Participatory Video as a means of capturing community perspectives on rainwater management
Participatory Video as a means of capturing community perspectives on rainwater management Beth Cullen (ILRI), Alan Duncan (ILRI) & Katherine Snyder (IWMI) (Derived from PhD work by Beth Cullen) Third International Forum on Water and Food, Johannesburg, 14-17 November 2011
What is Participatory Video (PV)? Communication tool regardless of formal literacy levels. Process : empower communities and act as a catalyst for action & change. Product : c ommunity driven film that conveys issues, knowledge & perspectives
<ul><li>Fogo process, ‘birth of PV’: Don Snowden, 1960s pioneered two-way flow of knowledge between community members and decision makers </li></ul><ul><li>PV under-documented: focus on doing rather than publishing </li></ul>Recent developments: PV is not new!
Why is PV relevant for research & development? <ul><li>PV can potentially be used to involve community members in research processes, ensure relevance & legitimacy </li></ul><ul><li>Bridge gaps between conventional science and IK by making different types of knowledge accessible to different audiences. </li></ul>Collaborative versus Top-down Excludes views of those being researched/‘developed’ Communicates grassroots perspectives & knowledge
Participants are introduced to video camera They acquire basics through active learning Learning is equal: students become teachers Confidence gained through new skills Games encourage dialogue & sharing Additional equipment is introduced Key issues are identified using PRA Storyboards develop narratives Process aims to be fun & engaging
Different community views captured Participants watch & reflect on films Enables access to inaccessible areas Participation extended to editing Ensures control over the final product Films screened to wider community Feedback is gathered from range of community members Screenings are documented to show communities their voice is heard Films shown to audiences including researchers & decision makers
Collaborative rather than extractive Addresses research fatigue Influence decision makers Community analysis Represents Indigenous Knowledge Skills development and empowerment Peer-to-peer knowledge sharing Catalyst for action & change
Challenges <ul><li>No method is a ‘magic bullet’: must acknowledge </li></ul><ul><li>and critically analyse strengths and weaknesses: </li></ul><ul><li>Danger of raising expectations: must consider long term sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>Takes time: rushing can result in token efforts at ‘community participation’ which repeat or reaffirm existing paradigms </li></ul><ul><li>Incentives: facilitators should ensure participants get something from the process </li></ul><ul><li>Can be hijacked by more powerful actors whilst appearing to represent grassroots reality: requires awareness of local power dynamics </li></ul><ul><li>People may not want to represent their knowledge/reality/point of view to others, for good reasons! </li></ul><ul><li>In certain contexts (i.e. politically restrictive environments) it may do more harm than good. </li></ul>Source: InsightShare, 2006
<ul><li>Engage communities and document local perspectives on key issues/challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Communicate community perspectives to higher level stakeholders and researchers: link to Innovation Platforms? </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitate collective action: encourage local innovation and take research into implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Monitor and evaluate the process </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage cross project and basin learning </li></ul>Potential uses of PV within NBDC
Questions & Discussion How do you think PV could be applied in your own projects? What are the potential difficulties in using PV? How could PV be used to support innovation processes?