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.

1. Prepare for PV

2. Make an initial visit

3. Do some research

4. Set team objectives

5. Obtain equipment

6. Check the equipment

7. Arrival on-site

8. Be sensitive

9. Be flexible

10. 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.