Possibilities for the framework in development

A recent think piece for the global development initiative Making All Voices Count articulates the complexity of legitimising citizen voice through mediated interventions with underrepresented groups (Oswald, 2014, p. 5). It also highlights the barriers to having voice heard with “openness and respect” (p. 5). The “grand challenge for development,” the piece highlights, is facilitating and ensuring both qualities of voice: its articulation and reception (p. 3). For PV practice, this thesis has responded to such a challenge by offering an aspiring frame. The conceptual framework supports the argument that valued citizen voice requires equal attention on voice expression and its receptivity, especially for societies’ most marginalised populations.

Through this argument, the conceptual framework supports the notion that PV practice is best applied when integrated into a greater social change process. This is where PV is not always the only tool in the toolbox for raising citizen voice (Milne, 2012, p. 257; Plush, 2009b, p. 27). With this view, several practitioners described strategically applying PV in one of two ways: as on-going practice; or embedded into wider development iterative, long-term development processes over one-off events. One practitioner described how a long-term PV project for advocacy might evolve through collaborative design. “We have to be somehow sensitive about how we craft and design a PV programme; where maybe it doesn’t start out with the heavy advocacy goal, but gets there in concert with the community group you are working with” (Misha). Another discussed how she might use PV as a short-term activity, as long it supports wider efforts for citizen engagement and action:

Video is the process that can help you to reach your opinion. And, I think it’s important that it’s moving pictures, because people understand that better in a way because they are living people, and they can see themselves speaking and doing. That’s really important. But, once they’ve got that message, they don’t really need to go on making videos; and it may be too complicated in many poorer communities and not justifiable. (Katulpa)

Page 147

Another practitioner visualised her strategic approach for using PV to raise citizen voice, as shown in Figure 5.2. The visual shows how citizen voice could filter through various visual storytelling methods for voice amplification, depending on which is the most appropriate in practice. In some cases, PV is best choice. In other cases, it may not be. She promoted PV processes designed in response to their wider contexts:

In participatory video there is too much of a focus on video for my liking. It not just about video anyway… You might use analogue things, not only digital forms of expression. There are a lot of things involved in how I conceive those processes that are not explained as participatory video as a label… It is very important to consider technology in relation to the group you are working with. What are the forms of technology that they are going to be able to use? What is needed for them to be able to embrace the technology? Then how do you use the technology when you work with them? You can’t assume there is a one- size-fits-all solution. You can’t assume there is going to be one kit list that you will use. (Devon)

Along these same lines, another practitioner said that both PV practitioners and organisations need to be asking, what “alternative ways can video be used to enable communities to express and campaign for their own needs?” (Katulpa). As an example, the practitioner described a development activity where “once you had done the video for a bit, you didn’t really need video anymore.” The impetus for PV’s use, rather, supported people in being able to advocate for their needs in public decision-making spaces. As she explained, “If you are going to advocate for something, you are thinking about the best way to advocate. That’s what part of the training is about. Video is simply a tool within that”

(Katulpa).

In response to such views for equitable and valued voice, the study considers the conceptual framework strategically supportive of multiple C4D activities as it promotes principles over best practice. Additionally, for PV practice specifically, the principles support the flexibility needed in the diverse international development contexts into which practitioners are deploying PV. Such flexibility in a framework is necessary, as each

Figure 5.2: Different visual methods for raising citizen voice (Devon)

Page 148

environment where PV practice takes place is unique and complex. For example, in the study, one practitioner noted that the “theoretical framework [for PV] always seems, when you put it in a real-world setting, to get continually tested and found to be wanting” (Sal). Similarly, it is likely that the conceptual framework presented in this chapter for valued citizen voice will face its own challenges in implementation. These might be especially acute in a development environments bogged down by shifting political priorities and results-driven agendas (Enghel & Wilkins, 2012, p. 9; Eyben & Guijt, 2015, p. 1; Waisbord, 2008, p. 508).

Recognising institutional strengths and limitations for C4D is at the heart of the argument Quarry and Ramirez (2009) make in Communication for another development (p. 140). They acknowledge the difficulty for C4D approaches in conflicting international development contexts. For instance, institutions may “use the language of pro-poor development” while simultaneously placing their “convictions on economic-driven ideas of development that fail to protect poor people” (p. 132). The authors describe facing a paradox as C4D practitioners. Does participatory communication need the right development environment to be effective, or can good participatory communication lead to better development (p. 141)? Their conclusion is that principled C4D practice can be a mechanism that shapes better development. However, in the end, they ultimately advocate to locate their C4D activities mainly within “organisations where participatory communication can survive” (p. 140). The practical implication for this study is that any principled framework for C4D approaches is likely meaningless unless its users both understand its value and are able to mobilise an enabling environment for its utility.

No doubt, suitable conditions exist that would make it feasible to apply the conceptual framework for raising citizen voice with PV. Accordingly, the next chapter describes the study’s exploration into the institutional development environments where PV practitioners apply their trade. Here, the chapter presents findings related to the tensions PV practitioners in the study described from institutional pressures on their idealised PV practices. The intention for doing so is to help PV practitioners understand potential enablers and constraints for using PV to raise citizen voice in development contexts. The resulting knowledge might lead to workable strategies for applying, in practice, the principles highlighted in this chapter’s conceptual framework.

Page 149