Participatory Video by Shirley White, Chapter 5 (actually an essay by Stephen Crocker)
It is popularly thought that digital media destroys sense of place since distances are meaningless leading to some grotesque monoculture of capitalism at the scale of mass society.
The Fogo Process was born from an initiative called the Challenge for Change and organized by the National Film Board of Canada (NFB) and Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN) in the late 1960's. Initial goal was to create documentaries with local video in underdeveloped regions of Canada as messages for politicians and decisionmakers who are not taking their opinions into account. "The Fogo Process provides real evidence of how peoplle who have been marginalized the economicand political structure of the world system can renew and empower their local communities and transform conditions of uneven development." p. 123
Prior to the Fogo Process was the Lumerire brothers, who invented movies, popularized their cinematograph in the 1980's - presenting film from everyday life in other parts of the woorld. Similar things were being done in the streets of Russia, and live activist scripts were filmed by filmakers like Roberto Rossellini. In the 1940's we have the British Colonial Film Unit producing films to show African colonists was England was like and attract Europeans to colonies. (Mr English at Home, and Southern Rhodesia: Is This your Country).
The first attempt by the NFB in 1966 was The Things I Cannot Change - a documentary on the social problem of poverty and the family it was based on was aversely affected by the production due to ridicule and embarrasment. Colin Low is the producer and director for the Fogo team. He wanted to put the filmaking tools into the hands of the locals and teach young ones how to be filmakers. Donald Snowden was a community development worker directing the Extension Service of th MUN. This project was incited by an article on poverty reduced to economic figures. What about the poverty of information and organization? Fogo was chosen because it had several small communities but very similar yet disconnected. 5000 lived in 10 communites with religious divides. No common voice nor communication chanell with government (p. 125).
First step was to go through a local community worker to identify some social problems and issues with the people. Much stress is placed on who you connect with to enter into the trust of the community. Suggested ideal is a local community organizer who often will look like he is the director of the set. Result was 28 short films on Fogo. Low moved away from horizontal filmmaking to try this vertical means of capturing different opinions rather than aggregating them. The people were shown the videos first and feedback elicited became the precedent for community feedback loop. A bigger loop closed by taking the video to the MUN and eventually government. A film was then made of the Fishing Ministries' response and returned.
There is much more information in this chapter that discusses a bit more on process vs product, as well as the continued need for improved development communications.
Reflection
I've been waiting impatiently to come across a more detailed account of the Fogo Process, and here it is. The best thing I learned was that vertical documentaries are real.
I would like to know how long the various feedback loops take to occur, and who filmed and edited/compiled the response from the government? Was it the government officials, or the NFB/MUN project team?
The history is interesting but the second part of the chapter is dedicated to the process that has become famously known as the Fogo Process. It has been applied by various different groups including Martha Stewart's initiative for Self-Employed Women's Association (SEWA), which produced some 400 films on their situation. It is interesting to think about how video seems to have been born into the development arena as a participatory tool, rather than evolving into one.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Empowerment: the Politics of Alternative Development
Friedman, David. "Empowerment: the Politics of Alternative Development." Blackwell Publishers: Cambridge, 1992.
In the first chapter, Friedman discusses how half the population became redundant in our current economic capitalist model. He claims that the poor are excluded from economically and politically participating alongside their richer counterparts due to capitalism's "global reach, technological innovations, centralization in giant corporations and financial institutions" (P 14). The book is meant to provide the framework for practicing alternative development, whose objective is to "humanize a system which has shut [the people] out, and to accomplish this through forms of everyday resistance and political struggle that insist on the rights of the excluded population as human beings, citizens, and persons intent on realizing their loving and creative powers within" (P13). The common doctrines of alternative development (AD) are to avoid the state (possibly entirely opposing it), trusting that a community is cohesive and collectively making right decisions, and political action should be avoided. Friedman argues that all three of these bases are incorrect: development must take place on bigger levels than just the local scale, communities are not always gemeinschaftlich (together and communal), and that political intervention is necessary in a age where common resources are controlled by the state (P7-8).
In the second chapter, Friedman discusses how the massive redundancy of the impoverished came about, pushing around some numbers and trying to make a point. After a few pages, it is lost. However, he does manage to rattle off a few reasons why modern capitalism is adverse to the modern peasant. Mainly that they spend capital for unproductive public expenditures such as housing, education, and health reasons. Additionally, they inhabit desirable land necessary for industrial growth, demand wages, and are a dangerous class that the government needs to keep their eyes on (P14). The poor are economically excluded from participation and Friedman says that, "To be economically excluded is, for all practical purposes, to be politically excluded." The poor, however, figh against this exclusion through acts of survival that include daily resistance in the form of "individual enterprise in the informal economy, protests, and community-centered initiatives." Although only mentioned briefly, he believes that "all initiatives require the cooperation of others; most require some form of outside help from students, priests, and professionals who may also provide..." (P21-22).
Some examples of 'daily resistance' include talleres, which is a simliar to a workshop where skills are swapped in order to move towards a collective enterprise. Talleres also provide a socializing aspect for marginalized groups such as women. So this economic model also provides a platform for social support. Other examples include organized protest movements as well as the bustling informal sector full of entrepreneurs. While "modernization emphasizes materialism, objective science, individualism, and liberal democracy, ... the barrio emphasizes intersubjective solidarity based on trust, reality testing based on subjective experience and intersubjective validation, anthropology of personhood, and a political order based on the strong talk of "direct democracy" (P ).
Then, what follows, may be the most amazing diagram which describes four actors in 'lifespace.' These include the state, civil society, corporations, and politics. State and corporate on the vertical axis while politics and civil society are on the horizontal. Friedman argues that the horizontal axis is weakened by the reinforcements created by the vertical axis, as seen primarily in the South. Although these actors cannot be kept from interacting with one another, the spaces of their overlapped have been named as well in an attempt to define the structure which dictates poverty and social inclusion.
Reflections
I am excited to get to the part of this book that explains how to take the entire system of global capitalism and turn it on its head... practically. Friedman's discussion of the history of how the haves and have-nots came to be is a useful and succinct (although somewhat biased) summary. This is the second book which considers power structures as obstacles to community development. I think he makes important distinctions between what AD has traditionally emphasized in order to redirect the focus onto working with governments through political intervention. This, as he argues, is the only way to really divvy up natural resources (thus wealth) equally.
As seen during my trip to Peru, there is a definite need for cooperation amongst the government as well as NGOs in order to make the sweeping changes desired in the Southern regions. However under governments that are corrupt, power-hungry, or apathetic, change is impossible unless the people demand their rights as citizens. A system of accountability and transparency needs to be in place so the people can guide the reconstruction in affected areas. I think that Participatory Video is one way to fill the gaps in feedback, monitoring, and evaluation that are currently ignored. If economic exclusion truly does imply political exclusion, this explains why the poor are stuck in their vicious cycle of poverty. We witnessed many of the same programs of "daily survival" such as the olla comunal and talleres being practiced in Peru. If PV can base its roots in the barrio's point of view, keeping its practices full of trust, subjectivity, and opening up the communication lines for more "direct democracy," it may be a useful tool to create and/or demand dialog between the community and its surroundings.
Finally, the amazing diagram implicitly suggests that strengthening the civil society as well as community participation in politics can also weaken the power constructs of the state and corporation. By siphoning power from authority and decentralizing it, truly participatory democracy can be built up.
On a side note, Friedman also addresses the idea of class within communities which we also encountered during our trip. There were many NGO workers who were from Peru but were considered better educated or just came from wealthier backgrounds.
In the first chapter, Friedman discusses how half the population became redundant in our current economic capitalist model. He claims that the poor are excluded from economically and politically participating alongside their richer counterparts due to capitalism's "global reach, technological innovations, centralization in giant corporations and financial institutions" (P 14). The book is meant to provide the framework for practicing alternative development, whose objective is to "humanize a system which has shut [the people] out, and to accomplish this through forms of everyday resistance and political struggle that insist on the rights of the excluded population as human beings, citizens, and persons intent on realizing their loving and creative powers within" (P13). The common doctrines of alternative development (AD) are to avoid the state (possibly entirely opposing it), trusting that a community is cohesive and collectively making right decisions, and political action should be avoided. Friedman argues that all three of these bases are incorrect: development must take place on bigger levels than just the local scale, communities are not always gemeinschaftlich (together and communal), and that political intervention is necessary in a age where common resources are controlled by the state (P7-8).
In the second chapter, Friedman discusses how the massive redundancy of the impoverished came about, pushing around some numbers and trying to make a point. After a few pages, it is lost. However, he does manage to rattle off a few reasons why modern capitalism is adverse to the modern peasant. Mainly that they spend capital for unproductive public expenditures such as housing, education, and health reasons. Additionally, they inhabit desirable land necessary for industrial growth, demand wages, and are a dangerous class that the government needs to keep their eyes on (P14). The poor are economically excluded from participation and Friedman says that, "To be economically excluded is, for all practical purposes, to be politically excluded." The poor, however, figh against this exclusion through acts of survival that include daily resistance in the form of "individual enterprise in the informal economy, protests, and community-centered initiatives." Although only mentioned briefly, he believes that "all initiatives require the cooperation of others; most require some form of outside help from students, priests, and professionals who may also provide..." (P21-22).
Some examples of 'daily resistance' include talleres, which is a simliar to a workshop where skills are swapped in order to move towards a collective enterprise. Talleres also provide a socializing aspect for marginalized groups such as women. So this economic model also provides a platform for social support. Other examples include organized protest movements as well as the bustling informal sector full of entrepreneurs. While "modernization emphasizes materialism, objective science, individualism, and liberal democracy, ... the barrio emphasizes intersubjective solidarity based on trust, reality testing based on subjective experience and intersubjective validation, anthropology of personhood, and a political order based on the strong talk of "direct democracy" (P ).
Then, what follows, may be the most amazing diagram which describes four actors in 'lifespace.' These include the state, civil society, corporations, and politics. State and corporate on the vertical axis while politics and civil society are on the horizontal. Friedman argues that the horizontal axis is weakened by the reinforcements created by the vertical axis, as seen primarily in the South. Although these actors cannot be kept from interacting with one another, the spaces of their overlapped have been named as well in an attempt to define the structure which dictates poverty and social inclusion.
Reflections
I am excited to get to the part of this book that explains how to take the entire system of global capitalism and turn it on its head... practically. Friedman's discussion of the history of how the haves and have-nots came to be is a useful and succinct (although somewhat biased) summary. This is the second book which considers power structures as obstacles to community development. I think he makes important distinctions between what AD has traditionally emphasized in order to redirect the focus onto working with governments through political intervention. This, as he argues, is the only way to really divvy up natural resources (thus wealth) equally.
As seen during my trip to Peru, there is a definite need for cooperation amongst the government as well as NGOs in order to make the sweeping changes desired in the Southern regions. However under governments that are corrupt, power-hungry, or apathetic, change is impossible unless the people demand their rights as citizens. A system of accountability and transparency needs to be in place so the people can guide the reconstruction in affected areas. I think that Participatory Video is one way to fill the gaps in feedback, monitoring, and evaluation that are currently ignored. If economic exclusion truly does imply political exclusion, this explains why the poor are stuck in their vicious cycle of poverty. We witnessed many of the same programs of "daily survival" such as the olla comunal and talleres being practiced in Peru. If PV can base its roots in the barrio's point of view, keeping its practices full of trust, subjectivity, and opening up the communication lines for more "direct democracy," it may be a useful tool to create and/or demand dialog between the community and its surroundings.
Finally, the amazing diagram implicitly suggests that strengthening the civil society as well as community participation in politics can also weaken the power constructs of the state and corporation. By siphoning power from authority and decentralizing it, truly participatory democracy can be built up.
On a side note, Friedman also addresses the idea of class within communities which we also encountered during our trip. There were many NGO workers who were from Peru but were considered better educated or just came from wealthier backgrounds.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Participatory Video: A Process that Transforms Self and Others, Shirley White
White, Shirley, ed. Participatory Video. Sage Publications: California, 2003.
Chapter 3: A Process that Transforms Self and Others
p 63-86
Shirley White's main point of this article is to point out that there are two seperate uses to participatory video: as a process and as a product. Each has their different uses, benefits, and consequences. As a process, participatory video sets the stage for communication and self-expressiong. "Thus, it has the potential to bring about person, social, political, and cultural change. That is what video power is all about" (P64). The video power that she talks about is achievable because people are able to self-express, gain identity, and have their voice acknowledged as valid (P65). She goes on to say that PV purely as a product is very different because it is a passive entity. Watching is optional, interpretation is personal, and control only exists for the video-makers, not the viewers (P66).
I will focus mostly on PV as a process in this summary. PV needs to be conducted a certain way for it to be successful, that is that PV needs to focus on "interaction, sharing, and cooperation with an outcome of individual and group growth" . It is about allowing people to express as well as offer another mode of interaction (P64-65). As a process, it has many uses: self-definition, education and training, community building, message-making, mediator, and many other things. This is made possible through PVs ability to transform individuals and eventually communities (P76). The facilitator must possess certain skills and encourage PV to grow in certain ways for the community to be transformed, however. They include things such as "encouraging interpersonal encounter, promoting dialog, reconciling differences, reaching consensus, dealing with prejudice, conflict management, and fostering cooperation" (P77). This is yet another acknowledgment that PV alone is not enough to bring about change, but rather a myriad of variables need to be aligned correctly for it to occur. One of these is the attitude of the facilitator.
Each one of these topics is explained in more detail, giving examples and advice on how to exemplify these characteristics as the PV facilitator's work. The other thing that the facilitator should be aware of Maslow's concept of "self-actualization" and Kelley's concept of "fully-functioning." Maslow believed that the human continues to reach for higher levels throughout life due to their desire for "knowledge, undestanding, meaning in life, beauty, peace, and self-fulfillment." White says that this humanistic approach pushes participation in the process of development, and that PV can help address issues of self-fulfillment. "When a person is fully functioning, he/she must look at the self and feel that they are capable of peforming the task at hand... [and] facilitating persons can further assist in the process of building, helping people realize their potential for change and improvements" (P82).
White says that self is an important concept to acknowledge as a facilitator as they must deal with disparities between how the self perceives self and how others perceive that person. She explains how self is shaped by our relations with others, creating a constanly evolving and changing self-concept. Thus, interpersonal interaction has impact on self-concept (P84).
She goes onto develop ideas of self-esteem and self-respect which are two things that "require a basic process whereby individuals can examine, assess and modify their existing concepts, attitudes and behaviors." PV is one such way of "questioning the assumptions one makes about their own actions or beliefs that often forces a person to modify their self-concept in order to maintain self-esteem" (P85-86). Basically that a person's ability to change lays in critical reflection in a process of "understanding a decision, thinking about what they are doing, obersving the reaction to what they are doing, and checking out the relationship between action and observation" (P86). Again, PV is able to bring this process to the forefront fo conscious change.
Reflections:
I enjoyed the portion of this text about psychology. The claims of PV are often thrown out there without absolute proof or even pointing towards possible reasons for why "PV causes change" or how "PV can induce empowerment." Her argument feels fleshed out. Instead of simply relying on case examples, she is able to pull from theoretical evidence to prove that PV is able to propogate impact from individual to the group.
I am also a fan of how she acknowledges that there are certain pre-conditions that make PV successful. Her outline for the facilitator is fairly detailed and could be useful in part of a handbook for hosting PV. They are reminiscent of therapy or mediator characterstics, and her techniques push the boundaries between using the camera for action versus psychological aid. The process is self-reflective, but also a very conscious manner. In a way, her process feels like the participants are being treated as children or as clients.
I think White is correct when she outlines the way in which facilitation must occur. I like that she has turned the process into less of a touch-feely-we-can-change-the-world and more into science. She outlines certain characteristics needed for PV to work as a process. However, I am also wary of her clearly-defined steps as it implies that PV intervention can always been the answer or have the potential to always be successful on some level. Based off of summer experiences, I would still question whether intervention always has more positive impacts than negative.
Further reading of the text is needed for further conclusions.
Chapter 3: A Process that Transforms Self and Others
p 63-86
Shirley White's main point of this article is to point out that there are two seperate uses to participatory video: as a process and as a product. Each has their different uses, benefits, and consequences. As a process, participatory video sets the stage for communication and self-expressiong. "Thus, it has the potential to bring about person, social, political, and cultural change. That is what video power is all about" (P64). The video power that she talks about is achievable because people are able to self-express, gain identity, and have their voice acknowledged as valid (P65). She goes on to say that PV purely as a product is very different because it is a passive entity. Watching is optional, interpretation is personal, and control only exists for the video-makers, not the viewers (P66).
I will focus mostly on PV as a process in this summary. PV needs to be conducted a certain way for it to be successful, that is that PV needs to focus on "interaction, sharing, and cooperation with an outcome of individual and group growth" . It is about allowing people to express as well as offer another mode of interaction (P64-65). As a process, it has many uses: self-definition, education and training, community building, message-making, mediator, and many other things. This is made possible through PVs ability to transform individuals and eventually communities (P76). The facilitator must possess certain skills and encourage PV to grow in certain ways for the community to be transformed, however. They include things such as "encouraging interpersonal encounter, promoting dialog, reconciling differences, reaching consensus, dealing with prejudice, conflict management, and fostering cooperation" (P77). This is yet another acknowledgment that PV alone is not enough to bring about change, but rather a myriad of variables need to be aligned correctly for it to occur. One of these is the attitude of the facilitator.
Each one of these topics is explained in more detail, giving examples and advice on how to exemplify these characteristics as the PV facilitator's work. The other thing that the facilitator should be aware of Maslow's concept of "self-actualization" and Kelley's concept of "fully-functioning." Maslow believed that the human continues to reach for higher levels throughout life due to their desire for "knowledge, undestanding, meaning in life, beauty, peace, and self-fulfillment." White says that this humanistic approach pushes participation in the process of development, and that PV can help address issues of self-fulfillment. "When a person is fully functioning, he/she must look at the self and feel that they are capable of peforming the task at hand... [and] facilitating persons can further assist in the process of building, helping people realize their potential for change and improvements" (P82).
White says that self is an important concept to acknowledge as a facilitator as they must deal with disparities between how the self perceives self and how others perceive that person. She explains how self is shaped by our relations with others, creating a constanly evolving and changing self-concept. Thus, interpersonal interaction has impact on self-concept (P84).
She goes onto develop ideas of self-esteem and self-respect which are two things that "require a basic process whereby individuals can examine, assess and modify their existing concepts, attitudes and behaviors." PV is one such way of "questioning the assumptions one makes about their own actions or beliefs that often forces a person to modify their self-concept in order to maintain self-esteem" (P85-86). Basically that a person's ability to change lays in critical reflection in a process of "understanding a decision, thinking about what they are doing, obersving the reaction to what they are doing, and checking out the relationship between action and observation" (P86). Again, PV is able to bring this process to the forefront fo conscious change.
Reflections:
I enjoyed the portion of this text about psychology. The claims of PV are often thrown out there without absolute proof or even pointing towards possible reasons for why "PV causes change" or how "PV can induce empowerment." Her argument feels fleshed out. Instead of simply relying on case examples, she is able to pull from theoretical evidence to prove that PV is able to propogate impact from individual to the group.
I am also a fan of how she acknowledges that there are certain pre-conditions that make PV successful. Her outline for the facilitator is fairly detailed and could be useful in part of a handbook for hosting PV. They are reminiscent of therapy or mediator characterstics, and her techniques push the boundaries between using the camera for action versus psychological aid. The process is self-reflective, but also a very conscious manner. In a way, her process feels like the participants are being treated as children or as clients.
I think White is correct when she outlines the way in which facilitation must occur. I like that she has turned the process into less of a touch-feely-we-can-change-the-world and more into science. She outlines certain characteristics needed for PV to work as a process. However, I am also wary of her clearly-defined steps as it implies that PV intervention can always been the answer or have the potential to always be successful on some level. Based off of summer experiences, I would still question whether intervention always has more positive impacts than negative.
Further reading of the text is needed for further conclusions.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Cities for Citizens: Friedman, ed.
Friedman, John and Mike Douglas, eds. Cities for Citizens. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd: Sussex, England, 1998.
-Chapter 2: "Planning and Civil Society in the Twenty-first Century: An Introduction" (Friedman)
-Portions from "Empowering Civil Society: Habernas, Foucault and the Question of Conflict." (Bent Flybjerg)
-Chapter 12: "Civil/Uncivil Society: Confusing Form with Content" (Janet Abu-Lughod)
Summary:
Friedman's introduction includes a definition of civil society as well as a broad overview of the chapters that follow. His arguments mostly focus on the idea of the individual and organization's power, rights, and responsibilities as the 'citizen.' He argues that the elite have no connection or allegiance while the "disempowered great majority of the world's population value local traditions and inhabit specific places, but thier voices have been rendered silent." "Civil society is that part of social life which lies beyond the immediate reach of the state, and which, we would argue, must exist for a democratic state to flower." (P2) The citizen is part of a political struggle to maintain or strengthen their rights to demand that the state work for the people, especially those without power (P3)
The planner's jobs, Friedman argues, is to avoid the ruckus of politics in order to "discover and give voice to the broad interests of people in a long-term future perspective." (P19) Organizations, like the NGO, were developed to address the social needs that the city was not able to, but "their collective efforts inevitably fall far short of the probelms with whose symptoms they engage." As they proliferate, however, the NGO beginst to step on one another's toes and are forced to fight amongst their increasing numbers for non-increasing funding sources.
Maybe good for a beginning or ending quote: "The market economy doesn't solve urban problems; it creates them. Its patheticaly narrow vision for the future comes down to one syllable, 'more.' More is better than less. Growth is mandatory. Consumption is a civil obligation. But in fact, the materialism of the consumer society has very little to do with the good life, which is rather about the quality of human relationships" (P20).
Friedman also talks briefly about how poverty is defined, again offering no solutions. He says that concept of the household as a consumer leads to poverty being thought of as a problem of low-income. In turn, this leads anti-poverty movements to frame their raise this income as a way of increasing their spending power. Friedman argues that poverty is also a result of low access to necessary resources for household production which he calls the "bases of social power and include a secure lifespace, surplus time over and above time required for the reproduction of life, social networks, knoweldge and skills..., social organizations, good health, instruments and tools of domestic production, and ... financial resources" (P24).
His concern for poverty doesn't remove his belief that civil societies are in the business for themselves. The most incredible thing that I found within the reading was the unexpected remark that "within the constraints of structural imperatives, it is in its attention to small that the quality of our lives are found." He gives a few examples such as communities forcing cities to care for how the streets look or marking commemorative sites (P28).
Finally, Freidman steps back to look at some characteristics of successful planners within civil societies. He says that "reciprocity and trust counts for a good deal more than one's salary... [and] although shared experiences serves as an important foundation for trust, it is only the first and not neccessarily the most important basis. Trust develops in the course of working together..." Planners must withhold from judgment in order to understand points of view with which they are unfamiliar. Social transformation, however, is possible through the "enlargement of space for the workings of the moral economy based on relations of trust, reciprocity, and dialogue, ... and second, to make its multiple voices heard and respected through active participation in decisions that affect its conditions of life and wellbeing..." (P32-33). For delf-development to occur, someone needs to remove the obstacles to inclusion, opportunity, and "a form of social justice that acknowledges the different priorities and needs of different groups" (P34).
Abu-Lughod challenges Friedman's advocacy for supporting civil society as good planning practice. She first questions Friedman's usage of the term - "almost as a synonym for decentralization and local empowerment exercised through associational (and oftentimes voluntary) organizations," and points out that even these organizations are not neutral and can even be evil (P232). Her argument is that civil society needs to operate within certain confines of enough, too much, and too little (P236) as well as to point out that civil societies will have little change unless they change the current dominant political systems. She quotes Friedman, "reintegrating ... an existing political community in which [the people] exercise their rights, cannot be done in any meaningful sense unless the systems-in-dominance - authoritarianism, peripheral capitalism, and patriarchy - are themselves changed in fundamental ways." She then goes on to say that the planners job is not to listen and give the people what they want but to create and change the ways in which the people can GET what they want (P237).
To wrap up this intense round of quotes and reading, let's end on Flybjerg's idea that "'validity' is established via the mode of communication rather than through rational arguments concerning the matter at hand" (P194).
Reflections:
Although this book was meant for planners, it was good to get a broad overview of "civil society" and its present place in society. Friedman is a bit of an idealist with his notion that civil society is the opposition to unjust political structures and wealth but has been proven right many times in the cases when social movements (anti-slavery or feminists) has been a successful organization by the people, for the people. Although it advocates autonomy as the answer, again there are no concrete examples given of how "autonomy" may be achieved. Friedman presents a contradiction in the first part of his chapter that involves the idea that civil society is bound for failure while planning has the chance for change while the problem truly lies in the fabric of the concept of development. Overall, his general ideas are useful for supporting PV's place in social change as a way of creating those spaces necessary for representing many voices.
I found it interesting to read the respond of Abu-Lughod to Friedman's essay because it offered points that I hadn't considered. Finally, while Flybjerg's essay was mostly unhelpful, portions of it resonated so I quoted it.
-Chapter 2: "Planning and Civil Society in the Twenty-first Century: An Introduction" (Friedman)
-Portions from "Empowering Civil Society: Habernas, Foucault and the Question of Conflict." (Bent Flybjerg)
-Chapter 12: "Civil/Uncivil Society: Confusing Form with Content" (Janet Abu-Lughod)
Summary:
Friedman's introduction includes a definition of civil society as well as a broad overview of the chapters that follow. His arguments mostly focus on the idea of the individual and organization's power, rights, and responsibilities as the 'citizen.' He argues that the elite have no connection or allegiance while the "disempowered great majority of the world's population value local traditions and inhabit specific places, but thier voices have been rendered silent." "Civil society is that part of social life which lies beyond the immediate reach of the state, and which, we would argue, must exist for a democratic state to flower." (P2) The citizen is part of a political struggle to maintain or strengthen their rights to demand that the state work for the people, especially those without power (P3)
The planner's jobs, Friedman argues, is to avoid the ruckus of politics in order to "discover and give voice to the broad interests of people in a long-term future perspective." (P19) Organizations, like the NGO, were developed to address the social needs that the city was not able to, but "their collective efforts inevitably fall far short of the probelms with whose symptoms they engage." As they proliferate, however, the NGO beginst to step on one another's toes and are forced to fight amongst their increasing numbers for non-increasing funding sources.
Maybe good for a beginning or ending quote: "The market economy doesn't solve urban problems; it creates them. Its patheticaly narrow vision for the future comes down to one syllable, 'more.' More is better than less. Growth is mandatory. Consumption is a civil obligation. But in fact, the materialism of the consumer society has very little to do with the good life, which is rather about the quality of human relationships" (P20).
Friedman also talks briefly about how poverty is defined, again offering no solutions. He says that concept of the household as a consumer leads to poverty being thought of as a problem of low-income. In turn, this leads anti-poverty movements to frame their raise this income as a way of increasing their spending power. Friedman argues that poverty is also a result of low access to necessary resources for household production which he calls the "bases of social power and include a secure lifespace, surplus time over and above time required for the reproduction of life, social networks, knoweldge and skills..., social organizations, good health, instruments and tools of domestic production, and ... financial resources" (P24).
His concern for poverty doesn't remove his belief that civil societies are in the business for themselves. The most incredible thing that I found within the reading was the unexpected remark that "within the constraints of structural imperatives, it is in its attention to small that the quality of our lives are found." He gives a few examples such as communities forcing cities to care for how the streets look or marking commemorative sites (P28).
Finally, Freidman steps back to look at some characteristics of successful planners within civil societies. He says that "reciprocity and trust counts for a good deal more than one's salary... [and] although shared experiences serves as an important foundation for trust, it is only the first and not neccessarily the most important basis. Trust develops in the course of working together..." Planners must withhold from judgment in order to understand points of view with which they are unfamiliar. Social transformation, however, is possible through the "enlargement of space for the workings of the moral economy based on relations of trust, reciprocity, and dialogue, ... and second, to make its multiple voices heard and respected through active participation in decisions that affect its conditions of life and wellbeing..." (P32-33). For delf-development to occur, someone needs to remove the obstacles to inclusion, opportunity, and "a form of social justice that acknowledges the different priorities and needs of different groups" (P34).
Abu-Lughod challenges Friedman's advocacy for supporting civil society as good planning practice. She first questions Friedman's usage of the term - "almost as a synonym for decentralization and local empowerment exercised through associational (and oftentimes voluntary) organizations," and points out that even these organizations are not neutral and can even be evil (P232). Her argument is that civil society needs to operate within certain confines of enough, too much, and too little (P236) as well as to point out that civil societies will have little change unless they change the current dominant political systems. She quotes Friedman, "reintegrating ... an existing political community in which [the people] exercise their rights, cannot be done in any meaningful sense unless the systems-in-dominance - authoritarianism, peripheral capitalism, and patriarchy - are themselves changed in fundamental ways." She then goes on to say that the planners job is not to listen and give the people what they want but to create and change the ways in which the people can GET what they want (P237).
To wrap up this intense round of quotes and reading, let's end on Flybjerg's idea that "'validity' is established via the mode of communication rather than through rational arguments concerning the matter at hand" (P194).
Reflections:
Although this book was meant for planners, it was good to get a broad overview of "civil society" and its present place in society. Friedman is a bit of an idealist with his notion that civil society is the opposition to unjust political structures and wealth but has been proven right many times in the cases when social movements (anti-slavery or feminists) has been a successful organization by the people, for the people. Although it advocates autonomy as the answer, again there are no concrete examples given of how "autonomy" may be achieved. Friedman presents a contradiction in the first part of his chapter that involves the idea that civil society is bound for failure while planning has the chance for change while the problem truly lies in the fabric of the concept of development. Overall, his general ideas are useful for supporting PV's place in social change as a way of creating those spaces necessary for representing many voices.
I found it interesting to read the respond of Abu-Lughod to Friedman's essay because it offered points that I hadn't considered. Finally, while Flybjerg's essay was mostly unhelpful, portions of it resonated so I quoted it.
Autonomous Development: Carmen
Carmen, Raff. Autonomous Development. Zed Books Publishing: New Jersey, 1996.
Part 1: Maldevelopment
Chapter 3 "Demystifying Participation: of Beneficiaries and Benefactors"
Development, Carmen argues, is terminology that will never translate. He begins the chapter by asking the question of how the ideas of "development" can be communicated when the word itself does not exist in the language of the people we want to develop. Instead, it is simply a cover up for "acculturation" which is exemplified in the US' imperialistic spread and transfer in many of its seemingly humanitarian efforts. Aculturation is when "a culture of foreign origin profoundly influences or takes over an indigenous culture." He asks that the reader redefines development in other terms than the current mindframe of qualitative (bettering) and quantitative (goods, services, and skills). (P41-42).
Unlike many of the other literature that has been reviewed, Carmen traces participation back to the 60's with the WB's community development and green revolution and then into the 70's with the "Basic Needs Approach." These deceivingly top-down approaches of "participation" encourage development through "import substitution, technology transfer, and agricultural extension" which all, he concludes, will continue to fail as solutions. "To control a people's culture is to control their tools of self-defintion and relation to others." (P43)
Participatory development is not possible without the donor agency and thus paradoxical. Carmen points out that this methodology simply allows the third party (NGO, planner or otherwise) to avoid true development of the peasantry class by intervening and offering solutions while posing projects as 'participatory.' By leaving out the government, the organization can work directly with the people but also fails to address power structures from which poverty springs. Peasantry, which is the "obstacle to the march of modernity," could now be utilized and 'developed' in ways like technology transfer or skills aquisition while avoiding confrontation of true development like political activism and large structural projects (P45)
The technique of "Community Developmen"t was created not as a humanitarian effort but rather sprung from post-colonial relationships between the mother country and its territory and thus "suits the maintenance of colonial rule." It keeps the colony peaceful, transfers the economic burden from national to local governments, and helps in creating a stability during development. In a 1976 study that was conducted by The Cornell Development Research Group, four types of participation arose (1) Implementation (2) Benefits (3) Evaluation (4) Decision-Making. The implementation part of participation was the most common (P47).
Carmen also thinks that Rapid Rural Assessment is just terminology to cover up what is the "most cost-effective ways for outsiders to learn about rural conditions - ways that lead cloesr to optimal trade-off between the cost of collection and learning, the relevance, time and actual beneficial use of the information and understanding that is gained (P50).
Reflections:
The language is very formal, yet educated. This literature is incredibly theoretical. However, I totally disagree with what he is saying. What I dislike the most is the way that he tries to be so appealing. His definition of autonomous hinges on chance, pre-existing conditions being a certain way, and people having small amounts of power to increase their own power... somehow ... in places where the people who have power keep getting more power at everly increasing rates. The literature that he does draw on is well-pieced together and carefully selected. And although this chapter is formally backed with many documented sources, the feeling is much more like an opinion article that rants and raves without drawing from personal experience. However, his "about the author" section includes things such as 15 years as a preacher in Zambia as well as several other years in Burkina Fasa working at a manager of a UNDP research station. I expect and hope claims later will be supported with this.
Carmen's view point on participation, in my interpretation, is that participation is a result of TOTAL control, achieved at economic and social levels, by the institution in the brainwash to get culture to transfer.
If the implementation kind of participation is the most commonly found in development, then I would tend to assume that "implementation" is a euphemism for labor. This way projects employ local labor while the decisions are still made by the institutions. Drawing on my experiences from Peru, I would say that I don't necessarily know that finding labor within the community is such a bad thing. Looking at houses being built by NGOs where the labor force was the homeowner, more cost-efficient labor could have been hired from outside. So is it really about money? Or power? What do those four groups of "participation" really consist of.. ? I would like to find this research done by the Cornell students.
I doubt though that all of Carmen's criticisms in this chapter are well-deserved by many people in the field who may be accomplishing "autonomy," but mistakenly call it participation. Mix-ups in jargon may be the root of the issue at hand. Arguably, changes in linguistics of a subject are a true reflection of changes in the subject itself. His title of the chapter, "demystifying participation" is misleading as it merely provides a viewpoint on the subject.
Part 1: Maldevelopment
Chapter 3 "Demystifying Participation: of Beneficiaries and Benefactors"
Development, Carmen argues, is terminology that will never translate. He begins the chapter by asking the question of how the ideas of "development" can be communicated when the word itself does not exist in the language of the people we want to develop. Instead, it is simply a cover up for "acculturation" which is exemplified in the US' imperialistic spread and transfer in many of its seemingly humanitarian efforts. Aculturation is when "a culture of foreign origin profoundly influences or takes over an indigenous culture." He asks that the reader redefines development in other terms than the current mindframe of qualitative (bettering) and quantitative (goods, services, and skills). (P41-42).
Unlike many of the other literature that has been reviewed, Carmen traces participation back to the 60's with the WB's community development and green revolution and then into the 70's with the "Basic Needs Approach." These deceivingly top-down approaches of "participation" encourage development through "import substitution, technology transfer, and agricultural extension" which all, he concludes, will continue to fail as solutions. "To control a people's culture is to control their tools of self-defintion and relation to others." (P43)
Participatory development is not possible without the donor agency and thus paradoxical. Carmen points out that this methodology simply allows the third party (NGO, planner or otherwise) to avoid true development of the peasantry class by intervening and offering solutions while posing projects as 'participatory.' By leaving out the government, the organization can work directly with the people but also fails to address power structures from which poverty springs. Peasantry, which is the "obstacle to the march of modernity," could now be utilized and 'developed' in ways like technology transfer or skills aquisition while avoiding confrontation of true development like political activism and large structural projects (P45)
The technique of "Community Developmen"t was created not as a humanitarian effort but rather sprung from post-colonial relationships between the mother country and its territory and thus "suits the maintenance of colonial rule." It keeps the colony peaceful, transfers the economic burden from national to local governments, and helps in creating a stability during development. In a 1976 study that was conducted by The Cornell Development Research Group, four types of participation arose (1) Implementation (2) Benefits (3) Evaluation (4) Decision-Making. The implementation part of participation was the most common (P47).
Carmen also thinks that Rapid Rural Assessment is just terminology to cover up what is the "most cost-effective ways for outsiders to learn about rural conditions - ways that lead cloesr to optimal trade-off between the cost of collection and learning, the relevance, time and actual beneficial use of the information and understanding that is gained (P50).
Reflections:
The language is very formal, yet educated. This literature is incredibly theoretical. However, I totally disagree with what he is saying. What I dislike the most is the way that he tries to be so appealing. His definition of autonomous hinges on chance, pre-existing conditions being a certain way, and people having small amounts of power to increase their own power... somehow ... in places where the people who have power keep getting more power at everly increasing rates. The literature that he does draw on is well-pieced together and carefully selected. And although this chapter is formally backed with many documented sources, the feeling is much more like an opinion article that rants and raves without drawing from personal experience. However, his "about the author" section includes things such as 15 years as a preacher in Zambia as well as several other years in Burkina Fasa working at a manager of a UNDP research station. I expect and hope claims later will be supported with this.
Carmen's view point on participation, in my interpretation, is that participation is a result of TOTAL control, achieved at economic and social levels, by the institution in the brainwash to get culture to transfer.
If the implementation kind of participation is the most commonly found in development, then I would tend to assume that "implementation" is a euphemism for labor. This way projects employ local labor while the decisions are still made by the institutions. Drawing on my experiences from Peru, I would say that I don't necessarily know that finding labor within the community is such a bad thing. Looking at houses being built by NGOs where the labor force was the homeowner, more cost-efficient labor could have been hired from outside. So is it really about money? Or power? What do those four groups of "participation" really consist of.. ? I would like to find this research done by the Cornell students.
I doubt though that all of Carmen's criticisms in this chapter are well-deserved by many people in the field who may be accomplishing "autonomy," but mistakenly call it participation. Mix-ups in jargon may be the root of the issue at hand. Arguably, changes in linguistics of a subject are a true reflection of changes in the subject itself. His title of the chapter, "demystifying participation" is misleading as it merely provides a viewpoint on the subject.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Art of Technique
White, Shirley A. The Art of Facilitating Participation:. Minneapolis: Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd, 2000. Print.
Overview of the essays in Part 2: The Art of Technique.
Shirley White's book 'The Art of Facilitating Participation', is the result of White facilitating a regular discussion group that stemmed from the prodding of her graduate students. This means she is metaphysically facilitating a book of essays on facilitation by students and practitioners in the field of facilitation. Her role in this book comes out quite clearly in the way she introduces the essays written by those in the discussion group. Though she has talked to many people on this topic and heard many stories of the same (or at least similar) lessons learned by so many students, she mentions the work of each of them as unique learning experiences and is honored to help share these stories with others.
The book is divided into three sections. The first section's essays are described in the last post; in this post I will focus on the second section: The Art of Technique. The word choice is intentional, and explained on p.22. Technology is vital, but technique and the application of technical proficiency is arguably more important. The 'art of technique' is the 'thoughtful articulation and interpretation of the need for technology, and the culturally sensitive way people are involved in assessing, acquiring, and applying that technology to benefit their development'. “Technique must serve the content of development and be the art that effectively promotes learning and effective communication.”
The first essay in this section is an interview between a young Colombian interested in participatory development and a widely recognized Colombian facilitator who has dedicated his life to participatory development: Orlando Fals Borda.. This is followed by Colverson's essay on her experiences using PAR (Participatory Action Research) with campesino women in two rural Honduranean communities. The next essay witnesses how successful an agricultural program in Nepal can be at implementing a participatory model. Galper proceeds this with an essay on the topic of empowerment via teaching basic statistics for understanding the processes the NGO is using to make decisions and how information from surveys are translated and used.
Three African writers team together to emphasize the benefits of training rural development facilitators via Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal (PRCA). This process is focused on built-in field work. Next, Renuka Bery proposes the discovery principle which states that learning by discovery stimulates individual development and thus, 'contribute to the mot important issues in their societies. Finally, we move into access to media technologies. “The importance of access to communication technologies and public media cannot be overstated as an important force in a community's development. Hochneimer discusses community radio and the issues surrounding community-based journalism, themes that are 'pertinent to any media system, and important tools for community building' (p. 27). Richardson follows with his essay on the considerations inherent to establishing a 'FreeSpace' network in Canada; his example has apparently led to a rural internet access to the poor in Peru, Mexico, and the Philippines. 'Communication relationships are no longer restricted by space., but access to communication resources is another matter.' (p.28)
Reflection
This book has inspired me to consider facilitating a forum, (at least initially) informal, on international development experiences of MIT students. The important qualities of this gathering would be student-sprouted and informative. This of course requires prior interest and students who would immediately view this as a valuable use of their time. If started correctly, with a precedent on student interest and informal yet useful exchange of ideas, (as well as possibly output), this could be a worthwhile pursuit. The output of such a gathering could be one of new ideas and opportunities horizontally traveling from one student to another. I am especially interested in having a space where international development can be delved into and researched without feeling the reigns of power often associated with the grants, paperwork, and rules that tends to define and limit access to development work by students. Of course, the fact that it does not yet exist leads one to believe that there may be a low enough percentage of students with this type of experience that such a gathering only has merit on the graduate level.
Stepping back we can see clearly that White is cleverly showing us what she means by effective facilitation by the actual form in which the book is produced. The book is facilitation at its best. However, it also is facilitation between presumably similarly-minded people with similar recent international exposure in the field of development. Each of them is interested in understanding the role of communication in development, so admittedly the students are not an accurate representation of the complexities in international development caused by vast formative discrepancies. Still, she is contextualizing the facilitation role to the academic environment, and the result seems to be an interesting collection of hope-giving accounts. It is possible that sometimes White goes overboard and says things like 'Kathy had become one of them...erased any apprehension they might have had' which is simply an overexaggeration.
I like how the author writes the book so that one can quickly find what essays they are interested in reading, and leave the rest. This is accomplished by dedicating one to three paragraphs to a brief, but long-enough description of right at the beginning. Doing something similar to my work might be an interesting approach to facilitating its applicability as a useful document to someone.
Overview of the essays in Part 2: The Art of Technique.
Shirley White's book 'The Art of Facilitating Participation', is the result of White facilitating a regular discussion group that stemmed from the prodding of her graduate students. This means she is metaphysically facilitating a book of essays on facilitation by students and practitioners in the field of facilitation. Her role in this book comes out quite clearly in the way she introduces the essays written by those in the discussion group. Though she has talked to many people on this topic and heard many stories of the same (or at least similar) lessons learned by so many students, she mentions the work of each of them as unique learning experiences and is honored to help share these stories with others.
The book is divided into three sections. The first section's essays are described in the last post; in this post I will focus on the second section: The Art of Technique. The word choice is intentional, and explained on p.22. Technology is vital, but technique and the application of technical proficiency is arguably more important. The 'art of technique' is the 'thoughtful articulation and interpretation of the need for technology, and the culturally sensitive way people are involved in assessing, acquiring, and applying that technology to benefit their development'. “Technique must serve the content of development and be the art that effectively promotes learning and effective communication.”
The first essay in this section is an interview between a young Colombian interested in participatory development and a widely recognized Colombian facilitator who has dedicated his life to participatory development: Orlando Fals Borda.. This is followed by Colverson's essay on her experiences using PAR (Participatory Action Research) with campesino women in two rural Honduranean communities. The next essay witnesses how successful an agricultural program in Nepal can be at implementing a participatory model. Galper proceeds this with an essay on the topic of empowerment via teaching basic statistics for understanding the processes the NGO is using to make decisions and how information from surveys are translated and used.
Three African writers team together to emphasize the benefits of training rural development facilitators via Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal (PRCA). This process is focused on built-in field work. Next, Renuka Bery proposes the discovery principle which states that learning by discovery stimulates individual development and thus, 'contribute to the mot important issues in their societies. Finally, we move into access to media technologies. “The importance of access to communication technologies and public media cannot be overstated as an important force in a community's development. Hochneimer discusses community radio and the issues surrounding community-based journalism, themes that are 'pertinent to any media system, and important tools for community building' (p. 27). Richardson follows with his essay on the considerations inherent to establishing a 'FreeSpace' network in Canada; his example has apparently led to a rural internet access to the poor in Peru, Mexico, and the Philippines. 'Communication relationships are no longer restricted by space., but access to communication resources is another matter.' (p.28)
Reflection
This book has inspired me to consider facilitating a forum, (at least initially) informal, on international development experiences of MIT students. The important qualities of this gathering would be student-sprouted and informative. This of course requires prior interest and students who would immediately view this as a valuable use of their time. If started correctly, with a precedent on student interest and informal yet useful exchange of ideas, (as well as possibly output), this could be a worthwhile pursuit. The output of such a gathering could be one of new ideas and opportunities horizontally traveling from one student to another. I am especially interested in having a space where international development can be delved into and researched without feeling the reigns of power often associated with the grants, paperwork, and rules that tends to define and limit access to development work by students. Of course, the fact that it does not yet exist leads one to believe that there may be a low enough percentage of students with this type of experience that such a gathering only has merit on the graduate level.
Stepping back we can see clearly that White is cleverly showing us what she means by effective facilitation by the actual form in which the book is produced. The book is facilitation at its best. However, it also is facilitation between presumably similarly-minded people with similar recent international exposure in the field of development. Each of them is interested in understanding the role of communication in development, so admittedly the students are not an accurate representation of the complexities in international development caused by vast formative discrepancies. Still, she is contextualizing the facilitation role to the academic environment, and the result seems to be an interesting collection of hope-giving accounts. It is possible that sometimes White goes overboard and says things like 'Kathy had become one of them...erased any apprehension they might have had' which is simply an overexaggeration.
I like how the author writes the book so that one can quickly find what essays they are interested in reading, and leave the rest. This is accomplished by dedicating one to three paragraphs to a brief, but long-enough description of right at the beginning. Doing something similar to my work might be an interesting approach to facilitating its applicability as a useful document to someone.
The Art of Participation
White, Shirley A. The Art of Facilitating Participation:. Minneapolis: Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd, 2000. Print.
p. 7-22: Introduction and an overview of Part I: The Art of Participation.
This book aims to catalyze improved participatory approaches to development, The focus is placed on the importance of proper facilitation, and does this by combining a set of different essays by White and others on the topic of findings on participatory development. White starts off with a broad generalization that NGOs spent the 90's talking about involving the socially excluded, but have yet tlo effectively do so (p. 16). In addition, development has become a business. “We quickly forget that development starts from the heart” (p.17). “Reaching across the barriers of diversity, power, caste, and class to touch the life force of a person and lift them to a 'higher ground' becomes the objective of the challenge” (p.18)
Underlying assumption of the book: 'communication is the foundation of participation'. With this as an anchor, the story introduces the array of essays that will be presented to the reader. Each of them is written from a practitioners standpoint, but with the academic integrity of a university graduate research department. Together, the essays provide a set of lessons learned from their personal experiences working in development around the world.
The first essay is by White and Nair, and it explains how the facilitator role is one of a catalyst communicator (CC). A CC is responsible for setting up an environment for continual learning and honing communication for building partnerships for participatory development. Kiiti and Nielsen's essay validates the use of reflective thinking as well as contextualized definitions of roles and purpose. Specifically this essay distinguishes between the role of a facilitator and an advocate, and the importance of the ability to fill both roles depending on the situation. This theme of facilitator vs advocate continues into the next essay, by Ndunge and Erik. This essay discusses how facilitating starts from where the community is at, whereas advocating often has an external motivation and paints near-sighted pictures.
Simone St. Anne follows with an essay on the importance of creativity in synergy, or connection, which is the key to autonomous participation. “Synergy is the spark that triggers thinking and helps form innovative connections to allow others to see what they see – that's the essence of creative collaboration.” (p. 21). This essay is followed by an essay on the enabling conditions of development communication for giving voice to different stakeholders to negotiate their positions and common interests. Then comes on essay that appears to be written by someone recently faced with the harsh divisions associated with development, choosing to write on the personality and character requirements for someone to be a quality facilitator. These include selflessness, willingness to take risks, commitment, persistence, sensitivity, and others that are difficult to understand without extended time working in the field of development (p.21). The last essay included in the section titled the Art of Participation is by Jim Lees and Sonali Ojha who write it while in the midst of a project trying to do participation-based work in the midst of the harsh conditions of the streets of Mumbai.
Reflection
Interesting, how the book 'Autonomous Development' has affected the reading of this story. As much as Autonomous Development appears to be academic and critical in an almost witty way, White's book is much more open, personable, and lightly written. For this reason, her book is soaked with phrases that Carmen, the author of Autonomous Development, would and does tear apart in his book on the failings of participatory development. Of course, in some ways they are acknowledging the same failings, only in very different manners and with very different messages. One example of this is where White talks about 'reaching across' divisions of all kinds and 'lifting' people to a 'higher ground'. Carmen would point out that lifting implies that we are in control and thus are actually reinforcing those very stark power differences.
The essays listed included in this book are very interesting to me. It seems like an interesting opening The introduction to the essay by Ndunge and Erik is interesting because it seems to hint that facilitators are important in bridging the gap between the development goals of the outside world and the sheltered way of life of the people being developed. I certainly hope they would not agree with this assessment, but I wonder if it is not a subconscious reality in the minds of many development workers, especially those with academic training. I also am really excited to read the essay about using creativity to connect to people.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Candid thoughts on the Not-so candid Camera
White, Shirley, ed. Participatory Video: Images that Transform and Empower. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003. 412 pp. ISBN 0761997636
Chapter 7: "Candid thoughts on the Not-so candid Camera: How Video Documentation Radically Alters Development Projects" by Barbara Seidl
In this chapter Seidl uses her own PV experiences from the past 10 years to outline some of the positive and negative impacts from the presence of a camera in development projects. Within the 3 stages of documentation (pre-production, production, and screening), there are many intentional and unintentional changes that occur due to the camera team. Seidl focuses heavily on bias.
In cases of public broadcasting, there is the bias of the audience as well as the director. Depending on the topic of the research or audience, the frame excludes a large amount of potentially interesting and educational material (p. 162). The director's bias, "operationally, ... means that while documenting someone else's story [the director] knows what is and is not important (p. 162). Many of the below positives and negatives are a result of bias.
Pre-production benefits include (1) focusing of mission, by asking for a definite mission, (2) clear identification of leadership, (3) clear identification of priorities,(4) increase in project's productivity,and (5) increase in organization's credibility.
Pre-production hazards include (1) inadvertently changing the leadership structure, (3) discovering disagreement about the mission or objectives, and (4) Diluting the power of the story.
Production benefits include (1) increased exposure and (2) creation of an opportunity to publicly recognize supporters, leaders, and participants
Production hazards include (1) creation of a very visible and public forum for dissention and (2) a radical drop in productivity because of the presence of the camera.
Chapter 4: "Participatory Video that Empowers" - Renuka Bery
Through the power of the video maker's ability to engage viewers to internalize stories, redefine issues, and take initiative to exercise their own power, "PV helps to rearticulate the locus of power within individual communities and ultimately politics." (p. 103). Empowerment is not inherent to PV, and in fact, is only a tool for achieving an empowered status. The author outlines many steps towards achieving empowerment through the use of PV. reminding the reader that "the strength of the tool is only as powerful as the person wielding it." (p. 105).
Reflection
Contrary to my style with the other books, largely due to the prodding of a friend I delved into this book by first picking out the seemingly most relevant chapters.
In chapter 4, Bery unashamedly refers to PV as though it is completely contained within the realm of successful empowerment strategy, without bothering to remind the reader that this is only under very certain conditions. For instance, she uses the example of a woman interviewing politicians with a camera as giving her an immediate shift in power as she was suddenly noticed by the politicians. This may be an extreme example but it certainly illustrates the point. In this case, she does not bother to mention why the woman was interviewing the politicians, and how much of it was her own initiative, and whether or not she had prior experience in journalism, etc.
If there is one thing that my summer fieldwork taught me, it is that although PV has the potential to disturb the power balance, I don't really think that the immediate impact of physical cameras on the power dynamics in a rural Third World community is likely to be a positive one. Logically, power structures can only be changed as quickly as new ones can be rebuilt and old ones torn down. The introduction of PV into a community, however, is much more immediate, and therefore incapable of fundamentally affecting power structures in a sustainable fashion. On the contrary, immediate effects seem intuitively more likely t0 disturb the structure just enough to agitate it into action, with the more powerful agents feeling threatened.
Chapter 7: "Candid thoughts on the Not-so candid Camera: How Video Documentation Radically Alters Development Projects" by Barbara Seidl
In this chapter Seidl uses her own PV experiences from the past 10 years to outline some of the positive and negative impacts from the presence of a camera in development projects. Within the 3 stages of documentation (pre-production, production, and screening), there are many intentional and unintentional changes that occur due to the camera team. Seidl focuses heavily on bias.
In cases of public broadcasting, there is the bias of the audience as well as the director. Depending on the topic of the research or audience, the frame excludes a large amount of potentially interesting and educational material (p. 162). The director's bias, "operationally, ... means that while documenting someone else's story [the director] knows what is and is not important (p. 162). Many of the below positives and negatives are a result of bias.
Pre-production benefits include (1) focusing of mission, by asking for a definite mission, (2) clear identification of leadership, (3) clear identification of priorities,(4) increase in project's productivity,and (5) increase in organization's credibility.
Pre-production hazards include (1) inadvertently changing the leadership structure, (3) discovering disagreement about the mission or objectives, and (4) Diluting the power of the story.
Production benefits include (1) increased exposure and (2) creation of an opportunity to publicly recognize supporters, leaders, and participants
Production hazards include (1) creation of a very visible and public forum for dissention and (2) a radical drop in productivity because of the presence of the camera.
Chapter 4: "Participatory Video that Empowers" - Renuka Bery
Through the power of the video maker's ability to engage viewers to internalize stories, redefine issues, and take initiative to exercise their own power, "PV helps to rearticulate the locus of power within individual communities and ultimately politics." (p. 103). Empowerment is not inherent to PV, and in fact, is only a tool for achieving an empowered status. The author outlines many steps towards achieving empowerment through the use of PV. reminding the reader that "the strength of the tool is only as powerful as the person wielding it." (p. 105).
Reflection
Contrary to my style with the other books, largely due to the prodding of a friend I delved into this book by first picking out the seemingly most relevant chapters.
In chapter 4, Bery unashamedly refers to PV as though it is completely contained within the realm of successful empowerment strategy, without bothering to remind the reader that this is only under very certain conditions. For instance, she uses the example of a woman interviewing politicians with a camera as giving her an immediate shift in power as she was suddenly noticed by the politicians. This may be an extreme example but it certainly illustrates the point. In this case, she does not bother to mention why the woman was interviewing the politicians, and how much of it was her own initiative, and whether or not she had prior experience in journalism, etc.
If there is one thing that my summer fieldwork taught me, it is that although PV has the potential to disturb the power balance, I don't really think that the immediate impact of physical cameras on the power dynamics in a rural Third World community is likely to be a positive one. Logically, power structures can only be changed as quickly as new ones can be rebuilt and old ones torn down. The introduction of PV into a community, however, is much more immediate, and therefore incapable of fundamentally affecting power structures in a sustainable fashion. On the contrary, immediate effects seem intuitively more likely t0 disturb the structure just enough to agitate it into action, with the more powerful agents feeling threatened.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Redeveloping communication for social change
Wilkins, Karin Gwinn, 1962- Redeveloping communication for social change : theory, practice, and power / Karin Gwinn Wilkins. Lanham, Md. : Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, c2000.
Introduction, Chapters 1 & 2
Power, its construction and manifestation in development, are the focus of this book. The authors reference social change within the context of power over and over. According to their timeline, development communication has gone from the dominant paradigm (articulated by Lerner, Schramm) to dependency theory to participatory with social. Builds off the assumption that promoting social change needs to begin by understanding the differences in power across communities and institutions.
Things a communication specialist might concern themselves with include critical examination of project communications, disaggregating the structures and discourses of aid organizations, by documenting the roles played by formal and informal groups, and by studying media representations of development. (p.10)
“Economic class status and the things that come with it – Western languages, education, professional employment, travel opportunities, spare cash – together constitute a huge obstacle to real dialogue.” (p. 14). Often trained development workers see traditional religion as an obstacle or barrier to dialogue and development; religion is often seen as something that must be changed. Religion is inseparable from culture and dialogue and actually involves important forms of communication including meditation, storytelling, and prayer. (p.15)
Argues that the discussions need to address power inequities in societies in order to begin the process towards change. Prefers to use the term “development support communication” (DSC) rather than development communication. (p.40). DSC emphasizes support for self-determination of people, especially at the grassroots, rather than simply viewing communication as a tool for economic growth.
It is the power inequalities that exist that are at the root of the failed development projects. Until the social and economic structures are equilibriated, no significant progress can be made.
Power in Third World development (p. 44):
1.Power is exemplified through organized money or organized people or through connections between these.
2.Power is exercised via control of economic, political, cultural, and informational resources.
3.Wielders can reward of punish due to connections with available resources
4.Power is exercised through control of the agenda for the development project.
5.Power is exercised by influencing the shared consciousness of a people or community
Empowerment can occur at different levels: individual, organization, and community and take place in a variety of different contexts (p. 45). Empowerment is defined as the mechanism by which each of these levels gain control and mastery over social and economic conditions.
Taking a bold stand against good-intentions aid, Melkote says it is “unethical to solve minor and/or immediate problems while ignoring the systemic barriers erected by societies that permit or perpetuate inequalities among citizens.” (p. 46). The lack of economic, political and social power must be dealt with first.
3 tenets are given for a successful community organization: (1) empowerment is achieved through effective organizations, (2) effective organizations are maintained by strong inter-personal relationships, and (3) individual empowerment and action-reflection which occurs inherently when participating in a social organization. Of particular relevance to my video focus, effective inter-personal links formed by one-on-one communication, as well as use of “indigenous communication media and technology, such as the videotape cameras as used in Nepal or the Fogo community in Canada.” (p.47).
Reflections
The feel of this book is different from the others. The author uses words like “development industry”, and “unethical development”. The clear focus on power as the heart of the problem seems to simplify things at first, but after awhile you realize the problem has only been renamed and its complexities are still the same – precisely as the book tells us, it is recontextualizing the development debate around power structures and the tangible inequalities that become extremely pronounced in Third World development over almost any other activity. I say this because unlike the political arena or the corporate office setting, Third World development takes place during people's real lives at their real homes with their real kids.
And this is precisely why I believe the author is correct when he says that it is unethical to deal with minor/immediate problems only, leaving the ingrained power divides to remain undisturbed. This is because development is not being done in a lab to multiple test communities that can be reproduced on demand. Development happens in real time and has real impacts, both immediately and in the long run. This is no time to pretend that development is headed down a good path, so we let the power structures deal with themselves while we make sure and spend this grant money. No. The answer is clear. If we actually want to help people, we must first deal with the power inequalities.
Introduction, Chapters 1 & 2
Power, its construction and manifestation in development, are the focus of this book. The authors reference social change within the context of power over and over. According to their timeline, development communication has gone from the dominant paradigm (articulated by Lerner, Schramm) to dependency theory to participatory with social. Builds off the assumption that promoting social change needs to begin by understanding the differences in power across communities and institutions.
Things a communication specialist might concern themselves with include critical examination of project communications, disaggregating the structures and discourses of aid organizations, by documenting the roles played by formal and informal groups, and by studying media representations of development. (p.10)
“Economic class status and the things that come with it – Western languages, education, professional employment, travel opportunities, spare cash – together constitute a huge obstacle to real dialogue.” (p. 14). Often trained development workers see traditional religion as an obstacle or barrier to dialogue and development; religion is often seen as something that must be changed. Religion is inseparable from culture and dialogue and actually involves important forms of communication including meditation, storytelling, and prayer. (p.15)
Argues that the discussions need to address power inequities in societies in order to begin the process towards change. Prefers to use the term “development support communication” (DSC) rather than development communication. (p.40). DSC emphasizes support for self-determination of people, especially at the grassroots, rather than simply viewing communication as a tool for economic growth.
It is the power inequalities that exist that are at the root of the failed development projects. Until the social and economic structures are equilibriated, no significant progress can be made.
Power in Third World development (p. 44):
1.Power is exemplified through organized money or organized people or through connections between these.
2.Power is exercised via control of economic, political, cultural, and informational resources.
3.Wielders can reward of punish due to connections with available resources
4.Power is exercised through control of the agenda for the development project.
5.Power is exercised by influencing the shared consciousness of a people or community
Empowerment can occur at different levels: individual, organization, and community and take place in a variety of different contexts (p. 45). Empowerment is defined as the mechanism by which each of these levels gain control and mastery over social and economic conditions.
Taking a bold stand against good-intentions aid, Melkote says it is “unethical to solve minor and/or immediate problems while ignoring the systemic barriers erected by societies that permit or perpetuate inequalities among citizens.” (p. 46). The lack of economic, political and social power must be dealt with first.
3 tenets are given for a successful community organization: (1) empowerment is achieved through effective organizations, (2) effective organizations are maintained by strong inter-personal relationships, and (3) individual empowerment and action-reflection which occurs inherently when participating in a social organization. Of particular relevance to my video focus, effective inter-personal links formed by one-on-one communication, as well as use of “indigenous communication media and technology, such as the videotape cameras as used in Nepal or the Fogo community in Canada.” (p.47).
Reflections
The feel of this book is different from the others. The author uses words like “development industry”, and “unethical development”. The clear focus on power as the heart of the problem seems to simplify things at first, but after awhile you realize the problem has only been renamed and its complexities are still the same – precisely as the book tells us, it is recontextualizing the development debate around power structures and the tangible inequalities that become extremely pronounced in Third World development over almost any other activity. I say this because unlike the political arena or the corporate office setting, Third World development takes place during people's real lives at their real homes with their real kids.
And this is precisely why I believe the author is correct when he says that it is unethical to deal with minor/immediate problems only, leaving the ingrained power divides to remain undisturbed. This is because development is not being done in a lab to multiple test communities that can be reproduced on demand. Development happens in real time and has real impacts, both immediately and in the long run. This is no time to pretend that development is headed down a good path, so we let the power structures deal with themselves while we make sure and spend this grant money. No. The answer is clear. If we actually want to help people, we must first deal with the power inequalities.
Development Theory in Latin America
Kay, Cristóbal. Latin American theories of development and underdevelopment / Cristóbal Kay. London ; New York : Routledge, 1989.
Kay writes a theoretical account of development research that has been done by Latin Americans in Latin America, focusing largely on the cone of South America (Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Brasil). It turns out there is a communication disconnect between development carried out by the North and that done in the South. Oftentimes local research agencies and academic institutions are funded by the World Bank or the United Nations to carry out research, but rarely is that information made known to a broader audience since the authors are not known. Kay hopes to facilitate this transfer of information.
Kay begins by laying out two development paradigms: the structuralism and dependency theory. Structuralism comes from critiques of neoclassical analysis, while dependency theory comes from critiques of modernization theory. (p. 2).
Few underdevelop countries satisfied the assumptions underlying neoclassical and Keynesian economics. For instance, in many developing countries, money is not a universal means of exchange, and financial institutions may be limited to capital cities, a large proportion of rural subsidence farmers, limited infrastructure and access to education, etc. Of course the labor and capital markets and price mechanisms work differently there.
An interesting, more specific example is given for how dependency theory came to be. In Latin America, the Dependistas rallied during the late 1960's and early 1970's. Widespread appeal of dependency theory due to national control over development process and investment of foreign capital, possibility of making an autochthonous contribution to the social sceinces and the revoloutionary and reform aspects.
There are two types of dependistas: reformist and Marxist. Marxist fundamentally saw socialist revolution as the only way to solve the problems of dependence and underdevelopment. The reformists were more of Nationalists, pushing for more national control, but maintain that by reforming the capitalist system, system.
Reflection
So in this book we find a categorically more comprehensive counterpart to the Development Communications Sourcebook, though it is limited to Latin America. It delves into the economic side of development instead of focusing on the communications aspect. The interesting part, however, is that this book is a means of communication itself! All books may be to some extent, but this book is an attempt to increase the horizontal communication between professional development organizations.
This book is helpful for reinforcing the general theories of modernization and dependency, as well as reveal the economic acompanying these changes in theory, proving that people's perspectives were changing in general about the holistic activity that development is. Moreover, a more in-depth description is described about the shift between these two theories. The reaons given for Latin America's support of dependency theory is not as simple as that, but incorporates different factions with different motivations and goals in mind.
Clearly the situation is more complex than we can give it credit, a Tower of Babble, as Kay refers to it. Where does one start? How do you go about it? That is where communication must come in!
Development Communication Sourcebook Module 2
Mefalopulos, Paolo. Development communication sourcebook broadening the boundaries of communication. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2008. Print.
Module 2 (p. 39-79)
This module, the second of four in the book, delves into the history of development communication, and its current applications. The first part focuses on nebulously defining Information, Communication, Participation, Consultation, Empowerment, Dialog and Capacity building. Mefalopulos defines them relative to one another. For instance, Information is considered a subset of communication (but not vice-versa), but the difference is in theoretical models: one-way vertical flow (information) vs two-way horizontal flow as well as in scope: transmitter attempting to cause change in behavior (information) vs equal opportunity to exchange knowledge and shape the process among individuals who are transmitters and receivers at the same time. Communication refers to circular communicative flow, mutual will to hear and understand one another, a symmetrical relational scheme. Participation is very much a scale. Consultation is a subset of communication and participation in which the decision-making control remains in the hands of a few who decide if and how to take into account the information given during the consultation. Empowerment refers to an inner condition that good communication can facilitate. Dialog is the proffessional use of two-way communication to “engage stakeholders in the definition and investigation of relevant issues of a development initiative.” Capacity building aims to develop specific knowledge and skills (p.39-43).
Worsley (1984) tells us that development is as old as human history, but most say that the conception was the day Truman gave his 1949 speech: “We must embark on a a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas.” Should development be run by rich foreigners? Is development simply a way of maintaining a dominant position over developing nations? (p.43-44).
Paolo now enters the meat of this module by splitting up developmental communication into three different theories, or “paradigms”: modernization paradigm, dependency theory and emerging partipatory paradigm The modernization paradigm began in 1949 with the goal of bringing underdeveloped countries out of poverty by pushing for economic growth via free trade. Essentially the goal was to diffuse the wealthy way of life. The communication was media dominated and very much focused on persuasion by SMCR (Source Method Channel Receivers). By the 1980's poverty was only increasing so it was slowly abandoned by everyone. (p.45-47)
Meanwhile, the 1970's brought with it a new theory, called dependency theory. Founded in part by A.G. Frank, this theory did not limit problems or solutions to the developing world but saw them as a part of a complex international system with historical reasons why a few countries are kept rich while the others fall behind. Colonial control has shifted from armies to economies, from soldiers and weaponry to technocrats and technology. The answer proposed by dependency theory is to become more self-reliant and less dependent on foreign imports, and forming international alliances across developing nations to enact change. Strategy failed in most places, except a few cases such as Brasil, because it failed to consider other reasons besides international capitalism. A few things missed are the role national elites and the wide variation in development across nations, making alliances difficult. To address these concerns, Wallerstein proposed the world-system theory, which looks at a more holistic view of capitalism as the sphere around all development and underdevelopment which is a function of many factors including division of labor, control of raw materials, etc. Communication is still not given more attention, and practical differences are not made (p.47-50).
The emerging participatory paradigm grew as a strategy for engaging in participation and empowerment as the keys to long-term development. This is no single theory, but currently a broad collection of proposed methodologies that focus on participation: the empowerment approach (Friedmann 1922); another development (Melkote 1991; Jacobson 1994), and autonomous development (Carmen 1996). More interested in analyzing at project and community levels rather than generalizing across international lines. Also interested in addressing the entire spectrum of issues at the community level. White, in 1982, laid out the major reasons for participation as (1) services provided at lower cost; (2) intrinsic value to participants; (3) catalyst for further development initiatives; (4) sense of project ownership; (5) use of indigenous knowledge and expertise. The experience has been less than optimal due to concerns of managers not having as much control, general complexities, and different definitions of participation (p. 50-55).
In dealing with participation, rigidly defined theoretical structures are neither feasible nor desirable (Servaes, Jacobson, and White 1996). There are 3 main strands of participation: behavior change communication (BCC); communication for social change (CSC), and advocacy communication (AC). BCC is more of the one-way persuasion. CSC emphasizes the social side and the importance of dialogic definitions of change.. AC is communication to influence specific audiences, policies, and programs on key development issues. The “Sourcebook” (this book) adopts the more simple breakdown of diffusion and participation. Major difference here is that failures in development are often to due different understandings and perceptions about the nature of a problem, rather than the problem itself.
“On the epistemological level, there is no clear distinction between the researcher and what is being studied, as the two belong to the same reality. The researcher does not need to be separated from the issue investigate; on the contrary, he or she can and shhould be part of the context in which the investigation takes place in order to better understand it. Finally, at a methodological level, the research can use a number of qualitative and quantitative methods, not following a predetermined priority order, but according to the required needs.” (p. 58)
Role of media and ICT in Development Communication
ICT is analogized to media initiatives in past development projects. These initiatives had less influence than expected, especially if done by diffusion methods. Important to select and use ICT and media only in a way that addresses specific needs within the broader social and communication environment. Must consider economic, technological, and cultural factors. High economic costs for access and internet. Technological issues include training, maintenance, technical support. Culturally, must consider how they will use the technology, and language issues.
Consider the demand for universal connectivity. “There is a long way to go for the new ICTs to even begin to approach a level of universal service or access.” (FAO 2005:17, 9th UN Round Table on Development Communication). Quantifiable and fast exchange transmission flows of information, ICTs are promising, and have been discussed by World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and have come up with the multistakeholder approach (Servaes). (p. 63)
Coastal livelihood project in Tanzania used participatory video to send video edited by themselves sent to high-ranking officials who acknowledged it, and opened up new lines of communication (p. 64).
Better communication can also be seen as a right-based approach, meaning it is not only effective but also promotes people's participation in accord with the ethical and democratic principles of current development paradigm. (p. 66) Open-ended and process-oriented use of communication is much harder to measure accurately. How to measure trust, empowerment, level of consensus is still unresolved.
Mefalopulos brings it all together into his integrated and project-oriented model, the “communication multitrack approach”. Always begins with dialogic communication, before moving into a multitrack approach using information dissemination, social marketing, lobbying, edu-tainment, community mobilization. Its a path to add to the basics of two-way communication. (p. 68-73).
Reflection
This module was very useful to me. The author has been kind enough to do all my background research on the history of theoretical development communication and has summarized it to an amount only a matter of pages longer than I expect to do in my own thesis. Most importantly, I am able to use some of the terminology provided and definitions to begin labeling the different approaches we found in Peru.
It was also interesting to read about his discussion of capacity building as a small aspect of participation. In Peru capacity building is everything! It is certainly something on the agenda for all the large NGO projects in Peru. If an NGO was doing a housing reconstruction project, for instance, the process often involved beneficiary commitments to help with labor and master the basic steps to building their home so that they feel more ownership and are able to make sure any repairs are made right. The NGOs were for it, the people were for it, and everybody said they were into capacity building, but the actual results were very poor. Rarely did we meet someone who had been changed by their experience as a participant, and it was much more common to find people who were supposed to be involved building their homes with the NGO workers, but they either did not have time due to work or chose to for other reasons.
Also, nice table on p. 59 Table 2.1 Basic Differences in the 2 Communication Modes. This module certainly provided me with a couple nice images for the background of my thesis. Of particular interest was an example discussing the use of participatory video in Tanzania to give voice rather than a message; this is similar to what we were trying to do. Interestingly enough, neither the social issues being addressed by the project nor the outcome are mentioned and the complete information does not seem to be readily available online.
Module 2 (p. 39-79)
This module, the second of four in the book, delves into the history of development communication, and its current applications. The first part focuses on nebulously defining Information, Communication, Participation, Consultation, Empowerment, Dialog and Capacity building. Mefalopulos defines them relative to one another. For instance, Information is considered a subset of communication (but not vice-versa), but the difference is in theoretical models: one-way vertical flow (information) vs two-way horizontal flow as well as in scope: transmitter attempting to cause change in behavior (information) vs equal opportunity to exchange knowledge and shape the process among individuals who are transmitters and receivers at the same time. Communication refers to circular communicative flow, mutual will to hear and understand one another, a symmetrical relational scheme. Participation is very much a scale. Consultation is a subset of communication and participation in which the decision-making control remains in the hands of a few who decide if and how to take into account the information given during the consultation. Empowerment refers to an inner condition that good communication can facilitate. Dialog is the proffessional use of two-way communication to “engage stakeholders in the definition and investigation of relevant issues of a development initiative.” Capacity building aims to develop specific knowledge and skills (p.39-43).
Worsley (1984) tells us that development is as old as human history, but most say that the conception was the day Truman gave his 1949 speech: “We must embark on a a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas.” Should development be run by rich foreigners? Is development simply a way of maintaining a dominant position over developing nations? (p.43-44).
Paolo now enters the meat of this module by splitting up developmental communication into three different theories, or “paradigms”: modernization paradigm, dependency theory and emerging partipatory paradigm The modernization paradigm began in 1949 with the goal of bringing underdeveloped countries out of poverty by pushing for economic growth via free trade. Essentially the goal was to diffuse the wealthy way of life. The communication was media dominated and very much focused on persuasion by SMCR (Source Method Channel Receivers). By the 1980's poverty was only increasing so it was slowly abandoned by everyone. (p.45-47)
Meanwhile, the 1970's brought with it a new theory, called dependency theory. Founded in part by A.G. Frank, this theory did not limit problems or solutions to the developing world but saw them as a part of a complex international system with historical reasons why a few countries are kept rich while the others fall behind. Colonial control has shifted from armies to economies, from soldiers and weaponry to technocrats and technology. The answer proposed by dependency theory is to become more self-reliant and less dependent on foreign imports, and forming international alliances across developing nations to enact change. Strategy failed in most places, except a few cases such as Brasil, because it failed to consider other reasons besides international capitalism. A few things missed are the role national elites and the wide variation in development across nations, making alliances difficult. To address these concerns, Wallerstein proposed the world-system theory, which looks at a more holistic view of capitalism as the sphere around all development and underdevelopment which is a function of many factors including division of labor, control of raw materials, etc. Communication is still not given more attention, and practical differences are not made (p.47-50).
The emerging participatory paradigm grew as a strategy for engaging in participation and empowerment as the keys to long-term development. This is no single theory, but currently a broad collection of proposed methodologies that focus on participation: the empowerment approach (Friedmann 1922); another development (Melkote 1991; Jacobson 1994), and autonomous development (Carmen 1996). More interested in analyzing at project and community levels rather than generalizing across international lines. Also interested in addressing the entire spectrum of issues at the community level. White, in 1982, laid out the major reasons for participation as (1) services provided at lower cost; (2) intrinsic value to participants; (3) catalyst for further development initiatives; (4) sense of project ownership; (5) use of indigenous knowledge and expertise. The experience has been less than optimal due to concerns of managers not having as much control, general complexities, and different definitions of participation (p. 50-55).
In dealing with participation, rigidly defined theoretical structures are neither feasible nor desirable (Servaes, Jacobson, and White 1996). There are 3 main strands of participation: behavior change communication (BCC); communication for social change (CSC), and advocacy communication (AC). BCC is more of the one-way persuasion. CSC emphasizes the social side and the importance of dialogic definitions of change.. AC is communication to influence specific audiences, policies, and programs on key development issues. The “Sourcebook” (this book) adopts the more simple breakdown of diffusion and participation. Major difference here is that failures in development are often to due different understandings and perceptions about the nature of a problem, rather than the problem itself.
“On the epistemological level, there is no clear distinction between the researcher and what is being studied, as the two belong to the same reality. The researcher does not need to be separated from the issue investigate; on the contrary, he or she can and shhould be part of the context in which the investigation takes place in order to better understand it. Finally, at a methodological level, the research can use a number of qualitative and quantitative methods, not following a predetermined priority order, but according to the required needs.” (p. 58)
Role of media and ICT in Development Communication
ICT is analogized to media initiatives in past development projects. These initiatives had less influence than expected, especially if done by diffusion methods. Important to select and use ICT and media only in a way that addresses specific needs within the broader social and communication environment. Must consider economic, technological, and cultural factors. High economic costs for access and internet. Technological issues include training, maintenance, technical support. Culturally, must consider how they will use the technology, and language issues.
Consider the demand for universal connectivity. “There is a long way to go for the new ICTs to even begin to approach a level of universal service or access.” (FAO 2005:17, 9th UN Round Table on Development Communication). Quantifiable and fast exchange transmission flows of information, ICTs are promising, and have been discussed by World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and have come up with the multistakeholder approach (Servaes). (p. 63)
Coastal livelihood project in Tanzania used participatory video to send video edited by themselves sent to high-ranking officials who acknowledged it, and opened up new lines of communication (p. 64).
Better communication can also be seen as a right-based approach, meaning it is not only effective but also promotes people's participation in accord with the ethical and democratic principles of current development paradigm. (p. 66) Open-ended and process-oriented use of communication is much harder to measure accurately. How to measure trust, empowerment, level of consensus is still unresolved.
Mefalopulos brings it all together into his integrated and project-oriented model, the “communication multitrack approach”. Always begins with dialogic communication, before moving into a multitrack approach using information dissemination, social marketing, lobbying, edu-tainment, community mobilization. Its a path to add to the basics of two-way communication. (p. 68-73).
Reflection
This module was very useful to me. The author has been kind enough to do all my background research on the history of theoretical development communication and has summarized it to an amount only a matter of pages longer than I expect to do in my own thesis. Most importantly, I am able to use some of the terminology provided and definitions to begin labeling the different approaches we found in Peru.
It was also interesting to read about his discussion of capacity building as a small aspect of participation. In Peru capacity building is everything! It is certainly something on the agenda for all the large NGO projects in Peru. If an NGO was doing a housing reconstruction project, for instance, the process often involved beneficiary commitments to help with labor and master the basic steps to building their home so that they feel more ownership and are able to make sure any repairs are made right. The NGOs were for it, the people were for it, and everybody said they were into capacity building, but the actual results were very poor. Rarely did we meet someone who had been changed by their experience as a participant, and it was much more common to find people who were supposed to be involved building their homes with the NGO workers, but they either did not have time due to work or chose to for other reasons.
Also, nice table on p. 59 Table 2.1 Basic Differences in the 2 Communication Modes. This module certainly provided me with a couple nice images for the background of my thesis. Of particular interest was an example discussing the use of participatory video in Tanzania to give voice rather than a message; this is similar to what we were trying to do. Interestingly enough, neither the social issues being addressed by the project nor the outcome are mentioned and the complete information does not seem to be readily available online.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Insights into Participatory Video: Part 2
Insights into Participatory Video: A Handbook for the field p 17-54. (Part 2) by Nick and Chris Lunch
Part 2 – The PV Process
Beginning with a basic community entry checklist, then including details on video activities, the authors use Part 2 to provide insight into their version of participatory video that has been refined and tested in communities around the world.
Prepare for PV
Make an initial visit
Do some research
Set team objectives
Obtain equipment
Check the equipment
Arrival on-site
Be sensitive
Be flexible
Screen the day's footage
Then the paper goes on to discuss the various activities that they have found to work particularly well. These include the: Disappearing Game, Name Game, Twist in Frame, Storyboard Technique, Shot Challenge, Significant Dates, Community Mapping, Journalistic Interview, Think and Listen (Brainstorming), Margolis Wheel. Each of these have very specific goals in mind and can be tailored to the local conditions in ways that will substantially increase their impact. For that reason it is important to brainstorm and plan how to do these before arriving, as well as work with the people there to provide their feedback and ideas on how to move forward.
The end goal of the activities is to get the participants to start thinking about video as telling a story. The exercises are designed to build trust, gain video technical skills, and teach the basic process of ideating, storyboarding, filming, and screening. Some key factors for success are: who brings you there; who you have chosen to work with; and your own attitude and behavior. Additionally, try to become aware of the social geography in the community. Make sure you work in all the different areas, with people of different wealth, vocation, gender and age groups.
The rest of this piece goes into detail on how to conduct community screening of footage, ethical things to watch out for, and editing. As one can imagine, handling and distributing someone else's footage is very tricky, especially due to the huge power divide that inherently exists between the facilitators and the participants. Editing is limited by using a tripod and in-camera editing (planning carefully beforehand). Some basic editing has been done by these programs in the past, but their usual method has been to leave behind complete footage taken in the form of a VHS and make only minor edits when showing it to others.
Reflections
Immediately, it is clear that the major difference between the Lunch version of PV and our work in Peru, is the equipment: Lunch utilizes one camera and brings a TV, a full-size tripod, microphone and lighting equipment with the camera at all times, while we brought 10 small cameras, a couple mini-tripods, often borrowed a TV, and never utilized a microphone or lighting equipment. The other major difference is we brought laptops and had the students edit their own footage into videos. The Lunch paper suggests how to help people do the editing on Pinnacle but admits that in-camera editing and limited facilitator editing is often the solution. I much prefer the results of editing with the participants as this gives them control in the actual end product and ensures that the final version is approved by them in person. Distribution, then, is still another issue in itself.
The author goes on to discuss the importance of the participants filming each other and seeing each other on TV as a group, acknowledging how they feel about it, and discussing it as a group. This would be a good idea, and something we did not force our students to do. It may have helped alleviate their fears earlier and also put them in a position where they could encourage others that they were filming that it was indeed OK.
This portion helped me reflect on how to incorporate more interesting games into the PV process. A few of them we did on our own anyway, but a couple, especially on the topic of improving video interview skills would have been useful. I especially like the Think and Listen activity, Visioning, and Body Maps activities – all of which are meant to encourage brainstorming and stimulate thought. Also to give everyone a chance to become more comfortable with communicating well with each other in a relaxed environment. In addition, I thought the inclusion of more group based activities is a good idea for building teamwork between the participants. That was one thing I thought about quite a bit during our work, since we were working in two small communities. By the end of our project people from the two communities had gotten to know each other and had developed relationships that previously had not existed. This literature provides ideas to further facilitate that process.
Stepping Forward
Johnson, Victoria, Edda Ivan-Smith, Gill Gordon, Pat Pridmore, and Patta Scott. Stepping Forward Children and Young Peoples Participation in the Development Process (Intermediate Technology Publications in Participation Series). New York: Practical Action, 1999. Print.
(p. 194-219)
“Stepping Forward Children and Young Peoples Participation inn the Development Process” is a comprehensive review of the current knowledge needed to successfully incorporate youth and children of developing nations into aid programs. The excerpt I chose was focused on rural family power structures, child-initiated participation in schools, and a case study in Jamaica that has developed a program in a marginalized community that is now entirely run by the youth, even in financial aspects.
The role of children in the family is changing around the world with globalized economy, changing gender roles, urbanization, political and social change. More decisions are being made by children, especially girls, in support of their parents and elderly, daily chores, and taking care of siblings. In any participatory involvement of children, it is important that the adults are invested in the effort. Oftentimes, programs should involve community projects at the beginning to include the families and not only the children.
Youth are still the least powerful members of the family. For certain cultural settings, this structure is unavoidable unless the external environment changes. When trying to help students voice be heard, projects take a long time. As time wears on, the children also lose interest and it is difficult to recruit new members, especially in small communities.
Child participation in the school setting should be at the heart of the program instead of a lovely by-product. Creating projects that are guided by the students themselves from the outset is the way to go according to a renowned project in semi-rural Britain where a committee of students formed and revitalized an unused plot of playground land into a wildlife park.
Development programs in marginalized communities in Jamaica went through four stages in a long-term youth-directed initiative. They began with “buffet style”, then to “feedback”, then to “adult-initiated, shared decisions with children”, then to “child-initiated and child-directed”. The styles indicate increasing youth participation, and in the last stage the children are given control of even the resources of the project, leaving the aid workers as external consultants and nothing more.
Reflections
The tragedy of the earthquake was a traumatic event in the communities brought to their knees for years afterwards, begging the government and NGOs for answers to feed their families. When I think about Peru I think about the NGOs that incorporated children into their programs – ASPEm in Tambo de Mora, CODEHICA and Aportes in Senor de Luren. These programs were well-received by all. I also think about how the familial roles of the youth in our video class. A couple of the girls were 13 and 14 and responsible for cooking every day, as well as taking care of their younger siblings while both her parents worked long hours.
The discussion on the project lifetime is applicable to our project as it helps explain possibly why the program began to slow down towards the end of the month. During the first weeks, the program was novel and the children and adults were willing to take time out to spend on the activities. However, as the more pressing issues of daily life arose, the children were forced to focus on family chores, school, etc. If the program was longer – on the scale of a year, maybe it would be more effective at a slower pace. Otherwise, our program and this book would advise the program to be on the scale of a few weeks.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Development Communication Sourcebook: Module 1
Mefalopulos, Paolo. Development communication sourcebook broadening the boundaries of communication. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2008. Print.
Module 1
“Communication: a term with a great number of meanings.”
-Denis Diderot, 1753 (p.3)
This book is composed of four modules. This first module introduces the theory and a brief historical path followed by developmental communication. It defines the various types of communication, and points out that failed communication and lack of stakeholder participation are the two leading causes of failed development. It begins by acknowledging the complexity and breadth of communication, and clearly defines the difference between communication and communications, as well as the differences between Corporate, Internal, Advocacy, and Development communication.
Every sustainable project requires effective communication to build trust, share knowledge and ensure understanding. Participative communication is important from either a rights-based, good-governance, sustainability, and project design perspective (p.9). Participation lives on a dial that goes from passive informational stakeholder meetings to collaborative decision-making by locals. The author, Paolo Mefalopulos, is a senior communications officer in DevComm the development communications branch of the World Bank.
Paolo also introduces some simple tools used by development experts. For instance, projects should start with a communication needs assessment (CNA) to identify potential communication issues before a project begins. These include information gaps, communication needs and capacities, local media environment, formal and informal flows, networks, etc. Explorative assessments are incorporated intot the initial design stages, and Topical assessments are those done during ongoing projects. Another method is the “Window of Perception” which is a set of simple flow charts mapping out the differences between stakeholder and aid worker perceptions of a given situation or project.
A study by DevComm found that decision-makers are aware of importance of communication but are lacking in the knowledge of breadth and scope of communication. Often they only address communication when it becomes a clear problem as opposed to handling it early on. Paolo makes a good point that communication is successful when everybody wins and change takes place because of stakeholder investment. DevComm recommends the use of a methodological framework based on 4 stages: Communication-based Assessment, Strategy Design, Implementation, and Monitoring and Evaluation.
Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver (SMCR). Using media-centric campaigns to diffuse new perspectives. This model was rejected during the 1960's, due to its paternalistic Western nature. The dependency theory was developed in its stead, focusing on a more equitable exchange of information, and cultural programs among rich and poor countries. This lasted till 1980's with recognized success but failure of economic models pushed by its proponents led to its decline.
Since then, participation as a focus has been the emerging model. This stage has been called the "multiplicity paradigm" as pronounced by Servaes in 1999. The World Bank (1994) said "..participation is inceasingy recognized as a necessary part of sustainable development strategies." (p.7) Development Communication is defined by DevComm (The Development Communication branch of the World Bank) as:
"An interdisciplinary field based on empirical research that helps to build consensus while it facilitates the sharing of knowledge to achieve postivie change in development initiatives. It is not only abeffective dissemination of information but also about using empirical research and two-way communication among stakeholders."
During the First World Congress of Communication for Development in Rome, Oct. 2006 the following definition was built into the 'Rome Consensus':
"A social process based on dialog using a broad range of tools and method. It is also about seeking change at different levels, including listening, building trust, sharing knowledge and skills, building policies, debating, and learning for sustained and meaningful change. It is not public relations or corporate communication."
History of development has included failures due to two things: lack of participation, and failure to communicate effectively. (p.8; Agunga 1997; Anyaegbunam, Mefalopulos, and Moetsabi 1998). Servaes (2003, p.20) states that "the successes and failures of most development projects are often determined by two crucial factors: communication.
Reflection
Each of these fields require its own toolbox of skills and knowledge. The author, however, goes as far as analogizing different types of engineers to different types of communicators, which may be true due to the vastly different perspectives between the two, but I find it hard to prove that this analogy applies any deeper. Building on this, the author seems to be a bit biased as he often emphasizes the importance of highly-trained development communication experts as the answer to successful projects. Coincidentally he is a senior communications officer in the DevComm branch of the World Bank.
Most useful to me was the simple introduction to the very wishy-washy science of communication. This information is valuable for beginning to understand more advanced literature on the topic. Additionally, the definitions have given me a basic knowledge of the lingo needed to explain that my research was a “topical assessment of the dialogic development communication between post-earthquake communities and NGOs...”
Another phrase I found useful was when he mentioned that the dialogic communication model had two broad applications: (1) assessment; and (2) empowerment. This is useful because my research goals were precisely this – to assess and to empower, by researching and experimenting. (p. 24). Additionally, on-site research is stressed for intervention, which was our approach as well. DevComm uses a methodological framework that is very intuitive, and lines up quite well with our NGO interviews, so I hope to be able to make some comparisons there.
Module 1
“Communication: a term with a great number of meanings.”
-Denis Diderot, 1753 (p.3)
This book is composed of four modules. This first module introduces the theory and a brief historical path followed by developmental communication. It defines the various types of communication, and points out that failed communication and lack of stakeholder participation are the two leading causes of failed development. It begins by acknowledging the complexity and breadth of communication, and clearly defines the difference between communication and communications, as well as the differences between Corporate, Internal, Advocacy, and Development communication.
Every sustainable project requires effective communication to build trust, share knowledge and ensure understanding. Participative communication is important from either a rights-based, good-governance, sustainability, and project design perspective (p.9). Participation lives on a dial that goes from passive informational stakeholder meetings to collaborative decision-making by locals. The author, Paolo Mefalopulos, is a senior communications officer in DevComm the development communications branch of the World Bank.
Paolo also introduces some simple tools used by development experts. For instance, projects should start with a communication needs assessment (CNA) to identify potential communication issues before a project begins. These include information gaps, communication needs and capacities, local media environment, formal and informal flows, networks, etc. Explorative assessments are incorporated intot the initial design stages, and Topical assessments are those done during ongoing projects. Another method is the “Window of Perception” which is a set of simple flow charts mapping out the differences between stakeholder and aid worker perceptions of a given situation or project.
A study by DevComm found that decision-makers are aware of importance of communication but are lacking in the knowledge of breadth and scope of communication. Often they only address communication when it becomes a clear problem as opposed to handling it early on. Paolo makes a good point that communication is successful when everybody wins and change takes place because of stakeholder investment. DevComm recommends the use of a methodological framework based on 4 stages: Communication-based Assessment, Strategy Design, Implementation, and Monitoring and Evaluation.
Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver (SMCR). Using media-centric campaigns to diffuse new perspectives. This model was rejected during the 1960's, due to its paternalistic Western nature. The dependency theory was developed in its stead, focusing on a more equitable exchange of information, and cultural programs among rich and poor countries. This lasted till 1980's with recognized success but failure of economic models pushed by its proponents led to its decline.
Since then, participation as a focus has been the emerging model. This stage has been called the "multiplicity paradigm" as pronounced by Servaes in 1999. The World Bank (1994) said "..participation is inceasingy recognized as a necessary part of sustainable development strategies." (p.7) Development Communication is defined by DevComm (The Development Communication branch of the World Bank) as:
"An interdisciplinary field based on empirical research that helps to build consensus while it facilitates the sharing of knowledge to achieve postivie change in development initiatives. It is not only abeffective dissemination of information but also about using empirical research and two-way communication among stakeholders."
During the First World Congress of Communication for Development in Rome, Oct. 2006 the following definition was built into the 'Rome Consensus':
"A social process based on dialog using a broad range of tools and method. It is also about seeking change at different levels, including listening, building trust, sharing knowledge and skills, building policies, debating, and learning for sustained and meaningful change. It is not public relations or corporate communication."
History of development has included failures due to two things: lack of participation, and failure to communicate effectively. (p.8; Agunga 1997; Anyaegbunam, Mefalopulos, and Moetsabi 1998). Servaes (2003, p.20) states that "the successes and failures of most development projects are often determined by two crucial factors: communication.
Reflection
Each of these fields require its own toolbox of skills and knowledge. The author, however, goes as far as analogizing different types of engineers to different types of communicators, which may be true due to the vastly different perspectives between the two, but I find it hard to prove that this analogy applies any deeper. Building on this, the author seems to be a bit biased as he often emphasizes the importance of highly-trained development communication experts as the answer to successful projects. Coincidentally he is a senior communications officer in the DevComm branch of the World Bank.
Most useful to me was the simple introduction to the very wishy-washy science of communication. This information is valuable for beginning to understand more advanced literature on the topic. Additionally, the definitions have given me a basic knowledge of the lingo needed to explain that my research was a “topical assessment of the dialogic development communication between post-earthquake communities and NGOs...”
Another phrase I found useful was when he mentioned that the dialogic communication model had two broad applications: (1) assessment; and (2) empowerment. This is useful because my research goals were precisely this – to assess and to empower, by researching and experimenting. (p. 24). Additionally, on-site research is stressed for intervention, which was our approach as well. DevComm uses a methodological framework that is very intuitive, and lines up quite well with our NGO interviews, so I hope to be able to make some comparisons there.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wreckage upon Wreckage
Paula Rabinowitz, “Wreckage upon Wreckage: History, Documentary and the Ruins of Memory,” History and Theory 32.2 (1993): pp. 119-137.
This article is a good summary of theoretical underpinnings of documentary-making. It is very useful for pointing out the origins of a documentary – really thinking about the importance of truth and honesty in its separation from many other forms of communication. By focusing on the differences between video and documentary and film and theater and writing, Rabinowitz eventually shows that they are all different ways of communicating a story. But of all of these, the documentary has been considered the most reliable transfer of information across recent history. This theory is systematically torn down by the author who kindly reminds us of the subjectivity inherent in documentaries as much as all the others.
This article's best strength is its way of saying quite obvious things, very elegantly. For this reason, I will include a smattering of my favorite quotes. At the end, I include an overall reflection of the article.
“Not only does it seek to reconstruct historical narrative, but it often functions as an historical document itself. These strategies are based on a desire to enlist the audience in the process of historical reconstruction. The documentary film differentiates itself from narrative cinema by claiming its status as a truth-telling mode. However, as a filmic construction, it relies on cinematic semiosis to convince its audience of its validity and truth. By looking at the history of documentary address, this essay outlines the rhetoric of persuasion and evaluates its effectiveness.”
“The historical documentary not only tells us about the past, but asks us to do something about it as well-to act as the Angel of History and redeem the present through the past.”
"From a historian's point of view," writes Sonya Michel, "these privileged subjects can become problematic if a film limits its perspective by relying on them as sole or even primary informants. While oral history subjects are frequently both engaging and uniquely informative, their accounts of historical events or periods can be partial, fragmentary, idio-syncratic and sometimes deliberately or unintentionally miseading."Testimony is always a partial truth, so when filmmakers authorize their subjects to speak and thus provoke their audiences to act, it can only be a supplementary gesture towards truth. syncratic "Testimony is always a partial truth, so when filmmakers authorize their subjects to speak and thus provoke their audiences to act, it can only be a supplementary gesture towards truth.
“This desire to dream, to provoke imagination, seems to lead the documentary away from the realm of history and truth into the realm of art and artifice. In documentary the viewer is asked to participate in a series of contracts -between film and its object, between filmmaker and audience, between reality and representation.”
Reflections
Video is communication. A very rich form of communication with an access level that is steadily dropping to the rungs of the common person. Even in rural Peru people have TV's. In fact, many of them would see the value in purchasing a $150 FlipCam - but unfortunately they are not available there. All electronics, in fact, are quite expensive and/or unavailable. In a country where we have it all, we often forget that the existence of technologies hanging low for us, may be out of sight for most of the world.
This whole discussion on the depth of historical documentary as a communication channel across cultures and time is very cool. As long as we keep in mind that everything we are watching is made to produce a response rather than portray a reality of truth, than we can learn great things from documentaries including historical facts.
I do like, however, how this article reminds the film-maker to at least make honest films. They will by definition be subjective and always a representation rather than a recreation, but its important to strive to tell an honest story when it comes to historical documentation. That is why collaborators from different perspectives, or non-biased perspectives working on such a documentation process would be preferred in my humble viewing opinion.
Videographic Investigation of the communication between reconstruction NGOs and post-disaster communities in Peru
I am studying video as a medium of investigating the communications between reconstruction NGOs (RNGOs) and post-disaster communities because I want find out how RNGOs can learn from this earthquake in order to help my reader understand the possible role of participatory video in facilitating improved feedback.
In August 15th, 2007 a 7.9 magnitude earthquake struck the province of Ica, Peru, uprooting almost 600,000 residents. Two years later the still-recovering region shows a surprising lack of communication between community leaders and reconstruction NGOS (RNGOs). Why, in a time of unprecedented funding and mediums for interaction, are the communication channels between RNGOs and developing post-disaster communities lacking in effectiveness? To answer this theoretical question, an empirical formulation is proposed: How do reconstruction NGOs communicate with the post-earthquake communities of Peru and what are some lessons learned? After scouring relevant post-disaster literature and picking professors’ brains for leads on community-NGO relationships for cutting-edge methodologies for post-disaster reconstruction, few detailed answers were found. To fill in the gaps, a summer of field research was conducted on this topic in a Ica, Peru. The aim was to explore the experiences of disaster-stricken communities by (1) gathering interviews and experiencing NGO community site visits throughout the province and (2) conducting an experimental participatory videography class in one rural town.
Here is where my other research question comes in: How can participatory video facilitate community feedback to NGOs working in post-earthquake rural Peru? All the field research has been done already. All the data has been stored in 600 gigabytes. Through this research, I hope to evaluate the effectiveness of participatory video as we experienced it, research the experiences of others, and finally make recommendations for future undertakings. The use of this footage will be for academic proof as well. The goal is to produce a documentary film to complement the thesis, using our own and Peruvian students’ videos that were made over the summer. To further invoke other opinions, we will screen a student-made documentary for U.S. RNGO affiliates and the MIT community to promote and encourage discussion on participatory community building in disaster stricken areas.
In August 15th, 2007 a 7.9 magnitude earthquake struck the province of Ica, Peru, uprooting almost 600,000 residents. Two years later the still-recovering region shows a surprising lack of communication between community leaders and reconstruction NGOS (RNGOs). Why, in a time of unprecedented funding and mediums for interaction, are the communication channels between RNGOs and developing post-disaster communities lacking in effectiveness? To answer this theoretical question, an empirical formulation is proposed: How do reconstruction NGOs communicate with the post-earthquake communities of Peru and what are some lessons learned? After scouring relevant post-disaster literature and picking professors’ brains for leads on community-NGO relationships for cutting-edge methodologies for post-disaster reconstruction, few detailed answers were found. To fill in the gaps, a summer of field research was conducted on this topic in a Ica, Peru. The aim was to explore the experiences of disaster-stricken communities by (1) gathering interviews and experiencing NGO community site visits throughout the province and (2) conducting an experimental participatory videography class in one rural town.
Here is where my other research question comes in: How can participatory video facilitate community feedback to NGOs working in post-earthquake rural Peru? All the field research has been done already. All the data has been stored in 600 gigabytes. Through this research, I hope to evaluate the effectiveness of participatory video as we experienced it, research the experiences of others, and finally make recommendations for future undertakings. The use of this footage will be for academic proof as well. The goal is to produce a documentary film to complement the thesis, using our own and Peruvian students’ videos that were made over the summer. To further invoke other opinions, we will screen a student-made documentary for U.S. RNGO affiliates and the MIT community to promote and encourage discussion on participatory community building in disaster stricken areas.
10 Research Questions
1. Why, in a time of unprecedented funding and mediums for interaction, are the communication channels between reconstruction NGOs and developing post-disaster communities lacking in effectiveness?
2. How do reconstruction NGOs communicate with the post-earthquake communities of Peru and what what are some lessons learned?
3. How can participatory video improve the communication between post-earthquake communities and reconstruction NGOs?
4. How can participatory video facilitate community voice in post-earthquake rural Peru?
5. Why have some reconstruction NGOs been received much better by post-earthquake communities in rural Peru?
6. How can appropriate media technologies facilitate improved communications between reconstruction NGOs and post-earthquake communities in Peru?
7. How can community-generated video in underdeveloped international communities be distributed in an ethical and impactful manner?
8. How can participatory video unearth honest feedback from post-earthquake communities in rural Peru?
9. Why is it so difficult for reconstruction NGOs in Peru to obtain honest feedback from the communities they work in?
10. How can video facilitate improved communication between reconstruction NGOs and post-earthquake communities in Peru?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Insights into Participatory Video: Part 1
Insights into Participatory Video: A Handbook for the field p 1-16. (intro and Part 1) by Nick and Chris Lunch
Part 1 Notes – Participatory Video in a Nutshell
The definition of Participatory Video (PV) given by the Lunch author-brothers is as follows: “PV is a set of techniques to involve a group or community in shaping and creating their own film.” This paper aims to provide testimony of recent fieldwork done on PV, and seems to claim that the results have been quite successful. PV is successful because it opens up easy and accessible forums in which to bring people together to discuss, and effectively empowers them to play a lead role in solving their own problems.
"Gaining a broader understanding of the issues that face the poor and vulnerable is always helpful to a donor organization focused on poverty alleviation. Using visual media gives a stronger image of the issues of change facing pastoralists. The approach was beneficial to those involved in the film and the message was stronger because it gave voice to those who are easily sidelined by the community. One of its strengths was that it was able to tie together various different messages that arise in any given community and give a clear message that needed to be heard by the Akimat (regional head)."
-Jeremy Horner, Associate Professional Officer, Department for International Development (p. 15)
A brief history of PV is also included. In 1967, Don Snowden undertook the first known PV experiment in the Fogo Islands off Newfoundland. He pioneered the idea of media to enable a people-centered approach. Using video, fishermen on the islands learned that they were dealing with similar issues and came together to make some changes. Politicians living far away also saw the videos. Since Don, their has been no real movement for PV, only isolated works.
Although PV is very widespread, without one clear way to do things, many applications exist and its success depends on many factors outside of project tasking and schedule reasons. In spite of this, the authors offer the following as a possible template for a well-planned PV project:
Participants learn to use video equipment through games and exercise
Short messages of videos directed and filmed by participants.
Footage shown to community at daily screening
(not added in book, but must be?) Final videos shown to community and desired audience elsewhere.
“PV carried out in this way becomes a powerful means of documenting local people's experiences, needs and hopes from their own perspectives. It initiates a process of analysis and change that celebrates local knowledge and practice, whilst stimulating creativity both within and beyond the community. When done well, PV presents the "inside view" in a lively way that is accessible to people at all levels. All community members have equal access to the process. All voices are expressed and heard. The video medium is transportable, easily replicated and easily shared; it thus has a wide "spread effect". PV gives a voice and a face to those who are normally not heard or seen” (p. 12, Lunch)
Participatory video manifests endogenous development, which is development as an outflowing of people's own strategies, resources, and values. Video is transportable and easily replicated and shared by the “wide-spread effect”. PV is good for horizontal and vertical communication. Visuals of PV reach illiterate and young children and cuts across language boundaries. PV Engages, Empowers, clarifies, Amplifies, Catalyses, Equips with skills and optimism, disseminates good practices, and is accessible, inclusive and flexible.
However, the main obstacles to a successful participatory video project include:
-lack of motivation by participants/local community.
-lack of technical equipment or technical issues
-lack of time needed to plan, shoot, or edit
Reflections
Nick and Chris Lunch seem to be the fieldwork Godfathers of participatory video in international communities. Since my work was essentially an extension into a more academic and development research arena, I think the usefulness of this paper will be very useful to my thesis prep and hopefully thesis as well when it is all said and done.
As far as obstacles, we encountered the simple presence of a camera and its know ability to be seen by who knows who makes people very conservative when discussing anything while the red light is on. You might call this “fear of repercussions”.
Development Communication Sourcebook: Intro
Mefalopulos, Paolo. Development communication sourcebook broadening the boundaries of communication. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2008. Print.
Paolo's motivation: "Too often the most important missing element in development programs was genuine (two-way) communication between the decision makers, the experts, and the so-called beneficiaries." Paolo makes the point that communication is much more than transmitting information, it is all about generating new knowledge and consensus in order to facilitate change.
Reflections
The intro is short but says a lot more than what I included above. The author goes on to explain other motivations including his extensive experience working with the oh-s0-renowned DevComm - the development communication branch of the oh-so-bashed World Bank. But, I didn't want to pollute that simple motivation that he listed right at the beginning of his book.
From the intro, I am excited to read what else he has to say, since the book appears to be unique in its claim to comprehensive discussion of the topic of development communication. It will also provide me with the basic understanding of how development communication is different from communication in general. And what is communication?? Wishy-washy, wanna-be....people yaking.
Paolo's motivation: "Too often the most important missing element in development programs was genuine (two-way) communication between the decision makers, the experts, and the so-called beneficiaries." Paolo makes the point that communication is much more than transmitting information, it is all about generating new knowledge and consensus in order to facilitate change.
Reflections
The intro is short but says a lot more than what I included above. The author goes on to explain other motivations including his extensive experience working with the oh-s0-renowned DevComm - the development communication branch of the oh-so-bashed World Bank. But, I didn't want to pollute that simple motivation that he listed right at the beginning of his book.
From the intro, I am excited to read what else he has to say, since the book appears to be unique in its claim to comprehensive discussion of the topic of development communication. It will also provide me with the basic understanding of how development communication is different from communication in general. And what is communication?? Wishy-washy, wanna-be....people yaking.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
