Video for recording and training in participatory development

Frost, Nicola, & Jones, Carolyn. (1998). Development in Practice: Stimulating thought for action, 8(1), 90-94. doi: 10.1080/09614529854043

Frost used video recording as ways of keeping fieldnotes and reports for donors for a multi-disciplinary research of the effects of tourism in eastern Indonesia; Jones used video recording for field and classroom training, and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) community-level workshops. Based upon their experiences, the authors discussed the use of video in participatory development.

1. Creating a record of fieldwork for research--> on-site playback stimulates instant comments on the process [Transparency of research process]
2. Recording participants' discussion on local issues-->useful for supporting funding proposal
3. Used as a training resources instead of paper hand-outs.

Pro's and con's of using video
Pro's: quick and accurate establishment of contexts. flexibility to move around. presentation of a kinetic process. preserving the spatial dynamics of a PRA meeting. can be less intrusive than still cameras with flash.

The authors note the transferability of the advantages of using video for discussion: whereas some may distrust video, preferring to speak anonymity, others become more focused on discussion. Thus, they argue, "Clearly, the appropriateness of video will vary according to context, the individuals involved, and the subject matter being discussed" (p. 92).

The authors discuss the inevitable possibility of trade-off between quality and other purposes such as local involvement, daily feedback, etc.

Discussing editing, the authors argue the potential loss of transparency of video in particular if the editor lacks the original context, yet they play an important role in shaping the final product.

The authors argue that the potential for video relies on its overall objective: who it is intended for and for what purpose.