Critiquing the politics of participatory video and the dangerous romance of liberalism

Abstract

In this article I argue that participatory video must acknowledge its often technocratic, liberal presumptions, and take a more critical look at the political underpinnings of 'empowerment' and 'voice' . I am interested in how we can use participatory video while resisting the romance of community, seeing beyond short-term individualist approaches towards a longer-term collective project of social justice. A reflexive approach to how power and agency work within participatory video is essential if the method is going to effect change and not merely manage social conflict. While the participatory video process can be discussed from many perspectives, I focus here on a critique of the often-hidden politics of participatory video, its relation to academic research and in turn, to project participants within a progressive social change agenda.

Advocating for a More Relational and Dynamic Model of Participation for Child Researchers

“…Third, children's employment as researchers has been celebrated as a way to overcome some of the moral and ethical hurdles of nonparticipatory research, especially the issue of power hierarchies in the adult-child research relationships (Ergler, 2015;Graham et al, 2013;Matthews, 2001). This is centred on the idea that in co-investigative projects the decision making power on research design and procedures previously solely held by the adult researchers should be shared with child researchers (Cahill, 2004;Walsh, 2016). Adults and children thus, theoretically 'share' power in co-investigative projects gaining 'authentic' knowledge with and by child researchers.…”

“Before Occupy Central, I Wasn’t Concerned”: Examining Participatory Visual Research for Social Change with Hong Kong-based Filipina Youth

“…This is a departure from many participatory video projects, where the filmmaking technology is often owned by the researcher, and removed at the end of a project, which may further the power differentials between researcher and the communities in which they work (Schwab-Cartas, 2012;Walsh, 2014). Mitchell, De Lange and Moletsane (2014) suggest that participatory video projects with cellphones as the main tool might be empowering as the participants are often familiar with the methods of filming and this familiarity has the potential to democratize the research space.…”

Participatory Filmmaking Pedagogies in Schools: Tensions Between Critical Representation and Perpetuating Gendered and Heterosexist Discourses.

“…More generally, as Low, Brushwood Rose, Salvio and Palacios (2012, p. 50) suggest, when participatory media practices are adopted to address social justice issues, scholars often examine them using "celebratory and uncritical" narratives, which construct participatory video as a socio-political intervention strategy that is unquestionably empowering for marginalized groups. For the scholars above, and others like Walsh (2012Walsh ( , 2016, these dominant narratives tend to forestall critical analysis of participatory video approaches, projects, and products, and reduce the likelihood that practitioners and researchers will attend to how oppressive power relations operate on and through even the most self-reflexive participatory media project. Consequently, there is still a dearth of research that critically analyses the visual representations produced in these types of projects and the discursive patterns that organize youth participatory films (Kindon, 2003;Milne, Mitchell & de Lange, 2012).…”