Participatory Theatre and Video: Acting Against Violence in Northern Nigeria

Oga Steve Abah, Jenkeri Zakari Okwori and Ogoh Alubo. (2009). Institute of Development Studies [IDS] Bulletin, 40(3), 19-26.

The authors discussed the use of theatre for development [TFD] and participatory video [PV] in the research on violence in northern Nigeria. First, they carried out a survey throughout several communities, then developed a drama performed in each community and followed by a debate. PV was used throughout. The research finding is interesting: they argued that people do not see contemporary violence as a result of religion; rather, people perceive it as the organizing platform.

Interesting to note the reasons for choosing TFD and PV for this participatory action research (p. 21):
1. high level of illiteracy
2. "Wonderment about video makes people eager to speak to the camera" (p. 21)
3. can "afford participant ownership of the research tools and process.
4. "participatory process. . . is a spur to reflection and self-critical analysis".
5. alternative ways of looking at violence and manipulating the end of violence.-->seed for change.

The way they used PV techniques was to record the process from the community survey through drama-making to the discussions after the performances. It also recorded message from people on opposite sides of the religious and ethnic divides. It was done by trained community researchers.

The authors defined the roles of theatre and PV played:

"Theatre thus played multiple roles of information-gathering, feedback, analysis and triangulation or validation of facts, while PV played a role in building up a broadly accepted and pluralistically-constructed version of events, and in data-recording on both content and process" (p. 22).

Reflecting on the methods, the authors wrote:

"In broad terms, the TFD and PV, the quantitative research and qualitative interviews complemented each other very nicely throughout. The quantitative component provided useful information on the areas most affected by the violent incidents in Kaduna, Plateau and Kano States" (p. 23).

[Seamless use of quantitative, qualitative, arts-based methods for community-based research]

Arguing the suitability of TFD and PV for participatory research, the authors wrote about its connection with oral culture, reinforced reflection, and catharsis:

"The appeal and relevance of such reinterpretation and reflexivity are underscored by the fact that the work we do is mostly situated in oral cultures where the ability to read and write are limited or non-existent. Instead of being constrained by specific questions, people were enabled to connect with the incidents of violence in a reflective manner, through testimony or narration of their experiences during the drama and during the PV discussion. This outpouring appeared to allow them purgation and relief" (p. 24)

They also pointed out the importance of non-verbal expression that constitutes real life reflected in the methods of TFD and PV:

"In real life, most meanings are constructed not just by words, but by signs and body language. Eliciting these through TFD and then capturing them for posterity using PV generates a permanent and rich source of complex data including body language, facial expressions, postures, movements, bodily adornment and material culture" (p. 24)

As an advantage of PV over TFD, the authors argued for its transferability:

"While TFD can only be experienced at the place and the moment when it is happening, the videos enabled community members to see what happened in other communities, hear the views
of others and see the multiple ways these were articulated, including their emotions and bodily
expressions. No dramatic action can be repeated exactly twice, but PV can record the action and
repeat it several times over, which allows for deeper reflection" (pp. 24-25)

The authors asserted that this research contributed to consciousness raising achievement by telling some emblematic stories of individual participants. They attributed two factors --the participatory method and the experiential lives of the community --to the outcome. They argued that these two factors created ownership, participants' ownership not only of the research process but also of the discussions, arguments, etc. [Ownership is discussed in the context of the content]