Potentials and Constraints of the use of Participatory Video Research

truth’.

4.2.2 Potentials and Constraints of the use of Participatory Video Research

PVR has particular qualities and features that differ significantly from other kinds of data. The potentials, constraints and considerations to take into account when using participatory video as an instrument for research will be discussed in this section. PVR is a more plural and collective approach to produce knowledge. It offers a framework for breaking down barriers between researchers and ‘subjects’, and between analysis and praxis. It creates a more horizontal approach to forge collaborative research relationships in which the community and ICOs can take an active role in studying problems alongside a traditional researcher to develop strategies for change (Gubrium and Harper, 2013; Jewitt, 2012; Kissmann, 2009). Within the PVR approach, the researcher becomes an “alongsider” rather than an “asider” and serves the role of facilitator. Therefore, the researcher’s function is to serve as a resource for those being studied – typically, disadvantaged groups – presenting an opportunity for them to act effectively in their own interest (Kissmann, 2009). As Mitchell (2005 cited in Gubrium and Harper, 2013, p. 91) argues, in PVR “nothing is accidental” and everything is available

as a point of social construction and identity performance. For instance, in a study by Harte et al. (2014) using PVR for the study of birth in the early postnatal period, the women, their birth supporters and midwives who attended them during labour, participated in an interview where the video footage was used to stimulate discussion and reflection. The women participated actively during the process (collection of video data) and all the steps were prearranged but even then, there were decisions made at the birth event. Thus, PVR can be highly collaborative, reflecting social concerns and group effort. Group effort determines very effective knowledge construction (Gubrium and Harper, 2013).

As mentioned earlier, the implementation of a PVR approach offers special opportunities for building a more ethical and horizontal relationship between research institutions or researchers and the communities they study and serve (Lassiter, 2006 cited in Gubrium and Harper, 2013). Moreover, PVR provides both the researcher and participants the possibility to revisit the data and reawaken the memories and experiences. Participatory videos are shareable with participants, as they are invited to reflect and contribute to the findings, taking into account the different stages of video production: preproduction, production and postproduction. This approach also allows the researchers to present the findings in different non-conventional ways, such as with a film or short video, making sure it is available for a wider audience as well as the participants being able to use PVR approach for the purpose of reflection.

Despite the power of using PVR as a potential research instrument, there are several constraints that need to be taken into account. The first relates to the complexity of the data produced with PVR, which, if not managed appropriately, can lead to a descriptive and weak analysis (Jewitt, 2012). Video data are limited and partial as they include and exclude elements of the reality when studying a particular phenomenon (Jewitt, 2012). Moreover, video is primarily focused on the material external expression and can represent the order of events in different ways, providing one perspective of an event or phenomenon. Indeed, it generally records interaction over short periods of time and the data collection is quite demanding, requiring the work of more than one researcher. This can be linked to the technological challenges that can occur with collecting data, such as audio and lighting problems (Rakić and Chambers, 2010). PVR projects are a commitment on behalf of all participants, and require a significant investment of time and energy, they are often more time consuming and costlier than other methods

(Marion and Crowder, 2013). Not all people in all communities are able to dedicate so much time and energy, and participation might drop once the ‘co-researchers’ (participants) become caught up with other competing responsibilities (Cahill, 2007a, 2007b).

There are other aspects to consider preventing problems when using PVR. The first aspect is the importance of linking video data to social theories and themes (Jewitt, 2012). The researcher should become familiar with the setting to make sure the data is understood in context, as well as to consider whether PVR will be used as a sole method or in combination with other methods (Heath and Hindmarsh, 2002). The researchers need to decide the data that need to be collected to address the research question as well as understand the constraints of using PVR, discussing this with the participants (co- researchers) and their level of involvement. Some researchers have criticized the process, arguing that most researchers using PVR methods have assumed it to be a non- problematic process that enables less powerful groups to gain power and participate in social change. However, a study conducted by Singh et al. (2017) with an NGO that worked with young women in a community in Hyderabad, India, suggests that while PVR can enable participants to gain agency, it is equally challenging to do so in the presence of power relations. Finally, as seen in Section 4.8, the number of ethical and legal implications of PVR needs to be taken into account, such as the ownership of the material created and the dissemination of such material (Pink, 2007; Prosser and Loxley, 2008; Prosser, 2000).