Surveillance Studies and the Surveilled Subject

Surveillance studies has been somewhat inattentive to the perspective of the surveilled subject. It is the functioning of the surveillance apparatus, not the relatively inconsequential subject, which has tended to frame the focus of surveillance inquiries; leaving understandings of surveilled subjects’ experiences relatively limited. This research addresses this gap in the literature, exploring ways in which surveillance studies might understand the surveilled subject with greater consistency. Participants (N=47) shared their encounters with and perceptions of surveillance in a specific (Pearson International Airport) and general (everyday life) context through semi-structured interviews. The findings suggest that surveilled subjects’ encounters can be understood with some consistency – characterized by consistent criteria across subjects and contexts, and through a consistent theoretical framework across subjects in a specific context. However, consistency should not be confused with uniformity; encounters with surveillance must also be recognized for the extent to which they are nuanced and situated. For example, as this study also highlights, participants’ perceptions of encounters with surveillance at Pearson International Airport were differentially distributed in relation to identity characteristics (particularly minority status).

Changing Attitudes And Expectations In A University Setting: A Case Study

First and second year students enrolled in a four-year movement education based university Physical Education program completed a questionnaire regarding their expectations on entering university. In addition, graduates of the program were interviewed, one year after graduation, with regard to their understanding of and attitude towards movement education and how these had developed relative to their overall degree program. Most students had no knowledge of movement education prior to entering the program and the selection of this particular program was simply coincidental with their desire to pursue physical education. Whereas the students did participate in an activity course and a theory course in Year 1, it was only when participating in a Year 2 movement course which combined theory and practice within the same course that students recognized the movement base of the content. The progress of the students through the program reflects distinct declarative and procedural stages in knowledge development followed by an ability to generalize that knowledge a conceptual stage. The real understanding of movement education came as the students were required to teach movement education to students, children, and other groups.