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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

1. Participants learn to use video equipment through games and exercise

2. Short messages of videos directed and filmed by participants.

3. Footage shown to community at daily screening

4. (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”.