Photovoice as a participatory research method

By Jule Marie Huber, Claudia Bieling, María García-Martín, Tobias Plieninger and Mario Torralba

How can research effectively engage vulnerable and marginalised groups on issues that affect their lives? How can local knowledge, opinions, and experiences be captured in a way that identifies their concerns and priorities?

Photovoice is a research method that uses photographs taken by participants to encourage dialogue within the community. It was developed to empower marginalised groups and promote community action, and is also more widely useful as a participatory method. It has been used for issues in public health, immigration, homelessness, disability, youth and sustainability.

In this i2Insights contribution we describe a 7-step procedure for using photovoice, noting that considerable flexibility is possible.

Step 1: Development of a research design

Researchers (ideally with involvement of participants) define the objectives of the study along with the timeframe and spatial dimensions, and interview or discussion and analytical protocols.

Step 2: Selection of participants and informed consent

Researchers define the criteria for selecting potential participants, and where possible work with local leaders and organisations to invite the group/s selected to a workshop to explain the purpose of the study. Informed consent is required of both the participant photographers, who own the photographs, and those who appear in the photographs.

Step 3: Photovoice training session

Participants receive guidance from the researchers about the underpinning questions and objectives of the photovoice exercise, along with instructions, such as number of photographs to be taken and information about data use. Where necessary, participants receive training in how to use a camera.

Step 4: Photovoice exercise

Using their own or provided phones or cameras, participants decide how to best represent the research subject and portray their perspectives on the issue, including needs, concerns, and hopes. They may photograph activities, places, people, objects, features, views, moments, ideas, settings or other portrayals of the issue.

Step 5: Discussion of the photographs

Printed photographs are used as the basis for discussions, which focus on reflection, interpretation, and meaning-making. The researchers can either conduct individual interviews with the participants or discuss the photographs with groups of several (or all) participants. The aim is to contextualize the photographs, examine the motivation behind them, and identify emerging themes, issues, and theories. Participants can group the photographs around any emerging themes, and prioritize them according to personal relevance. Inviting participants to caption the photographs can enrich and contextualise them. The aim is for the discussion to extend beyond the photographs to general experiences with the identified issues, perceived causes, and associated impacts.

Step 6: Data analysis

The key themes and subthemes identified in the interviews or discussions are used to systematically code the photographs and transcripts. Various qualitative content analysis techniques can then be used to, for example:

• Count frequencies of mentions of themes to determine priorities and relevance
• Compare and contrast differences and determine similarities
• Explore association and causation pathways between themes (potentially supplemented by statistical analysis).

Providing participants with preliminary analyses can verify them or correct any misinterpretations.

Step 7: Knowledge sharing

Sharing the findings and insights with other community members and policy-makers is important and can involve discussion fora and/or photo exhibitions, along with reports or briefings to policy makers.

Strengths

Three key strengths are that:

1. Photovoice balances power between researchers and research subjects.
   Through shared ownership of the research topic and the ability to share their perspectives on their community’s concerns and requirements, marginalized voices get empowered. Participants develop a collective voice, which can catalyse social action.
2. Researchers gain a contextual understanding of the topic being researched and an insight into local knowledge systems.
   Photography generates a richer understanding than conventional interviews as it requires participants to reflect upon the issue more deeply, and provides visual evidence for the described situation. Photographs can evoke emotions, and convey experiences and views more effectively and vividly than spoken language.
3. Photovoice offers flexibility in its structure.
   Photovoice is adaptable to many different uses and contexts and can be modified to suit different research objectives and communities. It can also be adjusted during the process if necessary.

Challenges

Three key weaknesses or challenges are that:

1. Photovoice is time-consuming for both researchers and participants.
   The procedure requires engagement over several process steps, which may discourage some community members from participating. Others may be discouraged because they find the task challenging, difficult, or abstract, or feel insecure about taking photographs. The method is also not suitable for those with limited sight or mobility.
2. Photovoice comes with ethical challenges.
   The anonymity of those photographed cannot be guaranteed and some people – especially from some cultures – are reluctant to be photographed. Bias may also arise from participants’ self-censorship, hidden agendas, and concerns about personal risk, which may be exacerbated when the issues under investigation involve conflict.
3. Issues that are not photographed may be excluded from the discussion.
   Some relevant issues are intangible and cannot be captured visually. Sometimes a particular site of interest is inaccessible. In addition, it is easiest for participants to find representations of the status quo and they are likely to be unable to photograph what they envision for the future or how past events have shaped the present.

Conclusion

Do you have experience to share about using Photovoice? Have you compared it with other methods of engaging marginalised groups? Have you found other strengths and weaknesses?

To find out more:

Huber, J. M., Bieling, C., García-Martín, M., Plieninger, T. and Torralba. M. (2023). Photovoice. Participatory research methods for sustainability – toolkit #8. GAIA, 32, 4: 386-388. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.32.4.10
Some of the text is taken verbatim from this reference.
To see all blog posts from the partnership with the journal GAIA: https://i2insights.org/tag/partner-gaia-journal/

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)

Biographies:

Jule Marie Huber MSc is a doctoral researcher in social-ecological interactions at the University of Göttingen in Germany. She is particularly interested in studying participatory approaches to govern conservation measures, landscape values, environmental justice, and the cooperative implementation of agri-environmental schemes.

Claudia Bieling PhD is full professor at the Institute of Social Sciences in Agriculture at the University of Hohenheim in Germany. Her work is rooted in transdisciplinary sustainability research and focuses on the interface of ecological and social dimensions in land-use and food systems.

María García-Martín PhD is a postdoctoral researcher at the Land Change Science Research Unit of the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL in Birmensdorf, Switzerland. She is interested in the broad field of human-landscapes interactions with a focus on societal transitions towards landscape sustainability and conducts transdisciplinary, participatory, place-based research mainly in European landscapes.

Tobias Plieninger PhD is a professor in social-ecological interactions at the University of Göttingen and the University of Kassel in Germany. He is a sustainability scientist with a commitment to inter- and trans- disciplinary research at the social-ecological interface. In particular, he studies rural landscape change, ecosystem services, and sustainability transformations.

Mario Torralba PhD is an assistant professor at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands. His main areas of interest are participatory research methods, human-nature interactions and sustainable landscape management.