Self-Representation in Participatory Video Research

Abstract

Participatory video involves co-researchers using digital or video cameras to create their own videos and present issues according to their sense of what is important. In 2018, the authors—including three co-researchers from refugee backgrounds—collaborated through participatory video research to document views on better access and participation in higher education. Here, we reflect on key ethical issues encountered and share lessons learnt from our project. Our aim is not to discredit this methodology but to contribute new discussions on how participatory video can be used effectively as a form of self-representation to target wide audiences and effect social and policy change. This way, debates on the social and political potentialities of arts-based methods such as participatory video can be expanded. Since deploying participatory video in forced migration research is a relatively novel approach, there is much scope to expand the contours of knowledge on its potential to reach diverse audiences and open up new opportunities for social and political impact.

A Failed Attempt at Participatory Video With Takatāpui/LGBTIQ+ People Who Had Experienced Homelessness

“…Participatory research methods have often been presented as being without shortcomings in empowering marginalised peoples and creating a multi-directional relationship between researcher and participants (Hayward et al, 2004;Lenette et al, 2020;Low et al, 2012;Milne, 2016;Singh et al, 2018). However, research critiquing such methods and their ability to empower continues to emerge (Kindon, 2016a(Kindon, , 2016bLenette et al, 2020;Milne, 2016;Prins, 2010;Rice et al, 2020;Rice & Mündel, 2019;Roy et al, n. d.;Singh et al, 2018). For participants to fully engage in the research process and design, participatory research requires plenty of time, the careful building of relationships, and, often, money.…”

Doing Digital Migration Studies:

“…It means, on the one hand, enabling horizontal dynamics of collaboration and dialogue as the core of the creative practice of filmmaking and, on the other hand, provoking further recognition and response from those who watch the resulting film (Plush, 2015). Thus, PF has the potential to serve, on its own terms, as an ongoing critical media literacy aimed at deconstructing labels (Lenette et al, 2020), allowing participants to negotiate their self-representations amongst themselves while testing their views with the audience. However, the three workshops raised the question of whether extending the methodology beyond self-representational narratives would be more effective in deconstructing labels.…”

“…In APV practices, time is often limited to the development of a hands-on workshop covering the creative and technical aspects of an entire filmmaking process (Lenette et al, 2020). In the Madrid workshop, the lack of time during the editing stage was an issue mentioned in the participants' final feedback.…”

“…Furthermore, self-representational PF in refugee studies has contributed to challenging labels, creating a sense of agency, and building gendered narratives among participants in collaborative filmmaking practices that may influence policy (Lenette et al, 2020). Indeed, much of the current literature pays particular attention to how PF promotes the creation of films that can serve as powerful counternarratives (Frisina & Muresu, 2018) while allowing protagonists to narrate their border-crossing experiences in a safe way (Gatta, 2019).…”