‘The Life That We Don’t Want’: Using Participatory Video in Researching Violence

Wheeler, Joanna. (2009). IDS Bulletin, 40(3), 10-18

Abstract -------
This article reports on the use of participatory video as a research tool for working in violent contexts. The research asked how people living in poor areas of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil can build a bridge between violence and citizenship through participatory social action. Working in violent favelas and housing estates, the process involved creating participatory discussion groups drawn from different segments of the community. Participatory video was one of several tools used in the research process. The main contribution of participatory video was not in generating empirical findings, but in challenging patterns of power and control--------

Wheeler more precisely repeated the last sentence: "It concludes that, while the methodological challenges are certainly more numerous and complex, participatory video was important in terms of the research process and the social action surrounding it, rather than in terms of the research findings it generated" (p. 10).

Wheeler found the root of participatory video in participatory approaches to development work in the 1970s, pioneered by Snowden in 1967. She also noted a recent trend of PV as a participatory action research tool.

Wheeler stated the advantage of using PV as strengthening the research and communication process, more specifically:

-"give participants a greater degree of control over the research process and communication of
findings, and helped build their confidence and their trust in the research process." (p. 12)
-"It also helped create an opportunity for interaction between a diverse group of people who might not otherwise have listened to each other’s perspectives on the violence which affects them all" (pp. 12-13)--catalyzing interaction.
-"A significant dimension to the role of video was the validation of people’s perspectives and views through public screenings" (p. 13)
-"It also served as a feedback mechanism for research participants. Because of their easy replicability and visual nature, the videos facilitated communication of the research beyond the group immediately involved, including dialogues with policymakers." (p. 13)
-"people were more willing to listen to what others were saying when they watched it on video than they would have in face to face encounters." (p. 13)
-"the films caught the attention of policymakers. . . . The films framed the debate in a way which would have been difficult to achieve through more conventional presentations or dialogue. As a result of the debate, the city councillor launched a programme using participatory video in over 40 communities across the city" (p. 13).

As limitation of using PV, Wheeler noted, "In a context of fear and mistrust caused by violence, the public nature of video limits what people are able to say." [THIS IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO OP RESEARCH CONTEXT] By the public nature of video, she meant ethics. Besides, Wheeler pointed out the "interviewer effect" that distorts what an interviewee say--they often say what interviewers might want to hear. More critically, video brings up another level of ethics issues. Wheeler noted:

Once the videos are made and copies distributed within the community, the video can be seen by anyone anywhere. This is very different from an interview or a questionnaire, where anonymity is more plausible. This heightens some of the risks arising from using video as a research tool on violence. (p. 14)

Wheeler called interviewee's selective topic/content a "deliberate silence" (p. 14)