Participatory video for two way communication in international development projects. Presentation held at IAMCR 2015, Montreal, Canada

Manon KoningsteinJennifer Twyman, Shadi Azadegan, Simon Cook

PARTICIPATORY VIDEO FOR INCLUSIVE RESEARCHTwo-way communication in International Development

Let’s have a look at this video…

• https://www.powtoon.com/show/eGOhNzMRAlG/participatory-video/#/

Case-studies

• How PV helped the community of Somotillo (Nicaragua) to diffuse conservation practices.

• How PV helped young rural women in Estelí (Nicaragua) to feel empowered.

Shift from one-way to two-way

• Problem: case study Somotillo, one-way information flow.

• Need for tools and approaches that bring the voices of (marginalized) groups into the policy-making arena

• Shift from Development Information (one-way) to Development Communication (two ways)

• Inclusive to gender, age, ethnicity, educational background

PV as a communication tool in Participatory Research

• Gain understanding of their situation, as well as the confidence and ability to change it (Servaes, 2007).

• Support process of empowerment (Kindon, 2003).

• Reduce gap between researchers and reality (Kane, 1995).

Shannon and Weaver model of Communication (1949)

SenderMessage/Channel

Receiver

Encoding Decoding

Noise

Feedback

Articulation points

• Hall uses term ‘articulation’ to give meaning to a message.

• Encoding and decoding are “determinate moments” (Hall 1980: 129).

• Meaning is created through articulation.

Sender Channel

Coding Decoding

Noise

Feedback

Articulation point

Articulation point

Receiver

Reception Theory: Jauss (1980)

• Interpret texts and give meaning under predetermined conditions.

• This happens through the articulation points.

• React differently when viewing collectively or alone (Morley 1992, Lull 1990)

• Braden (1998) suggests, it’s the familiarity of image, location of viewing, and subject matter.

Sender Channel

Coding Decoding

Noise

Articulation point

Articulation point

Predetermined conditions that influence interpretation

Receiver

Feedback

Improvements in the communication framework through the use of PV

Sender• PV provides for awareness-building of the PV-makers• Inclusion of marginalized groups

Message• People are more willing to listen to what others were saying when they

watched it on video than they would have in face to face encounters (Ramella and Olmos, 2005).

• Video helps to produce (representations of) linguistic expressions that are comprehensible and intelligible (Huber, 1999).

• It can affirm the ingenuity and perspective of society’s most vulnerable groups

• Linking intellectual and emotional reasons to reach community adaptation

Channel • Accessible and available• International iGDP has increased drastically• Mass media having great potential to promote gender equality

Receiver• No literacy required• 83% of learning occurs visually (Lester, 1996)

Coding/Decoding• Extended language• Power lies with the audience• Audiences are able to confront and contest representations of them

Feedback• Provide for interaction where otherwise impossible

Conclusions

PV is an adequate tool for (agricultural) research for development• Allows understanding the local needs, wants

and knowledge of local and/or marginalized populations.

• The higher possibility of positive reception leads to a higher possibility of acceptance of the message.

However, there are cultural limitations, locally specific.

References

• Traber, M & Lee, P. (1989) Video for Animation and conscientisation. Media Development 36(4): 1• Kane, E., (1995). Seeing for yourself: Research handbook for girls' education in Africa. Washington, DC: World

Bank.• Kindon, S. (2003) ‘Participatory Video in Geographic Research: A Feminist Practice of Looking? ’ Area. Vol 35 (2)

pp142-153. • Koningstein M., Azadegan S. (2014) Participatory Video in Somotillo, Nicaragua. CCAFS Working Paper no. 100.

CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Copenhagen, Denmark. Available online at: www.ccafs.cgiar.org

• T.J., Servaes, J. & White, S.A. (eds).Participatory Communication for Social Change. New Delhi & London: Sage Publications, Ch. 11.

• Ramella, Marcelo and Olmos, Gonzao (2005) Participant Authored Audiovisual Stories (PAAS): Giving the Camera Away or Giving the Camera A Way?, London School of Economics and Political Science Papers in Social Research Methods, Qualitative Series 10, London: LSE

• Huber, Bernard (1999) Communicative aspects of participatory video projects An exploratory study. Department of Rural Development Studies Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Uppsala, 1999 - ISSN 1403-7998

• Lull, J., (1990). ‘Inside family viewing’. UK: Routledge • Morley, D.(1992). The 'Nationwide' Audience: a critical postscript. (In Morley, D. (ed). Television, Audiences and

Cultural Studies. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 119-131.• Jauss, Hans Robert (1982) Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory, Toward an Aesthetic of Reception,

trans. Timothy Bahti (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), 3-45 • Braden, S. (1998).Where's participation without representation. The Rural Extension Bulletin, June, 8-11.

• Photocredits: Manon Koningstein (CIAT), Gian Betancourt (CIAT), Shadi Azadegan (CIAT)

Manon Koningstein

[email protected]

Research Associate/Communications SpecialistGender & Climate ChangeInternational Centre for Tropical Agriculture CIATColombia

Questions

Answers&