Rethinking the definition of participatory video at the interface of theory and practice

GLOCAL TIMES No. 22/23 (September 2015) 1 Rethinking the definition of participatory video at the interface of theory and practice By David Montero Sánchez and José Manuel Moreno Domínguez 1 Abstract Since at least the 1960s, participatory video (PV) has aimed to readdress film’s traditional focus on entertainment and the media’s interest in global news with the intention of promoting local and community development. This has usually meant empowering communities to work via consensus to elaborate different audiovisual products which reflect community problems and aspirations in various ways. In the words of Shirley White, author of Participatory Video. Images that Transform and Empower, PV acts as “a powerful force for people to see themselves in relation to the community (…). It brings about a critical awareness that forms the foundation for creativity and communication” (White, 2003: 64). This paper addresses the concept of PV comprehensively by mobilizing critically both academic takes on the subject and the professional views of a variety of practitioners and experts. It aims to outline a number of uses and modes which coexist within PV with the aim of generating a more fruitful discussion on its defining features and the relation between canonical and marginal examples of participatory videomaking. To that effect, our methodological approach combines a literature review (including key works in English as well as theoretical contributions in the field of Latin American critical communication studies) with data obtained from a number of in-depth interviews with experts and experienced practitioners. Three key areas are identified as major elements within a PV experience: process, communication and results. Focusing on the analysis of how productive tensions between participants and facilitators play out in each of these areas, we propose a broad instrumental definition in the hope of contributing to the ongoing theoretical discussion on PV. Finally, the main areas of debate as perceived by video practitioners -format, genre and the role of the Internetare discussed with a view to establish how these issues are currently being negotiated within the field. Introduction Understanding the meaning of participatory video (hereinafter PV) and how it works is a difficult task. On the one hand, the concept itself is very broad, vague and constructed around a number of tensions. PV has historically configured itself more as a label which encompasses different practices and experiences on the common ground of incorporating ordinary people to the space of film production than as an academic area with solid conceptual frameworks in place. However, the confluence between theory and practice in relation to PV still reveals shared working methods amongst practitioners and recurrent debates which revolve around a rupture with traditional authorship, favouring more collaborative production formulas. Departing from our own research into the matter, this paper examines the ways in which theory and practice intersect when it comes to defining PV as a transformative praxis. We GLOCAL TIMES No. 22/23 (September 2015) 2 understand that the consolidation of PV as a practice is a multilayered process where both, theory and ways of doing, interact in complex ways. Giving an exhaustive account of such a process is beyond our scope here. Instead, we aim to identify patterns of interaction in order to make them visible to both practitioners and academics. Sheer variety, lack of systematization, shortage of in-depth research, the prevalence of multidisciplinary approaches and the absence of a clearly delimited professional field (Milne, Mitchell y De Lange, 2012; Suárez et al., 2008; Craig and Porter, 1997) raise the need for conceptual exercises which compile and contrast different voices in order to promote sound debate of PV as a practice. In the first part of the paper, we argue that there is evidence of a space of profitable interaction between scholars and practitioners throughout the history of PV at different levels; however, such mutual influence has yet to be consolidated into a comprehensive area of study, partly due to a lack of scholarly interest in PV until recently, and also to the diffuse nature of PV experiences, which has complicated the emergence of a true community of practice. Taking the work of educational theorist Étienne Wenger as a reference (Wenger, 1998), we use the term "community of practice" to refer to groups of people who share a common interest or practice and improve it by interacting regularly and helping each other. The second section formulates a three-legged description of PV practice based on contemporary views, taking into account academic definitions and engaging with the main areas of contention surrounding the practice: terminology, formats and the role of the Internet. The paper is the result of an on-going investigation into contemporary PV practice and its relevance in the current, global socio-political context. We consider our assessment as a work in progress based on the ground already covered by this research. 2 Our analysis was informed by several methods. Practitioners’ views were obtained through a comprehensive survey, with over 25 organizations involved. The participants were selected according to their experience in the arrangement of initiatives and experiences where PV plays a significant role. A total of 15 in-depth interviews were conducted via email between June and September 2014 (see Table 1). The breadth of the sample was the main criteria behind selection, because one of our aims was precisely to establish how PV practice is seen by a number of professionals (filmmakers, educators, media activists, video-artists, etc.) and by organizations working in fields such as new technologies of information and communication (hereinafter NTIC), social education, media and international development. Geographical diversity is also an important factor: while it was impossible to avoid a preponderance of Spanish practitioners and organizations as a reflection of the original research context, interviews were carried out with facilitators and institutions from Brazil, Dominican Republic, UK, Venezuela and Argentina. GLOCAL TIMES No. 22/23 (September 2015) 3 Table 1. Respondents. In bold those who replied as practitioners or in an institutional capacity. Numbers are provided for references within the text. A more extensive literature review was also undertaken, of which only a small sample is included in the first section of this paper (for a discussion, see Montero and Moreno, 2014). Our examination of available literature on PV did not only cover academic accounts, but also descriptive case studies, research proposals and institutional reports. Furthermore, we used discourse analysis of videos resulting from PV experiences and of the websites of the most prominent organizations currently working with PV. Defining PV as a practice In an academic context where the confluence between technology and communication has constituted itself as a prolific area of study over the last decades, PV still remains a practice in need of serious attention with only a handful of scholarly contributions approaching the subject from a distinctive analytical perspective (see White, 2003; Mitchell and de Lange, 2012; and Johansson, 1999). This lack of academic interest does not go hand in hand with the relative popularity of PV practices in a number of contexts and places, promoted by very different organizations in several fields. Even today, the landscape of PV is sketchy; in spite of very valuable efforts, generally speaking it lacks clear points of reference, systematic approaches and even in-depth observation and assessment of PV experiences. While to external observers this might suggest that theory and practice have gone their separate ways when it comes to PV, this is not correct. Most PV experiences are the result of a previous Organizations •Proyecto Pereyra (1) •Cooperativa Cultural Valle Vivo (2) •Centro Caribeño de Comunicación y Cultura (3) •InsightShare (4) •Gimkho (5) •Proplaneta (6) •Colectivo "Hacemos una peli" (7) •La Lupa (8) •Colectivo Circes (9) •Úbiqa (10) •Escola Popular de Cinema •Various •Various •Various •Acsur-Las Segovias Practitioners •Pablo Stéfano •Institucional •Institucional •Soledad Muñiz •Roi Guitián •Fernanda Baumhardt •Miguel Ángel Rodríguez •Mercedes Figueroa •Raquel García •José Luís Roncero •Alberto Bougleux (11) •Ian Ingelmo (12) •Giorgio Mosangini (13) •Inmaculada Parra (14) •Laura Cabezas (15) Professional field •Environmental education, artistic education •Community filmmaking •International development •International development •Citizen education •Development/environmental education •Community filmmaking •Communication for development •Social education •New technologies of information and communication •Popular cinema •Film and audiovisual editing •International development •Art and social integration •Development/Communication for development GLOCAL TIMES No. 22/23 (September 2015) 4 theoretical reflection which encompasses aspects such as media literacy, visibility, documentary theory and social transformation. From a professional perspective, patterns of action have mostly been determined by the use of technology by a substantial number of people, and by attempts to validate PV as a methodologically sound, scientific practice. This has resulted in a kaleidoscope of isolated practices of limited circulation and basically unknown to other practitioners (see Huber, 1998). The late 1990s saw the first results in the form of weighty tomes on PV as a practice, such as Shaw and Robertson (1997) and Braden and Huong (1998). At this point, the focus began to shift towards methodology and finding a common ground amongst otherwise very different PV experiences in terms of both subject and approach. Sharing knowledge, be they quandaries or results, has led to the definition of common lines of analysis which, in the last few years, have finally begun to shape an extended research field, while consolidating a professional landscape where a number of interesting proposals have been formulated, both at an international level and also through more modest initiatives. Interestingly, in spite of their differences, these projects seem to share a common approach to images and an interest in connecting audiovisual production to processes of citizen participation. International organizations such as UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) have consistently used PV to promote actions of local development and also in awareness programs, publishing their results in systematized assessment reports which, to this day, remain an important contribution to increasing the visibility of and disseminating what can be achieved with PV (see FAO, 1987, FAO, 1996 and Farmesa, 1996). To this, we can add the guides developed by organizations specializing in the use of PV, above all those published by WITNESS (2005) and Inshightshare (Lunch and Lunch, 2006). Most of the organizations we interviewed in the course of our analysis of recent PV practice tend to not only set up participatory experiences, but also to develop a line of thought which embraces aspects of visual culture and media theory, giving them a voice in public debate on collective audiovisual creation, cultural participation and transformative media practice. For instance, the film collective La Lupa sees it as one of their aims to build bridges between reflection, awareness and action, understanding reflection as “an analysis of the possibilities offered by audiovisual discourse as a tool for debate, for increasing awareness and social transformation. It is necessary to think about participatory methodologies inasmuch as they allow community development, conflict mediation and the formulation of collective messages by a number of actors” (La Lupa 8). It is therefore not only about doing, but also about thinking about what is being done and how it is being done in order to conceive video not merely as a tool for change, but rather as a space for dialogue and critical thinking. Such a critical approach, moreover, helps participants to deepen their understanding of their surroundings, from the role of the media to the meaning of their everyday activities. According to the Argentine Proyecto Pereyra, “such an analysis comes organically from within the group, from their search and from the things they need to say in order to improve their living conditions” (Proyecto Pereyra 1). Fernanda Baumhardt (Proplaneta) further links such critical thinking to demands for specific change. “It gives them a voice and it shares their GLOCAL TIMES No. 22/23 (September 2015) 5 voices with other communities and decision-makers. It makes them grow, communicate higher, communicate stronger” (Proplaneta 6). Other organizations note that they see it as part of their work "to generate debate and make citizen concerns visible by using digital media" (Úbiqa 10). Even when the use of digital technologies (mobiles, phone cameras, GPS) is achieving deep levels of penetration in many cultures, spaces for reflection and critical inquiry are still needed in order to reflect about those uses and to fully understand the possibilities they offer us, particularly when it comes to working with others. “It is our aim to promote discussion and social transformation by getting people to interact and think about a number of issues: multiculturalism and interculturalism, identity and violence, participatory democracy, multimedia mapping, etc.” (Úbiqa 10). This need for delving deeper into the issue permeates professional practice and scholarly debate on PV. Initiatives such as the Open University and Insightshare’s “Better Participatory Video Practice” are based precisely on practitioners coming together in order to reflect on different subjects and PV experiences through virtual spaces of interaction. "So far, we have hosted a total of six meetings where PV practitioners from around the world exchange views and learn from different experiences and approaches" (Insightshare 4). This is in line with other assessments which explain that practitioners themselves are now looking for ways to meet and share their work. "Networks are being created in order to share methods and experiences. In Colectivo Circes, we are discussing the possibility of curating an archive with all the audiovisual material provided by people taking part in PV experiences. I think it is a key moment to bring ideas together, share and generate creative synergies between collectives and people working with images using a participatory approach" (Colectivo Circes 9). Such an assessment would imply that we still need to reinforce the “community” element within PV´s community of practice. In his theorization of the concept, Étienne Wenger explains that a community of practice should at least have a domain (defined shared interest), a community (engagement in joint activities and discussion) and a practice (activities which require learning) (see Wenger, 1999). However, it is possible to observe that spaces geared to discussing PV have increased notably, pointing to the consolidation of a better defined community. This can be perceived, for instance, in the conspicuous increase in academic interest on and around PV and what it says about images, media and the way people relate to them. 3 Approaches to PV differ widely among practitioners, from brief and personal insights (“a tool to work with the sensitivity of people and the emotion of the moment”, Inma Parra 14) to more complex assessments of PV as “a creative methodology of work which provides collectivities with the language and tools that enable them to access audiovisual production. It gives them the chance to appropriate new communicative resources and, in specific cases, to effect a change in their everyday reality” (Alberto Bougleux 11). Much more pragmatic and pedagogical views emerge from an examination of funding proposals put forward to different institutions. These documents stress accuracy and intelligibility in an effort to get donors to understand what they are funding. The Youth-Me GLOCAL TIMES No. 22/23 (September 2015) 6 project for the integration of young migrants at risk of social exclusion, for instance, defines PV as “a methodology that consists of accompanying training processes in audiovisual theory and technique with those in alternative communication, which allows different groups to create participative social documentaries”. The EU funded project VISTA. Participatory Video and Social Skills for Training Disadvantaged Adults also explains in its short guide for facilitators and trainers that PV is “a highly effective tool to engage and mobilize marginalized people, and to help them to implement their own forms of sustainable development”. The instrumental nature of PV, as well as the benefits it brings to education and social integration, are therefore emphasized On the other hand, a look into academic definitions of PV also reveals that, even when most of them maintain an appropriately inclusive scope, approaches and priorities still differ nonetheless. Here, it is possible to distinguish at least between definitions 1) privileging the process of audiovisual creation as the source of critical awareness and social change, and 2) foregrounding social intervention as a process leading, among other things, to higher levels of audiovisual literacy amongst participants. In the first group we can mention the work of Johansson, where PV is seen as “a scriptless video production process, directed by a group of grassroots people, moving forward in iterative cycles of shooting-reviewing” (Johannsson, 1999) and also Shaw and Robertson’s definition of PV as a process, wherein people themselves understand the video project methodology and process and control the content of the video productions. Following this, participatory video focuses on empowering people rather than on producing, providing participants with the skills and information which allow them to improve their personal and collective circumstances (Shaw and Robertson, 1997: 26). In the second group, we would like to highlight a less known definition of PV practice coined by the Colombian scholar Julián Andrés Espinosa. In his assessment of two PV experiences in Spain and Portugal, Espinosa defines the practice as a process of social intervention aiming to transform the participant community by promoting reflection about identity. Social transformation is achieved by the community in an act of emancipation linked to the use of the video technology which allows participants to create their own discourse (Espinosa, 2011). A more well-known account of PV is the one given by Shirley A. White in Participatory Video. Images that Transform and Empower (2003). In line with Espinosa’s view, White approaches PV mainly as a tool for individual and social transformation, prioritizing social change above the process of audiovisual production in itself. Considering the primary intent of PV as a process, White mentions “promoting self/other respect, a sense of belonging, a feeling of importance, a claim to an identity” (White, 2003: 65), none of which have anything to do with actually making a film. Her vindication of video as a process has the perverse effect of demeaning the importance of videomaking as such, even if unintentionally. To this day, both the foundational experience in Fogo in the 1960s and the launch of Insightshare as one of the first organizations to use PV systematically in development projects in 2003 are milestones in the consolidation and popularization of specific methods. For Insightshare, PV "is a set of techniques to involve a group or community in shaping and creating their own film. The idea behind this is that making a video is easy and accessible, GLOCAL TIMES No. 22/23 (September 2015) 7 and is a great way of bringing people together to explore issues, voice concerns or simply to be creative and tell stories" (Lunch and Lunch, 2006: 10). Our survey suggests that practitioners increasingly tend to consider the aesthetic dimension of a specific video as an important element in the equation if it is to reach others and embody the various creative processes which bring the group together. As Giorgio Mosangini points out: "If a social-participatory documentary lacks quality as a product and does not reach audiences, the whole PV process remains just a formative experience. In order to become a real exercise in alternative communication, the documentary should aspire to achieve concrete quality standards, reach as many people as possible and mobilize them" (Mosangini 13). Following this, some practitioners indicate that we run the risk of letting clichés regarding collective participation and political communication inform a certain PV language where content and aesthetics are considered less important than the beneficial outcomes that might possibly derive from the experience or getting out a specific political message. In the words of Ian Ingelmo, such an approach obviates that “video is not simply an instrument to spread messages, but rather a tool with which groups can get to know what affects them” (Ingelmo 12). Taking this further, some practitioners state that the ideas within the groups and collectivities taking part in PV experiences can foster creative and innovative approaches to video, for instance by reformulating the idea of a collective voice in different ways. A three-fold approach In any case, the variety of cases available to anyone interested in PV ranges from the more established practices -based on the idea of sharing video equipment and providing basic training as tool with which people can tell their storiesto approaches focused on identity, collective action and alternative communication, through more strategic PV initiatives linked to concrete social changes to which video technology might contribute. In spite of this diversity, our examination of PV through the experience of a number of practitioners and projects reveals at least three major areas of work which structure its practice. The process highlights aspects of PV practice which involve the emergence of a critical conscience, participation, teamwork and community building. A processual understanding of the phenomenon, therefore, tends to foreground the use of audiovisual technology in direct relation to defining autonomous organizational structures, as well as promoting dialogue, selfawareness and collective creativity. The so-called "process vs. product" debate -a dichotomy which has repeated itself in different films and literature addressing PV (see White, 2003: 64-66)- poses the question of whether participants should focus on achieving the highest possible aesthetic standards in their films or whether the process of interaction should take centre stage irrespective of quality. In itself, this debate conjures up an imaginary shared standard for aesthetic quality which, at the same time, places industrial film and media production at the top of the scale, equating it with the notion of quality and measuring participatory films and videos in relation to such a standard. If the video does not conform to industrial production standards, we must then understand that process was privileged over quality. GLOCAL TIMES No. 22/23 (September 2015) 8 What emerges from our assessment of PV is that it is much more productive to establish the ways in which a process approach does indeed have an impact on the final product, rather than simply assuming that focusing on the process implies renouncing quality. This requires that we activate a different set of criteria with which to assess the quality of the product; one that sees the final video as a reflection of the process, rather than as an aesthetic product completely severed from it. Instead of privileging one or the other, it is necessary to conceive each of these concepts in direct relation to one another. The more the video reflects the process which leads to its creation, the better it is in terms of quality. In the context of PV practices, both process and product offer people an attractive opportunity to get together and interact in a controlled environment at different stages. Even when the film is finished, screening it to the wider community evidences the complex ways in which “product” and “process” interact. As practitioners at Cooperativa Cultural Valle Vivo Producciones point out, “for us, the most important thing is to ensure that screenings within participant communities become a place to share and an opportunity to celebrate the creation of the film. People bring their own chairs, they share food and drinks while enjoying the film produced within the community” (Cooperativa Cultural Valle Vivo 2). The communication, technology and media dimensions within PV experiences are mainly approached from a critical perspective and very often directed towards improving the visibility of issues which are of interest to the community but tend to be ignored by the mass media. Aspects such as creating novel forms of narration, improving the community´s understanding of audiovisual language, educating the community about how the media function and setting-up alternative media options are all central elements within PV as a practice from a communicative perspective. Virtually all of the experiences we have had access to contain, in different degrees, a reflection on the use and role played by the media whether as a tool with which information, values and attitudes are disseminated, or as the source of a public image for collectivities, groups and communities. Media bring different subjects into focus, and PV offers people the opportunity to have their say in an increasingly complex media ecosystem still dominated by traditional outlets. Channelling issues concerning the community through PV practice is an important element for practitioners who see it as a way of empowering “those not represented at a wider level by the mass media” (La Lupa 8). Video is used as a powerful means to educate and mobilize communities using entertainment. “Through video, communities get to know, question and communicate themselves” (Centro Caribeño de Comunicación y Cultura 3). The role of a third sector within the industry, constituted by alternative media, free of corporate, state or political affinities and articulated at a local level, is at the very heart of PV practices which seek to counteract discourses informed by the economic and political interests of media corporations. Here, the debate revolves around the concept of giving voice (Couldry, 2010) so that different ideological positions can be represented, even if inconsistently, in the public sphere. “It is about defending communication rights. It requires both collectivizing and distributing access to audiovisual production, as well as providing people with the necessary training in order to create audiovisual products that oppose those circulated by corporate media” (Laura Cabezas 15). GLOCAL TIMES No. 22/23 (September 2015) 9 The results involve the consequences of these experiences both at a personal and collective level. In this respect, many practitioners not only talk about the possibility of acquiring new technical abilities, but also about the video itself as a product which can bring about benefits in terms of visibility, public impact and, ultimately, social change. There is no doubt that tension and general patterns of interaction highlight less tangible aspects associated with PV practices such as conscientization, motivation, partnership, organization and discussion, as well as self-esteem and the development of communicative and creative abilities. However, throughout the experience video itself is regarded as a tool, with a specific instrumental value in a wider process of social change. In any case, the final value of a video resulting from a PV experience depends very much on the context of each particular project, as well as on the resources and the time dedicated to it. Useful as they are, PV projects of a short duration (1-3 days) can hardly be expected to result in comprehensive documentary films, and rather tend to focus on questioning stereotypes about audiovisual discourse and offering resources so that it can be used autonomously in a number of ways. These short experiences can also play an important role when it comes to the promotion of participatory dynamics within a community in relation to wider development or social integration projects where video still represents a new and innovative way of getting people to interact. In the words of Alberto Bougleux when discussing his experience at the Escola Popular de Cinema: "Process and product (normally a short documentary film) are considered on the same level of importance. A process without a final product can no doubt be the source of positive feelings people usually associate with PV experiences, although it will deprive the group of a collective image where they can recognize themselves and share with people outside the group. Keeping the group focused on materialising their efforts in a way that is understandable and easy to share without sacrificing the freedom or spontaneity of those who approach a complex language for the first time is, in my view, a clear key to the success of a PV process" (Alberto Bougleux 11) When better resources are available this usually opens the way to more complex, longer processes not only limited to a PV workshop or to the completion of a short collective film, but also focused on how the film connects with the social demands of the participants and a wider process of social change. Following this, experiences which are articulated at an international level or involve different collectives tend to increasingly require the definition of spaces for exchange and communication where different actors interact together and with global institutions. Examples of successful ways of going global with PV include projects such as the aforementioned VISTA developed in six different European countries, in addition to programs and projects such as the “Noticiero Intercultural” by ACSUR-Las Segovias in Spain and Guatemala, Insightshare’s "Conversations with the Earth Programme" and the initiative "Sumando voces" (Joining Our Voices) by Participate, a global network of social and academic organizations. The natural cycle of a PV project comes to a close through the dissemination of the results and the emergence of a collective voice at different levels. Particularly when participants aim for global audiences rather than a limited public, the circulation of a PV film poses a thorny