Even before I began the project, all my research prepared me for the fact that a lot of my initial plans will seem naive in hindsight and I’ll need to be willing to adapt and be flexible throughout all stages of the research project. I’ve tried to keep this in mind as I’ve met with unanticipated aspects throughout the project (some of which I’ve written about previously). Since this whole process is an educational one, even for myself, I’ve looked forward to learning from my mistakes – or even just learning another perspective. At the same time, whenever I first encountered an alteration in plans, my initial reaction would inadvertently be resistance. I was unsure what degree of change was allowed in my project not only based on early plans but also based on what I’d discussed with my supervisors and with the ethical review committee. However, four months in, I’ve become more comfortable and flexible changing some aspects of the project – despite what my initial thoughts were.
1) Editing out awkward bits in the episode
When I first planned the podcast, I wanted to preserve the “authenticity” of my conversation with co-participants and not edit the episode too heavily. While I’m still onboard with this in terms of the actual content of the conversation, I’ve grown far more comfortable in marking filler phrases, pauses, stutters and fumbles to be edited out – not just my own but also of my co-participants. While my allegiance remains with the DIY aesthetic of the PhD project (where the quality of the podcast isn’t as important as the conversations themselves), I realise that making it easy to listen to is something which will help make it more accessible and approachable to more people. I’ve also become more confident in editing the transcript to filter the awkward bits out so that for those who prefer reading to listening, the experience is as easy and comfortable as possible.
2) Not doing the actual editing myself
This is something I’ve been uncomfortable about right from the beginning – the fact that the technical editing is done by Jack, my partner. Jack offered to do this even before I launched the podcast; even though he had never edited audio before, he was confident in his abilities to experiment and figure it out. I was hesitant for two reasons – i) I didn’t want to impose on his time and hold him accountable to my self-imposed deadlines; and ii) I wasn’t sure that I should be getting outside help for any aspect of my project rather than doing everything myself. Initially, I went along with this plan purely as a time-saving exercise. I quickly learned that the podcast recording itself was the least time-consuming part of the episode process – the pre-production (wherein I shortlist texts and organise the episode) and the post-production (marking edits, transcript, intro/outro, publishing) took up much more of my time – about a week. If I added editing to the mix, my already-ambitious timescale would have been delayed and it would add to my overall stress. Lately, however, I’m growing increasingly comfortable with this. The time which is saved is still the most important bit – while I mark out the edits themselves after typing the transcript, Jack does the actual editing on Audacity – while he’s doing that, I can focus on other tasks which need to be done. Additionally, Jack responds to our conversation while editing with his own insights, examples, and experiences as a fan. As a Scottish man who grew up in a small town outside Glasgow, his perspectives and even the media examples are very different from my own knowledge. The conversations we have are interesting and illuminating – conversations which may not have happened had he not been in-charge of the editing. In Episode 7 about the representations of different cultures in fantasy media, he pointed to an episode about encountering unfamiliar food in Star Trek (which is science fiction not fantasy, but the point still held) which made it to the episode’s outro and transcript. Now, I like the idea of expanding the idea of co-creating the project by involving other perspectives than my own in the production process.
3) Using other fan podcasts
For every episode, I suggest some fan texts (mostly fan podcast episodes) for both my co-participants and I to look at to structure our own conversations. I also encourage my co-participants to share their own texts based on their interests and priorities. In the beginning, I was determined only to include those fan podcasts who had provided me with explicit permission to use their podcasts in my research in this way. However, after recording nine episodes of Marginally Fannish, I’ve realised that the ways in which we’ve included these episodes are usually only as discussion prompts to structure our episode and give us topics to talk about or to refer to when they introduce us to new ideas. While I had initially thought that we would be analysing these fan podcast episodes in our podcast, that hasn’t been the case. Furthermore, my co-participants present their own contributions of fan texts, where it isn’t feasible to garner permission from all those involved (this is excluding Breaking The Glass Slipper podcast, which one of my co-participants suggested in Episode 3, and which I then included in my research as a general fandom podcast – after getting in touch with the creators). For some of the upcoming episodes, I’ve included fan podcasts where I haven’t heard from the creators despite getting in touch with them twice before beginning my project. I believe that as far as we’re not analysing or critiquing the podcasts themselves and only using them as references or discussion prompts, it isn’t unethical to use these publicly available fan texts to inform our own ideas and discussions.
4) Co-participants not going through all the fan texts
When I first began the podcast, I assumed it would be best for my co-participants and I to go through the same fan texts so that we have a common starting point to base our conversation on. At the same time, I was wary of giving my co-participants extra “homework” which they may not have the time or inclination for. I tried to create room for their opinions about this format after they signed participant consent forms. All of them agreed to go along with the format. However, when I started recording, I soon realised that some participants did go through the texts while others didn’t. I was initially uncomfortable about this but chose to ignore it since our conversations were still based on what both the co-participants and I were interested in talking about. After one participant revealed that they were uncomfortable about my choice of texts and the process of going through the texts themselves however, I’ve been much warier of placing the “burden” of these texts and this format on my co-participants. Since then, I’ve made it clear in emails that my co-participants are under no obligation to go through all or any of the texts I’ve suggested. If the participants prefer, we can just have an informal conversation without any resources structuring the episode. I still use the texts since they help me put my thoughts together but my co-participants are no longer required to do this, especially if they already have thoughts about the topic we’re exploring in our episode.