(C) PLOS One
This story was originally published by PLOS One and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



Fostering the transformative potential of participatory photography: Insights from water and sanitation assessments [1]

['Jess Macarthur', 'Institute For Sustainable Futures', 'University Of Technology Sydney', 'Ultimo', 'Nsw', 'Naomi Carrard', 'Samrach Koh', 'Ide Cambodia', 'Phnom Penh', 'Juliet Willetts']

Date: 2022-08 

We now present and discuss the findings of both components of this research in three parts. First, we present an overview of the results of each component. Next, we discuss the transformative potential of participatory photography in the WASH sector with reference to each of the five stages of a participatory photography activity. Lastly, we consider opportunities for participatory photography activities to foster gender-transformations.

In both higher and lower-income contexts, the WASH-sector has adopted the use of participatory photography activities in a breadth of creative ways, often focused on identifying challenges and bringing under-represented voices to the table. Nonetheless, as will be discussed in the following section in conjunction with our empirical component, there is an opportunity to strengthen transformative potential across all stages of implementation.

Approaches to photo-story utilization for advocacy were often unreported and primarily appeared in applications where photovoice was the sole method. As seen in Fig 7 , 15 activities did not report any form of advocacy or utilization of results. Common approaches to advocacy included photo exhibits and collaborative workshops with relevant stakeholders. However, several recent activities described using blogs and social media to influence future policy and program design. None of the activities discussed advocacy outcomes.

Within the 32 activities, interpretation of the photographs was primarily conducted in a participatory manner using interviews and workshop discussions, as depicted in Fig 7 . Three of the activities did not engage participants in the interpretation of the photographs, and two multi-method activities did not describe analysis procedures. Seven of the activities reported using the SHOWed technique to support photograph interpretation [ 23 ]. Fifteen of the activities described additional analysis undertaken by the researchers. Several of the activities identified challenges in ensuring that photographs aligned with the topic of the research [ 40 , 41 ].

The 32 activities primarily relied on the use of digital and disposable cameras for image creation, and the activities were often conducted in parallel with further assessment methods such as interviews, workshops, and other participatory activities. The photographing period described in the activities ranged from two hours to six months. Eleven of the activities utilized participatory photography activities alongside other methods including: a quantitative survey (4 activities), focus group discussions (4 activities), interviews (4), questionnaires (3), observation (3), transect walks (2), and participatory mapping (2). The process of participatory photography was described in less detail in the instances where photography was one of a collection of methods. As seen in Fig 7 , six activities used a mixture of both provided and personal cameras beyond the more common digital and disposable cameras. Only four activities leveraged smartphones within the contexts of Kenya, Canada, and the United States (as indicated in both the mixture and smartphone categories). Disposable cameras were used as late as 2020, despite identified challenges in the development of photography film [ 39 ].

Overall, the activities lacked detail on orientation processes, and the majority did not actively seek to orient photographers. Eleven of the activities did not include a description of the orientation training provided to participants. The 21 described orientations included topics such as ethics (in 10 activities), basic instructions on the use of the camera (in 10 activities), basic photography skills (in seven activities), and securing permission from human subjects (in five activities). Two examples, one from the United States and one from Australia, included more advanced photography training.

Out of the 32 activities, 13 recruited participants in higher-income countries such as Australia, the United States, and Canada, with fewer barriers to camera access and use. As visualized in Fig 6 , the activities spanned 17 countries, with large clusters in Australia, the United States, and Kenya. One activity took place in both Côte d’Ivoire and Mauritania; the others were single-country activities. Within Canada, Australia, and the United States, activities were often based in First Nation or Indigenous communities. Regarding sectoral focus, one third were focused on sanitation. Notably, studies within lower- and middle-income countries were more focused on sanitation, while studies in higher-income countries were more focused on water. Eleven activities explicitly engaged women (one with mothers), and 14 engaged youth and children. One Canada-based activity partnered elders with youth for collaborative image production [ 38 ].

The systematic search and review identified 32 participatory photography activities, of which 26 self-described as photovoice. The remaining six were described as modified photovoice, participatory photography, and photo-elicitation. A visualization of the sectoral focus, country focus, and photographers from these 32 activities is included in Fig 6 .

This analysis was only possible when exploring the full photo-story and not just the image or associated narrative. When explored together, the titles, captions, and images helped to create a fuller picture of the depicted experiences. For example, an image of a latrine in the rain ( Fig 3 ) was elaborated in the first-person narrative caption to explore elements of safety for women and girls in using and accessing latrines, expanding the team’s conceptualization of safety beyond violence and animals. The image illustrated the story within the rural, wet environment and provided a visual context through which to understand the significance of the change. Overall, participant’s reflections highlighted the value of interacting with people in different environments to stimulate new insights.

Drawing on these 25 photo-stories, content analysis identified a range of gendered aspects, contexts, and activities ( Fig 5 ). Aspects of participation, decision-making, and changing gender roles were common themes within the photo-stories. The context of the photo-stories was balanced between the workplace, the community, and local businesses. The project interventions represented within the photo-stories were wide-ranging, but almost all highlighted the interactions of people with different roles and responsibilities.

The photovoice activity generated a curated set of 25 gender-related photo-stories, which overall highlighted the positive interactions amongst and between staff, local business owners, and beneficiaries. Participants included six women and 14 men, broadly representing the gender balance of staff within the office. A total of 32 images were submitted and of these 25 included a response to the question “why do you think this photo is important to gender equality?” Sample photo-stories (edited lightly for clarity) are included in Figs 3 and 4 . Permission was obtained to include these photo-stories; however author names are withheld for privacy.

Strengthening the transformative potential of participatory photography

We now interrogate the extent to which WASH-related examples and our empirical case reflected transformative potential across the five stages of a participatory photography activity. Implications for researchers seeking to strengthen the transformative potential of future activities are also introduced with each stage. As articulated by theorists in feminist development, we specifically use the phrase ‘transformative potential’ to highlight that transformation cannot be guaranteed but that steps can be taken to foster transformations [30].

Stage 1: Fostering agency through purposeful recruitment. Participatory photography activities hold opportunities to reverse the power dynamics inherent in research. However, our analysis suggests that the camera can be either a barrier or enabler of transformation and that thoughtful recruitment can reduce potential participant distress. Foundational literature on photovoice describes the value of “entrust[ing] cameras to the hands of people to enable them to act as recorders, and potential catalysts for change” [3 p369]. In other terms, the process can create space for participants to “take control” [10] of the research process reversing power dynamics. Within our empirical case, insights from the reflection workshop indicated that the photovoice activity provided an opportunity to strengthen the agency of participants to “facilitate” the direction of the activity: “they [respondents] had the liberty and agency to be decision makers and choose their story and what they really wanted to highlight,” that participants “expressed their opinions without bias or outside input impacting the responses,” and that participants were “more engaged through [the] activities.” Additionally, the reflection process from our empirical case noted that a new group of participants were engaged in the evaluation process and broadened the types of outcomes that were identified. Within the broader literature on participatory photography in the WASH-sector, researchers within indigenous communities describe the value of the approach as a “means for participants to direct the research process” [42]. However, WASH-literature activities that recruited women from marginalized communities identified a range of challenges and potential distress related to women’s historically limited agency. For example, some marginalized women outsourced the activity to male relatives. Another study described the complications of training women to use the camera [40]. Others described women staying together during the photography activities where men wandered about individually [43]. However, in other circumstances, and in particular with men and children, the approaches were noted to be fun and enjoyable [41, 42, 44]. Others identified the sense of pride and satisfaction exhibited by participants [45]. These differences can be traced back to the gender digital divide [46] and further solidify the gender and social dynamics of personal agency attached to photography and documenting one’s personal experiences. Several examples emerged from the literature to counter these challenges. One activity recruited marginalized women who already had program-based experience with smartphones for the identification of water security risks [47]. Similarly, in our empirical case, participants already used smartphones in their day-to-day lives. Another activity engaged children in creating photographs and then involved their mothers in interpretation [41]. Familiarity with the camera (smartphone) technology led to more positive outcomes and mitigated potential distress or harm. Ultimately within short-term photography activities—given that fostering agency is a long-term process—recruiting participants already familiar with smartphones can reduce potential harm and leverage the camera as an enabler of change. For example, activities may choose to work with program staff rather than marginalized community members without camera experience. Staff-led photography activities can still focus on beneficiary experiences in the prompt, as in our empirical case. Longer-term photography activities create space to better support marginalized community members and are best embedded as an intervention activity. In cases where long-term direct engagement is not feasible with marginalized participants, other methods such as oral histories and transect walks may offer opportunities for polyvocality without causing potential distress or harm.

Stage 2: Strengthening photography skills through meaningful orientations. Our empirical example identified the benefits of strengthening photography skills within the orientation sessions. Within foundational literature on participatory photography, Wang’s guidance identified that “facilitators may wish to minimize technical advice during the initial workshop to avoid inhibiting people’s creativity” [3]. For our activity in Cambodia, including skill-building within the orientation session was in response to a request from the program leadership team and aimed to redress the extractive nature of many data collection processes. Our participant reflections included learnings around the use of cameras, writing captions, photography ethics, lighting, and creating a safer photography environment. One respondent noted a reframing of the notion that only an expensive camera could create good photographs. “[I learned that]…my smartphone is capable of taking nice photos”. Another participant noted that the photovoice process provided an “opportunity for learning new skills” and that it was a “wake up call to take photos like I never did before.” Program leaders noted that completion certificates were proudly displayed in office cubicles and that learning of this new skill was described as “a fun exercise that got a lot of engagement from the team” and an opportunity to “build confidence.” The photography skill building was conducted to encourage quality photographs as shared photo-stories, but also to build in a valuable skill for participants to take into their everyday lives. The finding that skill-building was beneficial contrasts with the reviewed WASH-literature, which explicitly described not building in technical skill aspects to the orientation. Of the 32 activities identified in the WASH literature, only two discussed any form of photography skill development. Three reasons are articulated for this in the literature: 1) to avoid influencing the types of photographs that were created [41]; 2) because the process is time-consuming [48]; and 3) to avoid potential negative power dynamics related to researcher as ‘teacher’ [49, 50]. Acknowledging the validity of these concerns and weighing them against the potential benefits of incorporating training, we believe that the opportunity to support participants and to build into their lives a skill that extends beyond the potentially extractive bounds of the evaluation outweighs the concerns. Additionally, we did not identify any evidence of stifling creativity but saw increased creativity in photography angles and patterns–a topic covered in the training. Within our empirical case, creativity led to more interesting photo-stories and facilitated more complex and detailed gender reflections on the images. For example, how brick mold technology can remove gendered barriers to latrine manufacturing for women entrepreneurs by reducing the amount of heavy lifting required in the production process (Fig 4). Our training aimed to create an empowering space for participants, and no negative reflections were shared by participants around power dynamics. The orientation process could be further strengthened by engaging a local photographer for the skill training, hence reducing potential power dynamics associated with external ‘expert’ training [49]. In sum, where appropriate, embedding capacity strengthening activities into orientations can redress the extractive nature of research and create an opportunity for building valuable and often gendered skills.

Stage 3: Promoting ethical photography. The promotion of ethical image creation remains a fundamental consideration of the use of photovoice, and as many WASH-related topics are potentially sensitive, the importance of ethics is heightened. Wang and Redwood-Jones, describe the ethical considerations along each key stage in a photovoice activity considering privacy law [51]. They provide a set of eight minimum best practices which include multiple layers of informed consent (participants, images, and depicted individuals), ethical training, giving images back to communities, and supporting facilitators to foster ethical environments [51]. These practices have resonance with the WASH-sector and offer not only an opportunity to conduct meaningful assessment but to transform power dynamics of research and image production that can perpetuate existing power asymmetries. Following a different ethical process situated in reflection, collaboration, and peer-debriefing, our empirical case aligned with many of the principles highlighted by Wang and Redwood-Jones. Our case employed three layers of consent: first to participate, then to share images, and informed consent from individuals depicted in images. Initial ethical training covered how to foster respectful images, and facilitators were coached through the process of promoting ethics. In reflection on Wang and Redwood-Jones’ principles, two areas have emerged that could be improved. Firstly, while the images were created with the participant’s own smartphones, they were not shared back with the depicted individuals. Secondly, while informed verbal consent was collected from all depicted individuals, a significant number (63%) of photographs were not shared with signed consent forms from depicted people, despite orientation training on ethical procedures and follow-up. We believe the challenges in promoting written consent were exacerbated by the context of remote facilitation and the lack of cultural familiarity with such consent; however, a form of informal communication, such as a social media group could foster a culture which prioritizes ethics. Within the 32 published photovoice activities from WASH-related literature, seven specifically referred to Wang and Redwood Jones’ ethical best practices; yet across the activities more broadly, the description of ethical procedures was varied and often weak. Six activities did not have a description or discussion of any ethical procedures. Twenty activities described participating in an ethical board review and 13 included ethics aspects in the training procedures. Just over half of the activities described a process of initial informed consent and six described a process of obtaining separate consent to use images. Four activities provided images back to communities and three activities discussed the process with community leaders prior to starting the activities. Lastly, four activities on sensitive topics described the use of safeguarding protocols or special considerations for complex contexts. Despite this prevalence of ethical consideration in the WASH-related literature, many of the activities focused on sensitive topics, including defecation practices, incontinence, sexual coercion, drought, water insecurity, and water conflict. Additionally, many of these activities engaged potentially vulnerable groups such as marginalized women, individuals with a disability, youth, and children. The value of engaging with marginalized individuals to create images on complex and often sensitive topics is one of the strategic benefits of participatory photography. Nevertheless, while the published documentation only provides a glimpse into the full extent of each participatory photography activity, there remains a significant opportunity to strengthen ethical considerations, especially when applying the approach in complex and sensitive contexts. Within a framework of decolonization, one further ethical consideration could be added to existing best practices: addressing the problematic language of photography. The English language phrasing around photography is inherently problematic, with verbs such as capture, take, and shoot commonly associated with the action of photographing [52]. Adapting wording requires a reflexive approach to ensure that photography is not extractive or dehumanizing, and this reframing has been a valuable process even in the drafting of this manuscript. Ultimately, the principles outlined by Wang and Redwood-Jones provide a robust framework for studies seeking to strengthen ethical considerations. These considerations are at their most critical during the image creation stage yet remain important throughout the entire participatory activity. Careful facilitation requires adjustments in language and diligent follow-up to avoid a superficial approach to ethics.

Stage 4: Reframing researcher roles. Reflection on the examples of participatory photography activities from WASH-related literature and our empirical case highlighted the value of ensuring that photographer perspectives take precedence in image interpretation. In this sense, photographs are “used as mechanisms to encourage deeper reflection on lived experience and, in doing so, facilitate richer personal narratives” [41 p7]. This restructuring of the research process involves adapting the role of the researcher(s) from manager to facilitator and from interpreter to curator. A researcher as facilitator and curator helps to support participants in the process of identifying themes and bridge insights into utilization [53]. We rely on the taxonomy introduced in this article’s background section to distinguish between documentary, reflexive, and collective forms of participatory photography and use these categories to describe our empirical case and the WASH-literature below. Upon further reflection, our process was more aligned with reflexive photography in the image interpretation phase. There was missed opportunity for transformation by involving the participants in the initial identification of themes prior to the sensemaking workshop through a community-driven data-coding process [54]. This would not only have increased the participants’ connection with the results, but also could have strengthened agency. Within the WASH-related research, aspects of interpretation, while well described, varied considerably and, in a third of cases, were misaligned with the interpretation philosophy of the named approach. Keeping with the cooperative spirit of photovoice, 19 of the activities described some form of collaborative interpretation through group interviews, workshops, or focus group discussions. Seven activities conducted interpretation in individual interviews, an approach more aligned with reflexive photography. In three activities, the researcher was primarily responsible for image interpretation, a process more closely aligned with participatory documentation. Reframing the role of a researcher from interpreter to curator is a valuable process to ensure that images are represented and interpreted fairly and accurately. There may be cases where an additional layer of researcher interpretation is required. However, there is a rich opportunity for images to elicit further discussion and to identify further barriers and needs. Such respectful interpretation is a dialogue between researcher and participant. Therefore, researchers become curators: sorting and organizing photo-stories rather than interpreters. In summary, our analysis suggests that photography activities have more transformative potential when the researcher considers opportunities to strengthen participation by moving from instrumental to transformative engagements (see Table 1). This was exemplified in the literature by allowing participants to interpret their own images and reframing the researcher’s role as facilitator and curator.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://journals.plos.org/water/article?id=10.1371/journal.pwat.0000036

Published and (C) by PLOS One
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons - Attribution BY 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/plosone/