Skip to content

Published on

Participatory research is touted as a way of completing research 'with' rather than 'about' people. In a 2013 post on the topic, Manon Koningstein mentions that, for participatory video, there are two ways it can happen:

From literature I've reviewed so far in relation to photovoice and participatory video, it seems like the first way is the most common. This raises some important considerations when thinking about true participatory research:

Selection of participants: Who researchers deem to be the appropriate stakeholders in a PAR process can influence the outcome and may not necessarily be representative of the community as a whole. This is a tricky knot to unpick as there is obviously a necessity to engage with the people in a community who are the most willing participants, and who are most likely to build on the experience to become local advocates for the positive methods developed through the PAR process. This is important to remember and reminds us that PAR methods are about Action as much as they are about Research. How to find the sweet spot where the demands of academic rigour are not completely lost to the need for energy and advocacy is something not mentioned in the literature very much.

The second point I'd raise in relation to Koningstein's points above is in relation to channels of communication. If communities are to be genuine contributors to determining research directions, one-off participatory processes are only a first step. When the workshop facilitators pack up the equipment and move back to the office to assess the results, what tools and channels remain open to the community? An exhibition or a screening with policy makers is well and good but once that door is opened, it must remain so. If not, there is a danger that PAR processes become little more than tokenistic attempts at inclusion to suit the demands of researchers. If communities are momentarily empowered with the tools of photography and video, how does the removal of those tools (cameras, laptops, audience) reflect on the overall process? (Removal of cameras and IT equipment with researchers seems normal, yet what agricultural project would introduce a new tool - let's say an improved planter - teach participants the benefits and how to use it, and then take it away again?!)

When thinking about PAR, perhaps we need to reconsider the boundaries of the process such that it does not end with the exhibition and screening. In this regard, the Photovoice project run in Ma Village in Vietnam seems to be exemplary in how it has paved the way for longer term farmer led education and policy input - more info on this here.

Published on

Photovoice is a participatory action research (PAR) strategy that allows the participants in a study process to 'identify, represent, and enhance their community through a specific photographic technique'. The background theory of photovoice as used by its first proponents (Wang and Burris) has roots in feminist theory and critical consciousness, focusing on empowerment, and acknowledgement of the experience and knowledge of the study participants. Documentary photography is a third underpinning and while it remains a valid approach, the use of (participatory) video is also possible and relies on a similar methodology.

In a recent GFAR webinar on Research Communications, Juliet Braslow (CIAT) gave a very interesting presentation on her experience of using participatory video (see embedded video above). The approach she outlines very much concurs with the original photovoice methodology:

  • Participants control the direction of the study and decide how they shall be represented.
  • The learning process (for both participant and researcher) is more important than the finished product.
  • Potential opportunities for action are identified.

In relation to climate change and agriculture, participatory research involving photography or video provides a very rich environment for peer-peer learning, and also for knowledge to be moved against the traditional top-down flow from academia, policy-makers and extension agents to farmers. This is essential if government support and research efforts are to flow to the most locally appropriate agricultural practices: