic contexts.

PEER REVIEW 1 

Which aspects of the submission are of interest/relevance and why?

The author (of the research statement) has the film credit of “creative producer”. Christina Milligan (2025), and others, talk about the difficulty of identifying what the producer does. The author is unpacking some of what this role entails, as well as its space within academic filmmaking. This statement identifies a role for the producer as a researcher-documentarian who navigates the relationships between researchers and craft specialists. I wonder if a new term can be created for this researcher-producer, something other than creative producer?

Does the submission live up to its potential?

While I find the discussion about the role of the researcher-producer interesting, I am not convinced that the participatory/collaborative methodology being proposed is unique. For instance, filmmakers and researchers Steve Thomas (2012), Kate Nash (2010), Kim Munro (2021), Arezou Zalipour and James Nicholson (2023) and Agata Lulkowska (2022), to name a few, have written about the participatory mode when creating screen works. More broadly, Vera John-Steiner (2006) has contributed to discussions on arts collaborations, and First Nations methodologies explore collaboration processes, e.g. Linda Tuhiwai Smith. The statement would benefit from discussion by the author about how their methodology coincides with, or is different from, other filmmaker researchers using participatory modes of filmmaking. Currently, the article feels disengaged from these debates.

Regarding the film directed by Lisa Palmer and produced by the author, I feel that it is a good example of ethnographic filmmaking that does not need to be modified for publication. The film is engaging to watch as it provides insight into a ritual practice. The filmmakers navigated a difficult shoot (at night without much ambient lighting) to create a work which clearly adds to ethnographic research on traditions in the region.

This submission raises an interesting question around authorship. The author wrote the statement and produced the film, but Lisa Palmer is the director. Given the importance of the film work in Sightlines, and that the research project which caused the film to be created was possibly led by Palmer, I would like to see the director receive a co-credit for this submission.

Only yesterday I was having a conversation with a colleague about whether we should also include interviewees providing key knowledge in our research as co-authors, and what that might look like. Possibly articles need credits like films have, which identify roles, rather than assign authorship?

How does the submission expose practice as research?

The connection of the statement with the film work clearly identifies a role in productions for a researcher-documentarian who navigates the relationships between researchers and craft specialists. This identification provides new insight into our creative practice processes, however, I feel that this statement needs to be more effectively contextualized within current debates.

PEER REVIEW 2 

The film has great potential as a source of discussion, and, of course, writing at this length cannot live up to all that potential. This statement does promise the opening out of a specific area of discussion, where researchers who are “amateurs” at filming documentation can be coached and assisted to make films that communicate to a wider audience. This immediately has the potential to tap into documentary’s foundational dyad of “science” and “art” (or “actuality” and “creative treatment”), and also to battle with its most difficult tension: the insider position and the communication of experience to an outsider audience.

However, the writing does not quite live up to this potential, for one main reason: Seth Keen’s involvement as editor needs to be clear right from the start of the writing, as does the nature of Lisa Palmer’s contribution. In fact, perhaps the statement/research question needs to be reframed more around “the rescue” rather than the overall aims of the film, maybe starting with the encounter of the footage and its rescue before then going back to talk about the film’s production. This would put the notion of “expanded collaborative network” and “documentary by design” at the forefront of the writing, which I think would help a lot. Essentially, it would be good to know what the “method” for the “rescue” was, and, at the moment, that is a little scattered across the writing, which maybe could do with some subheadings to help the structure, e.g., “encountering the footage”, “collaboration and pedagogy”, “RID and audience,” and so on.

It would also be good to consider Lisa Palmer as co-author of this submission, as the written work and film surely combine to create a whole? There is a risk here of the specificities of this case study being quickly summarised and moved into a general consideration of RID methodology, when I feel that, without the improvisational and highly expressive direction and action, there would not be a project to “rescue;” indeed, perhaps the term “rescue” needs consideration within the context of collaboration?

In addition, the consideration of RID methodologies remains at a surface level. This is inevitable given the length of the written format, but is there a way of drawing out some conclusions about the pedagogic/design methods used (e.g. Ehn 2008; Greenbaum and Kyng 2020), and how they might be transferrable to other projects? Perhaps this can be done alongside the commentary on how this project was developed.   

In the end, I think the evidence of innovation here is to be found in the articulation between researcher and “teacher”, in the context of grappling with the insider/outsider problem of documentary which is exacerbated in research-led documentary. This could be made clearer, even in such a brief written format.

RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEWS: REVISED RESEARCH STATEMENT

Acknowledgement

This research statement examines the documentary Wild Honey: Caring for Bees in a Divided Land (2019), directed and filmed by Human Geographer Professor Lisa Palmer, with myself, Dr. Seth Keen, in the role of Creative Producer. It is crucial to acknowledge Professor Palmer's central role as filmmaker (Director, Camera, and Audio) and as the “researcher-documentarian” discussed throughout this statement. The documentary was produced through a collaborative network that included cultural consultants who advised on cultural protocols and translation, community members who provided feedback on edits, and documentary production specialists who contributed expertise in post-production, editing and sound design.

While credited as “Creative Producer” on Wild Honey, following standard industry conventions, I later assumed the roles of Co-Producer and Editor in subsequent productions with Professor Palmer and the Wai Mata Films team (which includes graduate alumni). This statement is attributed to a single author, as it is written from my perspective as a screen production academic, with the primary aim of sharing the Research-Integrated Documentary (RID) methodology with colleagues in screen production and related disciplines. Consistent with our decade-long collaboration on ARC Discovery funded documentaries (2015-2025), both the original statement and this peer-reviewed revision were shared with Professor Palmer before submission.

Improvisational Beginnings: Documenting Research in the Field

"…I had no prior film-making experience...I understood that the harvest would, by necessity, take place at night in the forest and I had no idea how I could usefully film in that setting" (Palmer 2019). This candid admission from a human geography researcher attempting to document a nocturnal honey harvest in West Timor marks the beginning of Research-Integrated Documentary (RID) methodology. This collaborative approach transforms academic research into professionally produced, culturally responsive documentaries through researcher training and iterative team-based practice built on collaborative working relationships, shared decision-making, and ongoing dialogue between all participants. This research statement examines how Wild Honey demonstrates the early emergence of an innovative framework for developing hybrid researcher-documentarians who can communicate complex research to broader audiences, enabling screen production academics to transform ARC research into accessible documentary formats.

This innovative methodology emerged through direct experience rather than theoretical frameworks, aligning with MacDougall's (2005) understanding of filmmaking as an inherently physical, experiential process. The researcher arrived with only basic video training and camera, filming mostly with eyes tightly shut as bees swarmed toward torch lights, learning to anticipate each wave of bees through "intense bodily reverberations and smell" (Palmer 2019). This visceral experience of documenting research aligns with MacDougall's emphasis on the embodied nature of ethnographic filmmaking, where knowledge emerges through physical engagement with the subject matter.

Encountering the Footage: From Documentation to Storytelling

While the researcher's physical engagement with filming formed the foundation, community participation transformed what began as simple research documentation. As Palmer (2019) notes, "everyone in attendance was keen to help out with the film ... torches were purchased for lighting, assistants of all kinds stepped in." This collaborative, improvisational approach led to technical challenges in Timor-based editing that brought the project to me. Drawing on my background in television and interactive documentary, I continued this collaborative spirit through paper editing—examining transcripts with stakeholders, mapping narrative transitions, and creating title cards to bridge cultural contexts. This process maintained the collective approach while transforming research documentation into compelling storytelling, revealing deeper implications for documentary practice.

Collaborative Network: Expanding Traditional Documentary Roles

The recovery of the footage challenged traditional documentary practices. Rather than directing, I became part of an expanded collaborative network including the researcher, academic colleagues, and community participants. This innovation integrates Keen's (2018) “documentary design” propositions with Sanders and Stappers' (2008) participatory design frameworks.

The RID methodology evolved to transform researchers into "researcher-documentarians" through structured training. These researcher-documentarians work as central figures in teams with screen production academics and production specialists. This approach maintains both research integrity and documentary standards while merging documentary design's iterative process with participatory design's equitable collaboration, allowing researchers to preserve scholarly rigour while developing documentary skills within a broader production collective.

Participatory Design in Documentary Practice

The integration of participatory design (PD) principles into documentary production should not be conflated with either the participatory mode of documentary or audience interactivity in interactive documentary (Nash, 2014). The participatory mode primarily concerns filmmaker-subject relationships on screen, while audience participation in interactive documentaries refers to user agency in navigating digital narratives.

What distinguishes this practice-led research is the application of PD principles to involve stakeholders, researchers and Cultural Consultants, as co-creators in documentary design and production. Drawing on Ehn's (2008) PD principles, this approach frames collaboration as a design-led, shared authorship process, building upon Greenbaum and Kyng's (1991) foundational work on equitable partnerships in creative practices.

While participatory and ethnographic documentary practices involve forms of immersion and collaboration with subjects, this research positions RID as fundamentally shaped by PD logics. In this approach, stakeholders contribute not only to content but also to the form, structure, and goals of the documentary itself, extending participation beyond traditional documentary practices.

The editing process of Wild Honey demonstrates how my practice evolved. Drawing from software development, I applied iterative workflow principles to documentary post-production, developing protocols for managing diverse cultural perspectives through paper editing, stakeholder review, and community feedback. This approach aligns with Keen's (2018) description of documentary designers as "reflective practitioners" (Schön 2008), enabling a more responsive and culturally sensitive documentary method.

Screen Production Teaching and RID Evolution

My experience teaching documentary editing proved invaluable, particularly in working with A-roll-driven narratives that avoid traditional narration. Through years of guiding students, I learned that finding stories within interview content requires confidence and systematic approaches. This insight helped establish protocols for working with research interviews and observational footage, allowing the story to emerge through careful structural development rather than imposed narrative frameworks. These systematic approaches to finding stories within content became central as the methodology matured through subsequent projects.

The methodology that originated with Wild Honey has evolved significantly through subsequent documentaries with innovative processes developing organically, including in the projects Holding Tightly: Custom and Healing in Timor-Leste (Palmer 2021) and Restoring the Spirit: Wai Lia Bere Cave (Palmer 2022). Specific improvements arose from Wild Honey's serendipitous production experience: field recording techniques developed through trial and error leading to specialised audiovisual kits balancing professional quality with practicality. We developed targeted workshops focusing on essential documentary skills: camera operation, audio recording techniques for interviewing and atmosphere tracks, and strategies for capturing contextual B-roll footage. This training was complemented by intensive pre-production scripting sessions where researchers learned to anticipate documentary needs within their research activities. The methodology, over time, has grown into an established methodological framework, fostering a culture of practice that encourages collective input. Once the approach is established and understood by all stakeholders, everyone involved can iteratively contribute improvements to the methodology project by project.

These improvements extended to post-production innovations for managing multilingual content. We established protocols for organising footage that enabled parallel development of Tetum and English versions, maintaining rigorous translation verification. This approach allowed us to navigate complex cultural concepts like the relationship between honey harvesting and spiritual practices, preserving these nuances while creating an engaging narrative flow.

Research Impact: Reaching Broader Audiences

The effectiveness of this collective process is demonstrated through Wild Honey's international recognition and community impact. Distributed by Australia's premier documentary distributor Ronin Films, the film has achieved significant reach across academic and public spheres. Its selection for prestigious festivals, including the American Society for Visual Media Film Festival and the Royal Anthropological Institute Film Festival, demonstrates its success in making high-level research accessible while maintaining scholarly integrity.

The film's influence transcends academic circles, reaching audiences on national television broadcast on GMNTV in Timor-Leste and community screenings in remote villages through Screens Without Borders. Its inclusion in the World Heritage-listed Max Stahl Audio-Visual Centre and the Cultural Ecology of Timor-Leste Archive ensures long-term preservation and accessibility as a cultural resource.

Beyond festival recognition and broadcast reach, the RID methodology demonstrates significant impact on research translation. Wild Honey's success has enabled other ARC-funded documentaries to effectively translate complex research into engaging narratives. The current project, Bee Lulik (Sacred Waters, 2023-26) exemplifies this influence, with the documentary integrated into the ARC proposal from the outset. This project continues the suite of Wai Mata Films documentaries with Professor Palmer as filmmaker (Director, Camera, Audio) and researcher-documentarian, working alongside Keen as Co-Producer, Editor, and RMIT graduates as Co-Editor and Sound Mix specialists. This growing adoption reveals the approach's broader significance for screen production academics.

Practice-led Research as Professional Practice

For screen production academics, this case study signifies new documentary production pathways. The RID methodology leverages academic expertise and research resources rather than traditional funding to narrate stories that might otherwise remain untold. Screen production academics can transform practice-led research into professional practice within academic systems, positioning themselves as co-leaders of production teams that enhance researcher-documentarians' work while maintaining quality and integrity. This approach also creates valuable opportunities to integrate authentic production experiences into teaching pedagogy.

This methodology enables screen production academics to transition from traditional directing roles to facilitator-teacher positions, merging practice-led screen production research with documentary production. This approach embodies the principle that "the practice is the research" (Wilkinson 2019), where creative practice simultaneously produces outputs and generates methodological insights. Screen production academics can customise this approach based on their expertise, allowing their practice to undergo critical reflection and adjustment within scholarly contexts while maintaining distinct disciplinary contributions.

Responsive Co-creation: Improvisation as Methodology

This collective, participatory design approach demonstrates how integrating research and documentary practice creates pathways for cultural knowledge to reach broader audiences. As Palmer (2019) reflects, "The making of this film was and remains a collective endeavour. Each time it is shown to audiences...new and often unexpected conversations open up—about bees and people, borders and relationships." This speaks not only to the cultural and political significance of the work but also to the importance of improvisation, a foundational, not incidental, aspect of this project. What began with Wild Honey’s night-filming sequences, shot under uncertain, emergent conditions, formed the expressive and methodological heart of what has since evolved into a research framework (2019–25). Improvisation in this context was not a fallback but a form of responsive co-creation, shaping both aesthetic choices and the evolving RID methodology.

By embracing this dynamic process, RID continues to navigate the complexities of field recording in Timor-Leste while translating research for wider audiences. It offers screen production academics a flexible yet replicable model for embedding documentary practice in interdisciplinary research, one that prioritises responsiveness, deep collaboration and pedagogical innovation grounded in iterative action rather than predetermined outcomes.

REFERENCES

Ehn, Pelle, 2008. "Participation in Design Things." In Proceedings of the Tenth

Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008, 92-101. Bloomington, Indiana: ACM Digital Library. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1408103&dswid=2254

Greenbaum, Joan, and Morten Kyng, eds. 2020. Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

John-Steiner, Vera. 2006. Creative Collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Keen, Seth, 2018. "Documentary Design: A List of Propositions for Interactive Documentary Practice Online” In Digital Media and Documentary: Antipodean Approaches, edited by A. Miles, 49-67. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing

Lulkowska, Agata. 2022. “Whose Impact Is It? A Decolonised Approach in Intercultural Communication and Creative Methods in Practice-Based Research.” Media Practice and Education 23 (2): 181–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2022.2056791.

MacDougall, David, 2005. The Corporeal Image: Film, Ethnography, and the Senses. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Milligan, Christina. 2025. “Decolonizing Screen Production: The Practice of the Māori Film Producer.” Emerging Media 3 (1): 82–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/27523543251323807.

Munro, Kim. 2021. “The Park.” Screenworks 11 (1): n.p. https://www.screenworks.org.uk/archive/volume-11-1/the-park

Nash, Kate. 2010. “Exploring Power and Trust in Documentary: A Study of Tom Zubrycki’s Molly and Mobarak.” Studies in Documentary Film 4 (1): 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1386/sdf.4.1.21_1.

Nash, Kate, 2014. “What is Interactivity for? The Social Dimension of Web-Documentary Participation”, Continuum, 28, no. 3: 383–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2014.893995

Palmer, Lisa, 2019. “Wild Honey: Caring for Bees in a Divided Land”, Director’s Statement, https://arkivukulturaekologia.squarespace.com/waimata-films#/filmswild-honey/.

--- dir. Wild Honey: Caring for Bees in a Divided Land. Ronin Films, 2019.

--- dir. Holding Tightly: Custom and Healing in Timor-Leste. 2021.

--- dir. Restoring the Spirit: Wai Lia Bere Cave. 2022.

Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N., and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. “Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of Design” CoDesign 4, no. 1: 5–18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068.

Schön, Donald A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books

Thomas, Steve. 2012. “Collaboration and Ethics in Documentary Filmmaking – A Case Study.” New Review of Film and Television Studies 10 (3): 332–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400309.2012.695979.

Wilkinson, Jessica, ed. The Practice is the Research. School of Media and Communication, RMIT University, 2019.

Zalipour, Arezou, and James Nicholson. 2023. “Shama, an Insider Looking In: A Community-Centred Collaborative Documentary Production.” Media Practice and Education 24 (3): 291–308.