Participatory video vs. photovoice: choosing an approach

Abstract

In recent years, as visual digital technologies have become more affordable and user-friendly, Participatory Action Research (PAR) methods, such as Photovoice (Wang and Burris 1997) and participatory video (Crocker 2003), have become popular among ethnographers, including in medical anthropology. By putting cameras in the hands of participants from local communities and marginalized groups, both approaches allow for the production of rich visual and narrative data that is guided by participant knowledge, concerns and priorities (Gubrium and Harper 2009). With roots in feminist theory, Freire’s (1970) approach to community problem-solving through critical consciousness, and documentary photography and film-making, these approaches aim at reaching broader audiences, including policy-makers, while facilitating empowerment and processes of social change. Photovoice and participatory video, however, offer different possibilities and challenges that should be considered in research design. This workshop will focus on the application of these approaches for data collection, highlighting their respective advantages and limitations and with a strong emphasis on ethical considerations. The workshop will thus provide useful pointers to help in the selection of one approach over the other, depending on the broader research project and available funding.