four note friday 1.20 | Is this a photovoice project?

I've often sat with folks and helped them discern whether their current or proposed research projects are actually photovoice projects. Just because a project includes photographs or photography does not make it a photovoice project.

As I have written about before, many conflate photo elicitation and photovoice. Yet the differences are many. Photovoice is a complete research methodology, which resides under the umbrella of critical participatory action research. In its original conception, it has three theoretical underpinnings and three concomitant aims. And photo elicitation, as a method, has its own unique history within the qualitative research literature. But how, exactly, can we tell the difference? And what are the key elements of a photovoice project?

In this post, I will flesh out four more questions to ask when you think to yourself: Is this a photovoice project?

It is not always easy to arrive at a clear answer, but hopefully these additional questions will get you farther down the path.

🟣 Is the project a form of critical participatory action research (CPAR)?

Most photovoice projects can be categorized as some form of critical participatory action research. Back in August of this year, I wrote the following in a post:

At present, my thinking about and uses of photovoice frame it as a form of critical participatory action research (CPAR). In their book Essentials of Critical Participatory Action Research (American Psychological Association, 2021), Michelle Fine and María Elena Torre broke CPAR down in the following ways:

CRITICAL. "The C stands for critical . . . our projects are rooted in a range of social theories focused on questions of power, structural and intimate violence, and inequities and . . . our projects are shaped by a collective anchored by those most impacted by injustice" (p. 6).
PARTICIPATORY. "[T]he P in CPAR stands for rich and deep participation by a collective of researchers, including and centered on those most impacted by the issue being studied" (p. 6).
ACTION. "The A signals that CPAR projects link research with action through a range of forms: scholarship, social policy, teaching, legal reform, organizing, and sometimes theatre, spoken word, graphic arts, comics, digital stories, music, and more" (p. 7).
RESEARCH. "The R [stands for research and] represents a commitment to systematic inquiry" (p. 7).

Each of these words—critical, participatory, action, and research—can come together to form a photovoice rubric of sorts. Here are even more questions based on each of those words that you might interrogate in understanding whether your project is, in fact, photovoice:

Critical. How does the project raise questions about power? How much power do participants possess? In what ways is the project concerned about (in)equity and (in)justice?

Participatory. Who generated the idea for the study? What about its component parts? Who is taking photographs? Who is providing narration of/to those photographs? How involved are the participants in the overall project?

Action. What are the aims, outcomes, intentions, and or goals of the project? What would you like to happen as/after the project unfolds and comes to fruition? Are you trying to instigate some kind of change?

Research. Does the project involve systematic inquiry? What does the systematic inquiry look like?

🟣 Where is the power?

Let's take a deeper look at the word critical from above. Let us ask some questions about power. Photovoice projects typically center, honor, and amplify the experiences of marginalized persons and communities—those without a lot of power. Photovoice participants do not typically possess a lot of power to directly make the kinds of societal or policy change necessary to address and redress matters of (in)equity and (in)justice driving the project.

The photovoice process is one that generates power and agency among the persons involved in the way a snowball gains momentum as it rolls down the hill or is pushed around in the backyard. The process builds critical consciousness, gathers and brings people together around a shared project, and positions policy makers as potential partners and a primary audience for the work.

Photovoice participants are often the main drivers of the project's direction—or at least are co-drivers with project facilitators. While photovoice participants may not have a lot of power in the broader socio-cultural context of the study, they have power within the context of the project—or at least they should. Power possessed by project facilitators should be used in service of advancing the work as seen fit by the participants. It should also be used to attract a broad audience for the work—an audience who has the power to affect social and policy change.

🟣 Are the theoretical underpinnings of photovoice visible within the project?

The theoretical underpinnings of photovoice, which have been tinkered with over time, historically include critical consciousness education, feminisms, and participatory documentary photography. Here are some questions to consider in light of these underpinnings:

Are participants provided with opportunities to deepen critical consciousness, both individually and as a group? Why, or why not? If yes, what do those opportunities look like?

Are participants' viewpoints, stances, voices, images, experiences, and personhoods affirmed, valued, shared, and highlighted during the project? Why, or why not? If yes, what does that look like?

Who has taken the photographs or otherwise created the images used during photo/image elicitation interviews or focus groups?

🟣 Who is the audience for the work?

While there is nothing wrong with deploying photovoice projects to create significant and original contributions to knowledge, that should not be the only outcome. The primary audience for the work should be those who can do something about it.

One of the primary aims of photovoice is to reach policy makers with the results/findings/outcomes of the project so change can be initiated. Most inequities and injustices must be counteracted with policy change. As such, policy makers should be the main audience for exhibitions and other means of information dissemination that stem from the project.

Qualitative research methodologies and methods can be tricky to grasp because there are many, they often overlap and co-inform, and they are constantly evolving as contexts, knowledge, and technologies change. Doing your level best to decide what you are naming your study and how that methodological naming is clear, congruent, and visible throughout the project is important. It lends credibility and signals quality. I am hopeful that the above four notes will help you in discerning whether your project is, indeed, photovoice.

🥹 Thanks for spending a moment with me this Friday.
💌 If you’re new here, welcome! I hope this space becomes one you look forward to each week.

📬 Have a question you want me to answer in a future issue? Reach me at photovoicefieldnotes@gmail.com. I'd love to hear from you.

Thanks for being here.

Warmly,
Mandy
photovoice field notes
photovoicefieldnotes.com