Participatory Video

Images that transform and empower. Shirley A. White. (Ed.). (2003). New Delhi, India: Sage.

In the Forward, White astutely stated that despite participatory communication experiences over the last three decades, scholarly theories and definitions are yet to be developed and more so in information on practical and innovative programs at the grass root level.

Introduction: Video Power (17-30)
White approaches participatory video as a practical program of participatory communication. In the introduction to the book, she asserted that the major objective of participatory communication is to "empower people to shape their own destiny" (p. 20), arguing, "Participatory communication has the capacity to connect human beings as they experience social change" (p. 20).

White summarizes the current development of participatory video:

"Not only are there few definitive concepts but there is remarkable absence of any well-formulated theories to undergird the participatory video practices. While projects have been routinely evaluated, the lessons learned and understandings that have resulted have not led to significant theoretic work on the part of academics or other development professionals."(p.24)

Chapter 2. Involving people in a participatory process (33-62)
According to White, participation surfaced in the 1970s and dominated the development scene since then; in particular, communication technologies have played an important role in giving "voice" to the grass roots people. White emphasizes participatory communication as a process:

It [participatory communication] also must be conceived as process methodology that involves people in an interactive way, making communication resources accessible to them directly, in turn, helping the grass roots people acquire the knowledge and skill that enables a partnership in generating messages. (p. 37)

White describes the outcomes of the process of participatory communication:

"Through the process, a person experiences self-awareness and becomes conscious of social issues that affect their lives. The transformative dynamic of communication exchanges acts as a catalyst for identifying one's own problems, recognizes possible routes to empowerment and self-reliance, and builds a sense of independence through interdependence." (p. 37)

While describing the dimensions of involvement in participatory communication for development, White wrote:
"Initially, people may become involved out of curiosity, but when given the opportunity to be recognized and have a "voice", the enthusiasm builds. Video has proven to be a powerful tool for motivating participation, when used in the initial stages of involvement." (p. 47-48).

Besides, White also discussed confidence and self-development as a dimension of involvement. Here she implies the role of learning to build confidence and let them continue to be involved. She wrote:
"As individuals experience success in expressing views, learning new things, using indigenous knowledge and skills, they will develop the confidence to continue to be involved. They will recognize their own self-development and the fact that they are becoming different people. Feelings of satisfaction and usefulness result from being able to play a part in community effort and be recognized and valued for that part (CONNECT TO STAR'S REFLECTION)." (p. 49)

Discussing the role of the facilitator as a communication catalyst, Nair and White (1999) wrote that they "unlock the human potentials of individuals, increasing their capacity to think, to relate, to act, and to reflect from a foundation of communication competencies" (p. 40) (cited on p. 51).

*Nair, K. S., & White, S. A. (1999). The catalyst communicator: Facilitation without fear. In S. White, K. Nair & J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory communication: Working for change and development. New Delhi: Sage.

With regard to conflict, White writes "no change is possible without conflict--the greater the change, the greater the conflict" (p. 58). Thus, she writes as the role of facilitator:

"The development facilitator, as a catalyst communicator, can enter a conflicted community and readily recognize conflicts. Bringing the people together and giving them tools to address their differences is the first order of the day. Creating the opportunity for them to talk about and share their differences will quickly lead to the identification of common interests and aspirations. Participatory Video (PV) has played a vital role in this process throughout communities on all continents" (p. 58)

Finally, White discusses some challenges of participatory communication: One of them is a long time span to build human capacity. In this light, she proposes "mini" projects (p. 60):

In the future there needs to be recognition of the fact that projects need to be small and localized in order to allow participants a safer, more comfortable relationship with fellow community members. These "mini" projects can offer greater feelings of satisfaction and in reality, be more effectively managed and controlled. Small successes produce capacity, confidence, and courage to tackle larger, more complex development plans of action. Communication media--video, audio, and the Internet--will provide the mechanisms for linking and sharing the outcomes of these projects" (p. 60).

For White, PV is useful for conducting mini projects.

Chapter 3. Participatory video: A process that transforms the self and the other (63-101)

White succinctly defined PV as follows:

"Participatory video as a process is a tool for individual, group, and community development. It can serve as a powerful force for people to see themselves in relation to the community and become conscientized about personal and community needs. It brings about a critical awareness that forms the founcation for creativity and communication. Thus, it has the potential to bring about personal, social, political, and cultural change. That's what video power is all about." (p. 64)

White distinguished PV as a process and as a product: PV as a process is described as a tool to facilitate interaction and enable self-expression. PV as a product, on the other hand, emphasizes the video itself, which becomes a historical fact. Unlike non-participatory video, White argued, PV as a product is highly interactive to make a message come across via video.

Among others, White stressed PV as a tool for education and self-training that emerged in the use of PV in particular FAO projects. For video has "immediacy" (p. 67) that video can be replayed in the field. In particular, she mentioned video feedback as one of the most powerful yet simple uses of PV, such as videotaping a simple process of pesticides or other similar skills, conducting an interview for participatory research, conducting a training session, etc.

White highly regarded participatory message-making with video, which enables bottom-up grass roots involvement in the development of knowledge construction. Calling this process as PMD (Participatory Message Development), she emphasized the researcher as an important variable in the PMD process and listed the following as other critical variables.

1. Flexibility of the process (i.e., willingness to adapt and change directions)
2. Ability of the development communicator to play the facilitator role
3. The necessity of effective interpersonal communication
4. The joint analysis/teamwork or spirit among the researchers, development communicators and intended receivers
5. Recognizing that the participatory process is an educational process.

As outcomes of her research with Patel (1994), she write the following in relation to video:
"The characteristic and potential of small format video, as a development tool, is an ideal medium of communication when using a participatory research approach"
"Video as a development tool allows people to become involved in the process of decision-making and change in their community, which is an empowering experience."
"The presence of video in the community takes on a new meaning in that its evolution will move from a form of entertainment to a means of serious communication, dealing with and trying to find solutions to day-to-day issues." (p. 70)

In discussing Transformation, White argued that initially transformation must take place within individuals and it is intertwined with knowledge acquisition. She argued that knowledge acquisition is in itself empowering. She further stated:
"It [knowledge] builds the capacity for gaining control over one's own life and life space. It is at the heart of transforming situations and moving toward better quality life" (p. 76). More, she stressed that transformation accompanies conflict, saying, "There is no change without conflict whether it be interpersonal conflict or conflict within one's self" (p. 81). Further, "[C]onflicts can be negotiated in positive and constructive ways through mediation and management...Conflict is actually healthy because it helps move relationships out of a rut and can result in new visions and renewed confidence between conflicting individuals." (p. 81). In this light, she called for the process of reaching a consensus: "Consensus doesn't necessarily mean that everyone agrees on an issue, but it does mean they can be committed to a decision that is reached through dialog in which each person has been able to freely express an opinion on that issue" (p. 79).

Her personal reflection on those days in which small format video emerged is interesting. She recalled that even in the late 1960s when portable cameras became available, the concepts and norms that had governed television technologies dominated the guidelines for the use of small format video. She recalled that alternative video was born out of experiment, in her case, via an enthusiastic audiovisual librarian, who did not set boundaries for the use of the new technology. Then they teamed up to explore the power of video based on do-it-yourself spirit for students and faculty. Then, interestingly, they traveled to Canada to learn about the Challenge for Change programs for the purpose of learning an approach to participatory media.

Chapter 4. Participatory video that empowers (102-121, Renuka Bery)
Bery gives a succinct definition of empowerment: "Empowerment is closely linked with identity and context. Gaining control of one's life, making one's own decisions and being able to influence the context in which one lives are essential elements of empowerment." (p. 104)

Bery discussed the flexibility of participatory video throughout the world: "Participatory video producers can adapt the medium to meet their needs, whether it is used to expose current reality or to weave a narrative that brings the changing world closer to the viewers. Different styles of participatory video have emerged around the world that address the specific context and needs of the communities it served." Then she concluded, "[P]articipatory video is truly empowering. It opens up new aveunes for telling stories in ways that will build strong individuals and communities. These stories are strong enough to identify problems and to make necessary changes in order to improve lives and to transform societies in ways that value the individual and recognize the unique contribution and dynamic of every interaction" (p. 119).

Chapter 8. Trapped: Women Take Control of Video Storytelling (195-214, K. Sadanandan Nair and Shirley A. White)

The authors introduced participatory video research project that began in 1985 in rural areas of India. This research was experimentation with portable video cameras, responding to questions with respect to video as a communication tool for knowledge production, policy change, and empowerment, in particular, in the context of women's need. They stated that the problems described in this research were different from those identified in the World Bank's recent report on poverty, arguing that women are doubly rejected in a poverty-stricken family environment.

The authors noted that this experimental approach to video gave rise to the concept of participatory video. Based on the data gathered in 23 different villages, the research team produced the documentary called The Trapped. It was reviewed with several women and they confirmed the authenticity of the video and their comments were incorporated in further editing. Then, the research team moved toward the participatory model of message production. First, researchers visited some villages and selected two villages for "experimental" work (p. 204). Next, the researchers used a "Trigger Tape" (p. 205), which consisted of video images of rural women shot throughout earlier days of the research, to catalyze the involvement of village women in the investigation of community problems on their own. Here the authors emphasized the role of researchers as a catalyst as well as the Trigger Tape:

"The primary role of the researcher was that of a catalyst to get the women to discuss their own problems. The Trigger Tape led not only to discussions of problems, but also to the decision to produce a participatory tape jointly with the researchers. The researchers (p. 206) concurred that the reason the women agreed to do their own tapes was that they thought that the researchers depicted their way of life incorrectly. As such, they realized that the researchers made a lot of mistakes just like they do, and therefore were not superior to them. The women felt they could do it because our tape wasn't all that good. All of them were excited about doing video to have some fun. They wanted to show it to their friends and relatives in other village." (p. 206-207)

Finally, five women made a commitment to produce the video, Rural Women's Problems. They were individually or in groups. Then, a camera was left in the village, while the women were asked to document whatever they felt important about the issues they had been discussing. In the following, the village women and the researchers reviewed an hour long video footage. They continued to define problems faced by rural women through group discussions while providing video training simultaneously for a six week period. The authors concluded that "these meetings helped not only to raise issues, but also to find solutions to problems through collective action" (p. 208). The completed video (15 min) were presented in several villages.

The authors compared the two documentaries, The Trapped and Rural Women's Problems:

"Beneath the outward appearances of their 'hard life and abusive life space' they have a bond of dignity. They do not want to be perceived as downtrodden and they value the daily aspects of their lives, even though difficult at times. This pride shows through in the participatory tape they produced.
The Trapped was a 'poor me' story, while Rural Women's Problems was am 'I am Me' story. When women could tell their own story, they carefully portrayed the reality of their daily life, without pity or apology. They declared themselves as people who clearly recognized their problems and had ideas as to how to solve them." (p. 211)

Through the documentation of the participation process, the authors concluded that the process of participation contributed to the participants' transformation in that they formed alliances and gained confidence that their perspectives are valuable; further, the video they created empowered the women for a short duration.

Participatory video in geographic research

: A feminist Practice of Looking? Kindon, Sara. (2003). Area, 35 (2), 142-153.

Criticizing the predominant masculinist gaze, Kindon explores possibilities of using participatory video as a means of achieving a feminist practice of looking in geographic research for more equitable outcomes and transformation for research participants.

Citing Sarah Pink's note, "the use of video as a method of qualitative research and representation has become 'revived' as a topic in discussions of qualitative methodologies" (p.586), Kindon maintains:

"[U]sing video makes the gaze explicit within a research process. It highlights the relationship between researcher/researched, observer/observed, drawing attention to who is in control of the viewing technology, what is being framed and how the images are being produced or represented. In particular, participatory video demands critical attention to the exercise of power within research relationships, it challenges us to explore reflexive ways that enable us to, 'join with another, to see together without claiming to be another' (Haraway 1991, 193)." (p.145-146)

In her criticism of the use of video for empowerment, Kindon sharply points out that, while such video enables researchers to discuss participants' self-reflexivity, it does not acknowledge reseachers' influence on the research or encourage their own reflexivity, which makes researchers effectively remain invisible in the video they make. [This is a paradox that Kindon draws from the practice of participatory video.] She continues that by rigorously participating alongside participants, the research method may destabilize conventional power relations between researcher and researched, observer and observed, and documentarians and documented.

Kindon compares cons and pros of using video for research. She writes about the potential benefit of using video, "[G]reater attention can be paid to the corporeal aspects of knowledge production by focusing on everyone's body language, use of and movements through space" (p.148). She cites other negative practices, such as confidentiality (negative impact on researcher-subject relationship) and access (the limitation of context-dependency). Kindon denotes that the same problems arose even in the participatory video project she involved with when those who were not directly involved with the research project were requested for an interview. However, she evaluates that participatory video transformed the relationships and the nature of research as shown in the discussion of the use of created video, which implies ownership, individual experience of empowerment, and a process of disruption of researchers' assumption.

Lastly she sheds light on the (time) commitment necessary to render the potential of transformation and empowerment that PV may bring to participants as well as researchers.


[Pink, S. (2001). More visualizing, more methodologies: on video, reflexivity and qualitative research. The Sociological Review, 49, 586-99.
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature. Free Association Books, London.]

-----------

I do this through a consideration of how participatory video may offer a feminist practice of looking, which actively works to engage with and challenge conventional relationships of power associated with the gaze in geographic research, and results in more equitable outcomes and/or transformation for research participants. (p. 143)

I then discuss how a form of participatory video was employed in a bi-cultural research project with a group of Maaori people in Aotearoa New Zealand. This project was developed to explore
the relationships between place, identity and 'social cohesion' in communities in the district.

videos produced were not designed to travel outside of the iwi or be used for advocacy purposes, but were part of a process of internal capacity building and knowledge sharing. (p. 144)

Yet, using video makes the gaze explicit within a research process. It highlights the relationship between researcher/researched, observer/observed, drawing attention to who is in control of the viewing technology, what is being (p. 145) framed and how the images are being produced or represented. In particular, participatory video demands critical attention to the exercise of power within research relationships, it challenges us to explore reflexive ways that enable us to, 'join with another, to see together without claiming to be another' (Haraway 1991, 193). (p. 146)

Criticizing Ruth Holliday's video diary, Kindon argued:
They enable researchers to discuss participants' self-representations and reflexivity, but do not always acknowledge the influence of the researcher, or encourage their self-reflexivity. The researcher effectively remains invisible and reinforces conventions associated with documentary film and scientific observation. If the recordings generated are then treated as 'untainted realities', rather than as representations and/or performances produced in the context of social relationships and strategies of self representation (Pink 2001 b, 87), they may perpetuate unequal power relations and assumptions about objectivity within the research process.