Visual Anthropology Review, Vol. 23, Issue 1, pp. 1-15, ISSN 1053-7147, online ISSN 1548-7458. © 2007 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permissions to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp. DOI: var.2007.23.1.1. Introduction I have here sought to analyze some aspects of our teaching practice at the Visual Anthropology Unit of the Institute of Social Anthropology, Univer- sity of Tromsø. 1 My observations raise the question of the possibility of a commitment to a professional project that still strives to place itself in an academic setting. Our project is in fact plagued by misunder- standings and the skepticism of academic colleagues. The fact that our media production is practice-led makes it obviously different from commercial broad- cast programs, as well as from more conventional educational documentaries. For all of its advantages, too, our practice is beset with ambiguities for both be- ginning students and within the wider politics of the university setting. This paper explores how and why clichés about documentary production still permeate our academic clusters and policies, as well as the bestowed under- standings of the public. I discuss why my colleagues and I think that cinema is irreplaceable and that its language empowers research in the social sciences and humanities (Henley 2004, Jablonko 1991). However, if cinema is to be taught, its specific modes of expres- sion require teachers of strong determination, good programs and, above all, imagination. If my ques- tions posed here have long been evident to many of Toward Pedagogical Awareness Teaching Cine-Ethnography ROSSELLA RAGAZZI This article explores teaching practices at the Visual Anthropology Unit of the Institute of Social Anthropology, Uni- versity of Tromsø. Media production in this academic setting is “practice-led.” It makes particular demands of the students and faculty involved. Only innovative and rigorous styles of pedagogy can prepare students to acquire the necessary skills and background in the theory and technology of visual anthropology. For all of its advantages, this pedagogy is beset with ambiguity, both for beginning students who engage in it and within the politics of the university setting. If film is to be taught, its “peculiar” modes require of teachers strong determination, good programs and, above all, imagination. [Key words: Norway, pedagogy, university infrastructure, visual theory, students] us in visual anthropology, they are not perceived in the same way by the general public or by many of our colleagues. Visual Anthropology at Tromsø A case in point is Tromsø University in Norway. While a successful experiment, our unit has at times struggled with bureaucracy. However, within the larger scope of visual anthropology, it maintains a focus on cine- ethnographic work in a peripheral area—the Subarctic Barents Region. Our Master’s in Visual Anthropology, formalized nine years ago, was constructed in two phases. We first conducted a five-year experimental course of study and then designed the permanent Master’s curriculum that is now in place. 2 Our unit offers an integrated curriculum that includes the humanities, arts (new technologies) and social sciences. We teach through the actual prac- tice of the media. Because our teaching methods reflect our own practical development, they are not the prod- uct of hierarchical collaborations between scholars and practitioners—rather they fuse both roles. 3 The amount of time students take to incorporate theories into their media practice shows how our teaching methods build particular learning skills. The workload for our course is often more than double that of any other course and