Participatory video

By Pamela Richardson

What is participatory video? How can it enhance participatory research? What’s required to make participatory video work well?

Participatory video involves the co-production of videos in a group setting and can be used for community development, research and advocacy. The focus here is on research and, as a tool for communication and reflection, participatory video can support many different steps along a research journey, including:

• co-creation of video-based funding proposals or the development of group plans,
• project documentation and reflection,
• participatory monitoring and evaluation,
• dissemination of “best practices” or communication of results and lessons learned.

In these ways, video-making by participants can support both internal and external communication processes within a research project.

Participatory video is geared towards fostering dialogue around a shared issue. It can:

• capture situated viewpoints,
• foster intra-group communication, learning and solidarity-building,
• communicate ideas to an external target audience, which may include communities in other areas, policy-makers, or scientists.

Videos are generally made and edited using readily accessible smartphones and associated apps, but computer-based programs can also be used. The participatory video-making process also requires skilled facilitation. Participatory video can be a face-to-face process or can be conducted online and remotely. Participants in online processes also require a reliable internet connection and ideally a computer with video conferencing capacity.

Key steps and activities in a participatory video process

Four key steps when initiating or beginning a participatory video project, described here for an online process (with most steps also applying in face-to-face processes) are:

1. co-initiation of the participatory process, whereby a core team of researchers and community partners agree on research topics and objectives,
2. consideration of purpose and appropriateness of online participatory video (and associated communication platforms) as a method, in relation to the research objectives and context,
3. a formal ethical review should be undertaken, including the design of an informed consent process,
4. stakeholder mapping and recruitment of core participants.

There are a number of activities within and beyond these steps, including those described next.

Initial workshops that integrate icebreaker activities to help people get to know each other and gain confidence with the online environment and tools are useful. The early sessions should also include discussion of expectations and co-defining a basic code of conduct. This activity allows facilitators to draw attention to ethical and legal issues around the creation and sharing of videos.

As part of an online participatory video workshop process, a short (individual or group) video-making task is set before each live session. The videos are either uploaded to a communication platform (always ensuring that privacy settings and consent processes are in place) and viewed asynchronously in advance of a workshop, or they can be watched synchronously during the workshop. In the process, facilitators support participants to develop their knowledge about video-making. Guided practice, collective reflection and peer-to-peer feed-back processes are key. The different practical tasks should be designed to support inclusion and conversational exchange on the specific research topic.

When participants have developed the necessary competencies, they work together on planning and creating a video that can be shared. Facilitators support group discussion and decision-making around the purpose, core message, story-line, target audience and communication style of the videos. Participants share ideas and decide how to tell the story (eg., who to involve, which locations and shots to use) and facilitators support with planning and consideration of ethical issues. Storyboards, clips and drafts are reviewed collaboratively as part of an ongoing workshop process.

Remote facilitation of editing with online groups needs to be carefully adapted to the particular needs, aims and situation of both the project and the individual participants. They might edit videos individually, work together in small (offline) groups, or collaborate online. Alternatively, participants’ footage might be shared with a nominated editor. Collaboration and participation can be practised in different ways, but interactive feedback cycles are central and workshops for collectively reviewing edited footage should be part of the process.

Facilitation skills needed

As well as competencies with the relevant on-line communication platforms, basic video-making and editing, facilitators need to determine the most appropriate language for the workshops and organise translation support if necessary. Experience working with groups, ideally in the same geographical context or area of practice as the participants is desirable. A commitment to social inclusion and active listening is essential.

Strengths and weaknesses

Key strengths and benefits are that participatory video:

• supports communication processes across social and physical distances,
• shares participant perspectives,
• facilitates critical reflection through the collective review process,
• builds skills and capacities of benefit to participants beyond the duration of the project,
• shows practices, interactions and contextual information less easily conveyed through other formats,
• travels and can be more accessible than written reports,
• democratises media production and “voice” in the research process, supporting inclusion of less literate participants/partners.

Key weaknesses and challenges of participatory video are that:

• there is a strong possibility for unrealistic expectations among community partners (researchers can mitigate this by taking time during the co-initiation and informed consent phases, as well as in the early workshops, to facilitate conversation around hopes and expectations),
• digital literacy and digital access issues affect who can participate most effectively, leading to some voices becoming more powerful or dominant than others,
• cameras might result in self-censorship by participants,
• participant anonymity is most likely (but not necessarily) lost when appearing on video, posing ethical issues exacerbated by (viral) sharing possibilities of video,
• not all devices have the same capacity for running apps and storing files and similar issues,
• commitment of resources and time on part of researchers and community-based participants can be considerable,
• participants may decide to create a video unrelated to the original research aims.

Concluding questions

Do you have experience with participatory video to share? Are there other strengths and weaknesses that you can see?

To find out more:

Adapted from Richardson, P. (2022). Participatory video (remote, online) Participatory research methods for sustainability – toolkit #2, GAIA, 31/2: 82-84. (Online – open access). (DOI): https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.31.2.4
This article contains references and an example. Much of the wording in this i2Insights contribution is taken verbatim from the original article.
To see all blog posts from the partnership with the journal GAIA: https://i2insights.org/tag/partner-gaia-journal/

Biography: Pamela Richardson D.Phil. is a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Fellow in the Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom. She is a Fellow of the Institute for Sustainable Food and the Institute for Global Sustainable Development and is an internationally experienced participatory and community video facilitator, group process facilitator, videographer and online learning coach. She is interested in the co-emergence of new social and material worlds, particularly in contexts where justice and sustainability issues are at stake and where communities are intentionally co-creating change. Her work engages with food geographies, political ecology, feminist theory, and critical development studies.