Participatory Video

I used PV as a research method at both the research sites, making videos with my research participants towards the end of the data collection. The videos produced are referred to as ‘Research Videos’ in this thesis.

PV is regarded as an effective tool for participatory research, and can support destabilising the inherent hierarchical relationship between the researcher and the participant and participants gain control over the research process (Kindon, 2003). At the same time, Hume-Cook (2007) and Plush (2009a) bring attention to the point that researchers using PV, face several challenges, such as limited or no understanding of video production by the communities, issues around who edits and how, and use of the video, heightening power relations. However, since all the participants in this research had been involved with PV for a long time, I anticipated that this method would create a more ‘equal’ relation with the participants, where I would need to only facilitate the data gathering process and the participants could entirely control the video-making process.

During the production of these Research Videos, the most important consideration was to support the participants in creating the videos according to their own priorities about

what they wanted to communicate and how they wanted to represent themselves (Hume-Cook et al., 2007).

The decision to use PV as a method within a research on PV was quite complex, as I will discuss below. There was the possibility of studying PV as a research method, when the video was being made as part of the research. However, the aim of the research is to explore participants’ perspectives and understand their experiences to gain insights on the PV practice of organisations. PV, as a research method, was chosen to fulfil the same aim. Therefore, I chose to not focus on analysing PV as a research method. In Section 3.6.1, I discuss how I analysed the data collected through videos made by using PV.

Application in the field

In Akshara, the participants decided that they would produce an unedited video, since they were finding it difficult to commit time, given their work schedule. The video was structured as a discussion amongst them, with two parts. In the first part, they talked about their experiences with PV and in the second, they discussed on what improvements could be made in their practice. It was shot in their office, with each part being an hour long.

The participants in Mahita decided to use this as an opportunity to showcase their experience and their work. A structure of the video was decided collectively and then the shooting was planned. The participants wrote the narrative of the video, and recorded it first. They then, wrote their piece to camera, talking about their experiences with both technical skill-building and capability-building. The planning was done in a

way to ensure that each participant talked about the particular part of the process which interested her the most.

The participants decided to use some stock footage4 instead of shooting every shot afresh. For instance, when a participant talked about video screenings, the footage from screenings previously done was used. They shot their entire piece-to-camera and the other required shots, which also involved outdoor shoots, in different parts of the city. Editing of the video was done according to the structure. The new shots and the stock footage were put together, background music was added, and a three and a half minute final video was made.

Both videos offered useful information, which the participants had planned to share, along with their points of view. Both videos also became a space for reflection on their practice, and a presentation of their thoughts. The data generated through this method represents participants’ understandings in the way they wanted to communicate it (see Haw and Hadfield, 2011).

While the videos became important data, the process of producing the videos in the two settings had its own challenges. An ethical challenge arose, when the participants in Akshara shared some of their disagreements with the NGO management. The participants had earlier agreed that the video they shoot should be shown to the management to enable changes in practice. However, considering the content, I faced a dilemma - whether the video should be shared, since it constituted conflict of

4 Footage which had been shot earlier for a general or specific purpose and is then to be used in other production to save on shooting fresh footage

interests. Eventually, I decided to not share the video. I further discuss the ethical considerations in Section 3.7.

Another challenge was that of maintaining my role as a researcher. Due to my earlier expertise as a PV trainer, I was requested by the coordinator in Mahita to also use the video production process as training for the participants. Adopting the role of a trainer would have altered my relationship with the participants (as mentioned earlier, I had to reposition my role as a researcher, vis-a-vis that of a trainer earlier), as it would have introduced hierarchy. On the other hand, it was difficult to refuse skills-building of the participants, which they recognised as a necessity. To maintain equilibrium, I encouraged them to be creative with their video format and introduced new experiences for them, such as outdoor shooting across the city, without engaging in intensive technical training.

Table 3 summarises all the primary data collection methods used and includes the purpose for which they were used and the issues that arose while implementing them in the field.

Table 3: Primary Data Collection Methods, Purpose, Implementation Issues and Timeline Method Stakeholders Involved Purpose Implementation Issues Timeline Participatory Observation Young women participants NGO staff To study the process in its natural setting Establishing my role as a researcher

Continued all through the fieldwork In-depth interviews Young women participants To gather participants’ experiences of the PV process Need to gather data from other sources to build a holistic picture

Conducted once with all the young women participants, after 1-2 weeks of starting fieldwork in each organisation Semi­ structured interviews Akshara’s Facilitator Mahita’s Facilitator Akshara’s Co- Director Mahita’s Programme Manager Mahita’s Programme Coordinator Akshara’s Video Trainer Mahita’s Video Trainer To gather the stakeholders’ perspective on issues raised by participants Limited time availability with the stakeholders

Conducted once (after the in-depth interviews) with participants other than the young women Focus Group Discussions Young women participants To explore common experiences and shared views on issues Concentration on only certain themes

Conducted with all the young women participants in each organisation.

Method Stakeholders Involved Purpose Implementation Issues Timeline Focus Group Discussions Young women participants To explore common experiences and shared views on issues Concentration on only certain themes FGDs on research questions, project actors and actors’ agendas were conducted . at the beginning of the main study

FGD in Mahita on participants’ experience was conducted after all the in-depth and semi­ structured interviews Participatory Video Young women participants To uncover participants’ issues about PV practice In Mahita, participants wanted to treat this as a training In Akshara, participants had limited time

One Research Video was made with all the young women participants in each organisation. It was made towards the end of the fieldwork.

(Young women continued making other videos as part of their work while 1 conducted my fieldwork - 1 was only involved as a participatory observer during those video productions)