The Potential and Limitations of Participatory Video as a Tool to Foster Social Cohesion in Development and Humanitarian Contexts

(1)

The Potential and Limitations of Participatory Video as

a Tool to Foster Social Cohesion in Development and

Humanitarian Contexts

This thesis is submitted for obtaining the Joint Master’s Degree in International Humanitarian Action (NOHA+). By submitting the thesis, the author certifies that the text is from his own hand, does not include the work of someone else unless clearly indicated, and that the thesis has been produced in accordance with proper academic practices.

AMANDA MARTINEZ NERO S2823977

March 2019

(2)

1 Introduction

According to OCHA, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, over 130 million people will need humanitarian assistance worldwide in 2019. The main factors triggering the need of humanitarian support are: conflict, the number of forcibly displaced people rose from 59.5 million in 2014 to 68.5 million in 2017; cost of natural disasters, affecting 350 million people in average per year; rising food insecurity, between 2015 and 2017, the number of people facing crisis-level food insecurity or worse has increased from 80 million to 124 million people (OCHA, 2019). The swollen numbers impose a challenge to the humanitarian and development sector, not only to deliver the necessary aid, but also to actively engage communities on this process. To create or re-built social-cohesion within and between affected communities and between providers and recipients, empowering and engaging communities at the same time, can be an important step to strengthen the sustainability of interventions and to foster the independence of the affected communities from humanitarian and development actors.

The importance of engaging and empowering affected communities in the process of solving and preventing the causes of humanitarian and development issues is addressed on the Agenda for Humanity1_{where five core responsibilities were developed during the World Humanitarian} Summit 2016. The commitments made are a point of departure representing a collective plea to foster improvement on the outcomes for people affected by crises and living in fragile situation. For instance, one of the core responsibilities, commitment number 5 “Political leadership to prevent and end conflicts” says to “be inclusive in decision making”, stressing the importance of the engagement of people and civil society in political and governance processes allowing “sustained conflict and resolution prevention.” (Agenda for Humanity, 2016) Social cohesion in an relevant element sustained conflict and resolution prevention, as it will be discussed later in this paper, and Participatory Video is possibly a tool which could foster social cohesion.

1_{The Agenda for Humanity sets out five major areas for action and change, the 5 Core Responsibilities, that are} needed to address and reduce humanitarian need, risk and vulnerability, and 24 key transformations that will help achieve them.

(3)

2 Participatory Video are technics which enable groups of people and communities, which don’t necessarily have any knowledge on filmmaking, in creating their own film. The objectives of creating those films can vary. (Buchy, Lunch and Lun, 2008) There are different approaches and methodologies out there, however, there are some basic common ground. Participatory Video is based on team work, promoting individual growth and group development.

The objective of this study is to analyze the potential and limitations of the use of Participatory Video as a tool to promote social cohesion in the humanitarian and development sector. Therefore, the main question of this body of work is “Can participatory video be used as a tool to foster social cohesion in the humanitarian and development context?”. In addition to general literature related to the subject, this paper is based on six study cases done between 2017 and 2018 in five different countries facing development and/or humanitarian challenges and in one developed country, which hosts migrants and refugees. The mentioned countries are Afghanistan, Brazil, Jordan, Madagascar, South Sudan and Switzerland. The research method used was mainly observation during the workshops, which lasted four to five days in average, and analyses of quantitative and qualitative data from surveys done with participants of the workshops. The findings are positive, indicating that Participatory Video has indeed the potential to foster social-cohesion in the humanitarian and development sector, taking into account specific restraints such as the number of participants per workshop, which to obtain good results is limited, local cultural and political contexts and security. Furthermore, based on the research done it is possible to conclude that the use of such methodology has better results if applied as part of a programme alongside with other activities reinforcing social cohesion, than if done as a single isolated workshop or project. Nevertheless, the lack of assessments in a later stage, sometime after the workshops took place, is a limitation which do not allow to formulate a substantial conclusion regarding the sustainability of the results obtained at first, assessed right after the workshops. Furthermore, recommendations to use this methodology in the humanitarian and development context were developed taking into account the different challenges faced throughout the six workshops.

(4)

3

In resume, Participatory Video are technics which enable groups of people and communities, which don’t necessarily have any knowledge on filmmaking, in creating their own film. The objectives of creating those films can vary. (Buchy, Lunch and Lun, 2008) The Participatory Video roots are linked to a project done in Fogo Island, a little fishing village in Newfoundland, Canada. In the 60s, its residents were facing strong economic hardships; therefore, the government was advocating to relocate the community to the mainland as a solution. In 1967, the scholar Don Snowden and filmmaker Colin Low started a project based on the idea of using media to foster a people-centered development. In the eyes of Snowden, poverty meant not only economic deprivation, but also a lack of information and the inability to communicate, which led to the lack of organization. He thought that through a participatory approach, using filmmaking as a tool, communication could be improved. He went to the island with Low, the Director of the National Film Board of Canada, to propose a film project to a committee of the island residents (Yang, 2016). Once trust was established, the community started to speak freely about issues they have faced in creating an effective “televisual public space” addressing the communities social and political concerns. The produced films would then be screened to stakeholders in the government. Their responses would be shared back with the community. The constant process of filming and screening created a consistent communication channel amongst the residents themselves and between the residents and distant decision-makers, namely governments and financial institutions (White and Mohabir, 2004).

This innovative method allowed the voices of the community to be heard by the relevant stakeholders, created a loop in the communication when screening the films to the government and bringing back to the community the recorded answers, and strengthened the community internal communication focusing in finding solutions other than relocation. This process has shortened the distanced between government and community, enhancing the residents’ engagement in decision making. It has provided a closer insight into the life and concerns of the people from the island creating space for the government to reflect and respond meaningfully to

(6)

5 the presented issues. The filmmaking process triggered a wider mobilization efforts to relocation leading to the abortion of the resettlement plans. (Plush, 2016) With the innovative Fogo Method’s, the traditional filmmaking roles were inversed, ‘object audience’ became ‘subject participants’ in the message. It nurtured a shift in the power to create a narrative to deliver a message, the power was transferred from filmmakers to the community itself (M. Lewis, 1977). Don Snowden, one of the funders of the project provided the following reflection:

“Today few people on Fogo speak often about the filming, yet many believe their lives were changed enormously by it. This can never be accurately measured. But it is certain that the fishermen formed an island-wide producer's cooperative which handled and processed large catches, enabling them to keep the profits on their island. Unemployment of able-bodied men disappeared, and government directed their efforts to helping people stay… Films did not do these things: people did them. There is little doubt, however, that film created an awareness and self-confidence that was needed for people- advocated development to occur”

In relation to communication studies, the Fogo Island Project suggests that Participatory Video is useful in fostering participatory communication, which refers to a mode of communication where the exchange of information takes precedence over persuasion and bottom-up decision-making supersedes top-down knowledge dissemination (Servaes 1996; White 2003b).

Despite the fact that the Fogo Island project have sparked the concept of the use of filmmaking in a participatory way and that it has proven its potential in fostering participatory communication,

(White and Mohabir, 2004), traditional video practices still dominated the international development sector in the following decades. Meaning that filmmaking was primarily used as a tool to deliver a message without the element of a two-way communication channel where the community has an active voice and power in deciding what content and how it will be put together and shared (Braden, 1998). It was in the 80s that aid organizations started to get more involved in exploring the potential of filmmaking in participatory approaches. At that time, the expense,

(7)

6 resources and skills required to use filmmaking as a tool to promote social process was one of the challenges to explore and develop the technic. Still, it was back then that the Village Video Network PV was created, a network of Participatory Video practitioners. The Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) was part of the Network and have set up a community video hub where rural women have produced over 400 films touching upon topics from education to health (Plush, 2016). Another rare example of the use of video for development back then was the project rolled out by Oxfam UK, in Vietnam, where underrepresented citizens used filmmaking to raise up their voices.

Notwithstanding the challenges, including technological and financial, the interest in the new and innovative methodology kept growing and from the late 90s and early 2010s, manuals and books on how to use PV started to be published (ibid). A new communication tool started then to be consolidated and explored within the development and humanitarian world and the technological development not only made the new methodology more accessible, but it also impacted and impacts social dynamics.

(8)

7

2.New Technology and its Influence in Social Dynamics

Currently, technology has a new role as it becomes more accessible. Almost everyone can produce content, take photos and create videos. It doesn't mean that everyone has the same capacity, possibilities and timing. The mass media is still the main communication channel promoting and creating information which is the centre of attention. With the intense and overwhelming influx of information there is a dispute to impose different discourses in a scenario where it becomes more and more difficult to find out the origin, the quality and the aim of the information (Montero and Moreno Domínguez, 2014). Humanitarians nowadays are facing those new complexities of the digital communication where there is a mix of asymmetrical flow of information and data. While in some crises voices of the affected communities, especially the most vulnerable, are stifled, in many situations digital technology is enabling voices to come out of the limited sphere of the community. (CDAC, 2018)

These reflexions lead to questioning this society of information: is it a society of knowledge which generates equal opportunities, respect cultural diversity and promotes actively the capacity of different communities and regions to build a society less unfair and unequal?

Nowadays, people perceive the world through screens. Screens are everywhere and are the mirrors and windows of the society. Most of what we know about the world is knowledge we acquired through screens and not necessarily through real personal experience. We live in societies which we translate in images and, in one way or the other, we need to consume images to feed our knowledge. With the improvement of technology, we are not anymore only observers of those “windows” to the world, but we can also be creators. Yet, this super audio-visual production also gives space to a culture spectacle which banalises complexes dimensions of our existence. Furthermore, the multiplication of images numbs us, and it makes us less sensible to its stimulus (Montero and Moreno Domínguez, 2014). This reflection leads to the question, how to find a good equilibrium and use that technology in a constructive way?

Participatory Video could be an example of using audio-visual technology in a more constructive way. The appropriation of the new technology for the local development could extend the process

(9)

8 of technological alphabetization which foster a critical sense and allow the comprehension of the mechanisms of production of the audio-visual speech, fundamental condition which allows, later on, the real process of appropriation. This appropriation can only gain its dimension of transformation when it is shared with others and if it is used collectively, therefore, thinking about forms and formulas of social transformation necessarily involves building a collective imaginary, representations that question the inequalities of our societies, and that imply to the citizenry the generation production and diffusion of new social and audio-visual imaginaries (Montero and Moreno Domínguez, 2014)

The emancipation of the image also gives space to questions such as: what is necessary to have the audio-visual as a trigger of social changes? What are the necessary ingredients? What does it mean to conceive the audio-visual as the engine of social changes? How the actual process of creation of content can impact a group/community? How can a community actively engage on the production of content?

Those questions can lead to a broad spectrum of answers. Nevertheless, here we will focus on the Participatory Video perspective. Shaw & Robertson (1997) defend that there are eight major elements in Participatory Video which stands for its potential as a development tool:

1. Participation: it implies the idea of active engagement. To do, to go, to lead instead of to observe, to receive, to be led. Often, affected communities have little control of their own lives as it ends up framed by outside social and economic circumstances. This is not an easy task as their powerlessness can lead to apathy and inertia. It is widely known that for a sustainable recovery and development communities should have an active role and not only be passive recipients. The advantage of video regarding participation is that it is a form of creative expression intellectually accessible to all, regardless of literacy or academic achievements. The Participatory Video practice hands over the control of the process to the group systematically, providing structure without imposing content.

2. Individual development: the group process of Participatory Video stimulates personal growth. Throughout the exercises and group dynamics, all the participants have the opportunity to speak in front of the camera, to talk about themselves or/end their ideas and experiences. Everyone has

(10)

9 something to say. This is a process of self-definition where the video function as a mirror which can trigger reflection and a sense of self, recognizing oneself as an individual. This recognition of self-instigates participants to develop thoughts and form opinions. Apart of the technical, creative and social skills acquired with the video production, the chance to overcome the challenges of speaking in front of a camera expressing yourself contributes to confidence building. Most participants doubt that they will be able to produce a video themselves in few days, and most of them feel very proud at the end of the workshop when they watch their own film made with their own hands, eyes and minds.

3. Communication: often in the humanitarian/development context communication is one-way process, where information goes only one direction. However, as mentioned before, in this sector a two-way process communication is fundamental to create and implement effective, efficient and sustainable interventions. It is through dialogue that people make sense of the world around them exchanging, feelings, ideas, information and experiences. Considering and discovering together issues, concerns and ideas can be a challenging process. Nevertheless, it is much richer and empowering than being told what to think or do. The presence of video recording equipment functions as a channel creating a reason to talk about issues. Through the exercises, participants are encouraged to interact with each other very directly, in a way they wouldn’t in a regular daily routine, by asking questions and creating statements. The structured exercises allowing everyone to ask and talk ensures that all participants have an impute and an active role. As an audio-visual medium, illiterate people are not excluded. As already explored on Fogo’s Island story, videos can create a channel of communication not only on a horizontal form between communities, but also vertically, when stakeholders and decision makers are reached facilitating flow of information, debate and consultation.

4. Community Building: one of the principal aims of the process of Participatory Video work is to promote co-operation, understanding, trust and group cohesion. During the activities, participants talk, listen an exchange exploring shared experiences feeling and ideas strengthening the feeling of belonging. It also allows to explore the differences in a safe and creative environment building a common ground of understanding, tolerance, respect and empathy. Furthermore, team work and cooperation are necessary to create a video. It involves joint planning and decision making.

(11)

10 5. Critical awareness and consciousness raising: exploring together as a group the subjects to talk about on their film and how to approach it, from what perspective, encourage participants to examine the world around them, increasing their perception and critical analyses of their position within it. Discussing together normally bring different perspectives into the scene broadening their perception of the reality surrounding them and also the problems. Identifying the issues together is often the first step to make changes.

6. Self-advocacy and representation: most vulnerable communities don’t have the access to means that can voice their needs, concerns, issues and ideas to actually tackle those issues. Film can develop self-advocacy as participants have the opportunity to speak up for themselves and with the right planning and networking the film can reach stakeholders and a wider audience in general. Film making can promote the creation and structuring of ideas when used as an organised form of investigation. Participatory Video provides not only a process, but also means to the participants to share their points of view to a chosen audience.

7. Capacity development and self-reliance: in certain circumstances, affected communities have the feeling of hopelessness, they feel alone and unempowered. Once they start to speak out and to share, they realise that they are not alone and not the only ones facing those challenges and fears. Video create this opportunity to speak out. An important goal of Participatory Video is to develop the self-determination of participants. Working with video creates opportunities for problem solving on a creative, social and organizational level. The exercises used during the activity cultivate decision making and planning skills and can develop the participants the capacity to initiate, diagnose, contemplate, evaluate and, eventually, take action.

8. Empowerment: it implies that people and communities take the lead and are responsible and accountable for their own lives and destinies, that they have actually the power and capacity of self-determination and autonomy to make changes and transform their situation. By stimulating the seven responses mentioned above through the process of Participatory Video, empowerment is stimulated. (Shaw and Robertson, 1997)

Based on the eight elements mentioned above, the process of creating content can trigger the search to strengthen the social space, recognizing the importance of the subjective dimension and

(12)

11 identities in emancipatory processes. It can also function as an attempt to build public sphere, spaces for dialogue and debate building collectives with people who learn to think and see themselves as a group through the process of creation of a common discourse. In these cases, the process is much more important than the final product itself. Those are horizontal exercises which detach themselves from the hierarchy of the professionalization of the cinema. The methodology of Participatory Video work on the bases of a horizontal structure where decisions are taken through consensus (Montero and Moreno Domínguez, 2014). Cesare Zavattini, Italian screenwriter, said, "we can say that the Participatory Video aims to look at the reality through the coexistence”. The very origin of the term communication not coincidentally is shared with the one of community: put in common.

Academics have started to acknowledge the limitations of unidirectional methodologies based on knowledge transfer. Currently, scholars and professionals from the humanitarian and development sector are looking more into approaches which gives voice to those at the grassroots, changing this perspective where communities are merely passive recipients of information. (Baú, 2014)

The word "empower" is associated to the objectives of the Participatory Video. The concept itself makes references to the change in the structures of power which allow to give voice and capacity of action to people or collectives which did not have it before. Applied to the practice of Participatory Video, the idea of empowerment combines the sense of concretization with the idea of action and intervention. It is important to keep in mind that to be empowered means to create a certain level of political conscientization (Montero and Moreno Domínguez, 2014). To empower means to enhance the freedom of an individual or community through increasing their knowledge about issues, about choices and alternatives; increasing their capacity to identify opportunities, to recognise and learn how to use the different tools available. When knowledge of problems, strengths and alternatives is stimulated, it triggers the process of empowerment which is not immediate, and it is not static, it is a continuous evolving, adapting and discovering process without a delimited end. However, empowerment can also result in aversive consequences. For instance, an empowered participant from one of the Participatory Video activities speaking out in front of a camera can expose the individual to derogatory or rude comments by other groups or

(13)

12 by their own community in case his/her ideas go against the common believes accepted by that society. There are other paradoxes related to empowerment. When an individual is part of a group, he/she might have less control and freedom over decisions made. It means that individuals would have to give up some control in order to achieve more as a group. When individuals within a group are empowered, the capacity and efficiency of the community to make common decisions might be reduced as the newly empowered people increase their capacity and willingness to speak out, they are less vulnerable to be conducted or manipulated by others. Therefore, the increased variety of opinions may result in conflict and reduced efficiency in making decisions and taking subsequent action. As power now goes beyond a previously small network of influential actors, the process to reach a consensus might be more intense and challenging. Community empowerment requires a balance between extending opportunities to have a voice and, at the same time, to foster efficiency in community functioning. Ideally, the design and use of empowerment activities and technologies in the humanitarian and development sector should foster the dignity and respect that can come with self-determination. (Fawcett et al., 1983), T.Seekins, P.Whang et al., 1983). The Participatory Video method is a popular alternative and collective practice which aims empowerment through process of social appropriation of the audio-visual technologies where communities are the active creators of a message or story. (Montero and Moreno Domínguez, 2014)

(14)

13

3.How does Participatory Video Work?

Once understanding that Participatory Video is a social and community-based tool for individual and group development revolving around the needs of participants, it is crucial to recognize that using video equipment is not enough. There are methodologies and techniques which have to be employed in the appropriated way to create a real and a valuable desired impact. Video itself is only a tool, not a process. Through a task orientated approach, participants should actively engage in experimental learning triggering some of their latent abilities. The most important outcome is the positive change on participants sparked by the process which empowers them developing their confidence and self-esteem. In a humanitarian or development context the majority of the affected community is vulnerable and the circumstances affecting many of them leads to having little self-believe and often little control over decisions that affect their lives. With the methodology of Participatory Video, the roles change, and the community actively do and create, rather than consume information (Shaw and Robertson, 1997).

There are different approaches and methodologies out there when we talk about Participatory Video. However, there are some basic common ground. Participatory Video is based on team work, fostering individual growth and group development. An initial contact should be made with the potential participants by someone who has already some connection with the community. People invited to be part of the workshop should be well informed about the intention and structure of the activity. It is important that facilitators do some research about the local context before initiating any communication or activity (Buchy, Lunch and Lun, 2008). It is essential to identify possible cultural barriers beforehand. In some countries, for instance, it might be problematic to have men and women working together in the same group, as we will be able to observe in our case study in Afghanistan in chapter 9.6. Shaw and Roberson also explain the relevance of creating a structure, as without it the group will be exited at the first moment when seeing themselves on a camera, but soon will become bored and disillusioned as without a structure the activity risk to become chaotic and meaningless. Motivation can quickly disappear when there is no sense of achievement. They go further and explain that unstructured work can lead to a disempowering experience. To simply handle cameras to participants does not give them

(15)

14 real control of their work. It is crucial that they are provided with some skills and some knowledge of different options to make a film to have a meaningful experience. When creating a framework to support the activity, facilitators also ensure that all participants will have equal opportunities to manipulate a camera, to speak in front of it, to share their ideas, to listen and to take part in the decision-making process. Organization doesn’t eliminate responsibility nor stop the development of ideas, it leads the group through the process giving them gradually more control and confidence over their work. Each exercise stretches them further and challenges are imposed gradually helping them to develop a whole set of new skills in a very short period enabling the group to produce something they are proud of, generating a feeling of accomplishment. (Shaw and Robertson, 1997).

The attitude of the facilitators plays an important role. As Biddle and Biddle explain, the way the facilitators perceive the participants is reflected into the way they will interact with them. “Worker’s believes in people has to be genuinely felt, reflecting their underlying philosophy, and compare their belief other rapport needed for a successful therapeutic relationship.” The attitude of the facilitators towards the community contributes to their development or stagnation. A facilitator should see in each individual a latent potential, “unique valuable undeveloped abilities” and the capacity to evolve as an individual and as a group through the process. Facilitators should learn as much as possible about a culture and about the group they are working with; however, they must be attentive to the unconscious bias which might be created based on previous research done on that community and shouldn’t judge individuals based on stereotypes. (Biddle, William W.; Biddle, 1965).

Based on the experience of their face-to-face work, Shaw and Robertson suggest some ground rules to be used to provide a solid and effective basis and allow all the potential of the Participatory Video activity:

- Participants should always operate the equipment themselves: if the facilitator is the one manipulating the equipment and filming the group, the process is not participative. Group members should use the equipment from the very beginning as one of the aims of the activity is to handle over skills to them so they are in control of what and how they will

(16)

15 communicate. It is not recommended to give a lecture on how to use the camera before the group handles it. The proposed activities should give a chance to every member to manipulate and discover the equipment.

- Everyone attending must appear in the video: participants and facilitators must be willing to be filmed and to be shown on the screen. Otherwise it can create an imbalance on the dynamic of the group. It is important that workshop leaders and other participating staff or volunteers give the example and to show that they are all equal. Surely, many people feel embarrassed to be in front of a camera and to watch themselves on a screen. That is why it is important that everyone participating should go through it, as it also strengthens the bounding within the group. However, there were circumstances in some of the cases studies used on this paper in which participants were not willing to appear on the camera for cultural reasons or because of the risk of suffering retaliation or discrimination from family and society in case they had their identity revealed on the film.

- Participants take turns at the different roles: some practitioners defend the idea that participants should stick to certain roles as this way they will become more proficient at it. However, when roles are rotated (in front and behind the camera) all participants have the opportunity to learn and experiment different skills. Furthermore, there are individuals who are more dominating than others, this means that if rotation is not stimulated, the most reserved group member might not have the chance to try one of the roles. In almost all study cases of this paper, participants rotated and experimented the different roles throughout the first exercises. However, in some situations, participants stick to specific roles during the final exercises when groups are already recording their films. I most cases that decision was taken based in consensus of the group. Nevertheless, as Shaw and Robertson defended, we observed that the most dominant characters would be the ones manipulating the camera or speaking in front of it. The more reserved ones would tend to be the ones taking care of other less central roles, such as the audio or light. Therefore, swapping systematically and making sure that everyone has his/her turn can create a

(17)

co-16 operative instead of a competitive environment. Shaw and Robertson describe a good example where in one of the trainings there was a boy who would repletely try to push others off the equipment. Once he understood that there was an order to handle the camera and a reason to have it, in which he would not use the camera again until everyone has had their turns, he became a positive asset to the group. He not only remembered who had already used the camera but also the order. He has even encouraged the less confident members to participate.

- Play back all the recorded material entirely: some practitioners might be tempted to fast-forward the material from the exercises instead of screening it in its full to the group as sometimes the group end up recording a lot of material during the exercises. However, it is important that participants watch themselves and everything they have done on the previous exercises. If the practitioner fast-forwards their first videos, it can give the wrong message to the group, that their work is not worth watching. The individual that appeared on that part can feel left aside and the other operating the equipment on that scene can feel that their work was not adequate. Their confidence can be harmed.

- Never record people without their agreement: if the group decides to record or interview people who are not part of the group, it is crucial that they ask permission of those people beforehand and explain what the activity is about and for what and in which context the video will be used. This ground rule is essential for an ethical video work. Facilitators have to be aware that we can’t empower a group in a way that participants would abuse of their position.

- Material recorded during the training is confidential: before the group reach a final product (film) which is meant to be shown to an external audience once the final edits are reviewed and approved by all team members, the group produces a large number of other videos during the exercises. Those videos should be kept confidential as they are part of a development process. For the group members to participate fully, they should be

(18)

17 comfortable and assured that the recorded material will not be shared without their permission.

Participatory Video is used worldwide and has been applied in different contexts and situations, from advocacy and enabling greater participation in development projects, to providing a therapeutic and communicative environment for the disempowered or mentally ill. The used methods are not a static formula. They differ from practitioner to practitioner, some choose to keep the process more open and flexible, others prefer to work on a more controlled space and guide more the subjects, or even to wield the camera themselves. Some more traditional practitioners are very strict regarding the manipulation of the equipment as they believe that the group members are the ones who should be manipulating the video equipment without any interference from the facilitators apart from general guidance. The local context and participants characteristics also play a role on the format and choices on how to run the training. The most important element is that the activity involves the authorship of the group itself and that it be carried out in a truly participative and democratic way. This flexibility and adaptability of the methodology enables Participatory Video to be applied to many different situations (Buchy, Lunch and Lun, 2008).

Despite the different existing Participatory Video methodologies, in the case studies explored in this paper, we have used a semi-structured approach where a plan is designed for each group and context. This structure has the flexibility to be adjusted along the workshop accordingly to the responses of the group. We have done six Participatory Video workshops in different countries which will be used as the case studies on this thesis. Its detailed descriptions, analyses and conclusions will be described on chapter 9. The following paragraphs will describe in more detail the main structure designed for the six Participatory Video workshops. Further, information regarding the context in which the six Participatory Videos were done will be clarified and the global project which the activities are part of will be explained.

The pre-selected group of participants varies from 10 to 16 people members of affected communities in development/humanitarian context. All participants are informed that the

(19)

18 Participatory Video involves working with cameras and recording videos before committing. This is an important step as in several circumstances and for different reasons people might not feel comfortable to work with cameras and it can affect negatively the group dynamics, even if not everyone actually appears in the final film produced by the group. The workshops, which last from four to five days, started with icebreakers and teambuilding activities. Facilitators used in most of the cases the “human web” game where participants throw to each other a knitting yarn always keeping one part of the line in theirs hands forming a giant spiderweb. Each time they throw the knitting yarn to a colleague they have to say something they like. The things that usually came up were: friends, dancing, family, beach, etc. The basic intention with this specific game is to bring them into the realization that despite their differences, all of them have things in common. Once everyone is holding one bit of the line a huge web is formed and they realize that if one person drops their piece of the line, the whole web collapses, showing the importance of each participant in a team work.

Right after, some images and videos of Participatory Video workshops in other countries were presented to participants to give them an idea of what Participatory Video actually is and to encourage them as when they see normal and simple people handling filming equipment, it demystify that idea that only professionals can create a movie and it counters the thought "I am not capable to do that". The video equipment is then disposed in the middle of the circle - most discussions and exercises take place with the group sitting in a circle as it creates a more dynamic structure with equanimity. Participants are stimulated then to explore and discover the equipment on their own. They open the bags and handle the cameras, microphones, headphones and cables and discover it in a natural way. Games and exercises are then proposed by the facilitators and participants start to learn how to use video equipment through practicing it. The facilitators interfere only when it is needed in order to stimulate participants to discover the equipment by themselves. However, in most of the cases, participants discover (some of them might already have some knowledge) the basics on how to manipulate the equipment themselves. Then participants teach each other and slowly the facilitator steps back and let that exploration and discovery spread to the rest of the group in an organic way, having always the participants helping and teaching each other. Through this horizontal learning technic, they have to interact, everyone

(20)

19 become a teacher and a student at the same time and to be able to move forward, they have to work as a team.

Once the group is confident enough in using the equipment, different games and technics are used to help them identify the issue or subject they will focus on to create their film. They are divided in groups and invited to share ideas and stories through proposed exercises. Consensus is an important aspect of this part of the activity where they share experiences and ideas and select together what to tell. The next step is to decide how they will share the selected stories. In several of the trainings voting was used as a tool to reach a final decision. Once a plan is agreed upon, they divide the roles and start filming.

The first footage collected is then whatched by the group. The main point of this part of the exercise is to learn through mistakes. They observe what they have produced and discuss together what has and what hasn’t worked out and how to improve. They are encourage to observe mainly, but not limited to, framing, light, camera movement and stability, audio, background and audio noise, posture in front of the camera, the way microphone is held, voice tone and speaker confidence in fronto of the camera, etc. Facilitators give space to them to recognise the mistakes guiding them with questions and giving tips and recommendations on how to improve. Critical thinking and analisis is stimulated. Another round of filming then starts with a more consolidated knowlede.

Once all the necessary material is collected, the editing is the also made by the group with the support and guidance of the facilitator. They decide what scenes stay, what scenes should be left out, the sequence, the music, eventual effects. In most of the trainings, it was challenging to the participants to cut what was not essencial. The final step is the screening of the film to the local community itself. Participants are encouraged to invite friends and family.

The description above of the process is based on the Participatory Video activities done in Jordan, South Sudan, Switzerland, in 2017, and in Brazil, Madagascar and Afghanistan, in 2018. This is a general description of the main structured used in all the six trainings and it is meant to give to the reader a more consistent understanding of the dinamics and structure of a Participatory Video activity. A more detailed description and analisis of each training will be done in the coming

(21)

20 charpters. As mentioned above, there are other variations and different approachs within Participatory Video methodology. However, we will not get in further details as the objective of this paper is to explore the possibible use of Participatory Video as a Social Cohesion tool in the humanitarin and development context. To that end, it is crutial to understand what a humanitarian context is. To build a consistent analisys, the concept of humanitarian context will be explored in the next section.

(22)

21

4.What Humanitarian Action is: the importance of and how to communicate with affected communities in this context

Different authors and organisations have distinctive definitions of humanitarian action. Nevertheless, the majority of the humanitarian community has a similar understanding of the aims of humanitarian action. Humanitarian Action is the response to humanitarian crises. As World Vision International describes, a humanitarian crise can be generated by man-made disasters, including conflict, environmental degradation, pollution and industrial accidents or natural disasters, such as earthquakes, storms, volcanos, floods, droughts, epidemics, amongst others. The humanitarian crises occurs when the damages caused by those events, or series of events, overwhelms a community’s capacity to cope. The combination of man-made and natural disasters is called ‘complex humanitarian emergency’. (World Vision)

The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, a concensus signed by the Council, European Parliament and European Commission in 2007 which outlines the policy framework for the EU when acting in response to humanitarian crises, explains that the aim of humanitarian aid is “ to provide a needs-based emergency response aimed at preserving life, preventing and alleviating human suffering and maintaining human dignity wherever the need arises if governments and local actors are overwhelmed, unable or unwilling to act.” (EUPRHA, 2013)

As humanitarian action normally takes places in environments with political and militar complexities, there are four pilars guiding the nature of humanitarian intervention in order to maximise and guarantee its effectiveness and distinguish it from the objectives and activities of other actors, such as militaries and political stakeholders (ECHO, 2017). Those pilars grounded in International Humanitarian Law2_{are know as the Humanitarian Principles and can be defined as}

the following:

2_{International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is a set of rules that seek to limit the effects of armed conflict. It spells out} the responsibilities of states and non-state armed groups during an armed conflict. This set of rules defines, among others, the right to receive humanitarian assistance, protection of civilians, including medical and humanitarian workers, and the protection of refugees, prisoners, the wounded and sick (ECHO, 2017).

(23)

22 Humanity: saving human lives and alleviating suffering must be addressed wherever it is found, with particular attention to the most vulnerable;

Impartiality: implementation of actions solely on the basis of need, without discrimination between or within affected populations;

Neutrality: humanitarian action must not favor any side in an armed conflict or other dispute where such action is carried out:

Independence: autonomy of humanitarian objectives from the political, economic, military or other objectives that any actor may hold with regard to areas where humanitarian action is being implemented.

(EUPRHA, 2013).

Often, the focus is of the assistance is water, food and shelter; communication in its complete form tends to be neglected, even being a key part of the delivery of relief assistance. The role of communication in this context is not only the passive perception where the affected communities are merely the receptors of basic information such as general news of what is happening and how, when and where to receive/benefit from humanitarian aid which is being delivered. Communication in the Humanitarian context should be viewed and applied in a much more holistic form, where affected population actually have a voice which is heard, and consequently, which will influence the how, where and when humanitarian aid will be carried out. Due to its pressing and the need to act fast nature, often within the emergency response aid agencies arrive and deliver, without necessarily discussing with the community about what they want, nor taking into consideration local capacities and capabilities. When local community is not heard nor engaged in a empowering manner in the aid delivered, the international assistance is bound to be less effective and less sustainable as it will not build in on existing capacities nor engage community in a way that they feel empowered and owners of that activity/assistance. (Dawes, 2016)

The type of communication which is used solely to inform, to create visibility and stablish public relations is called Institutional Communication; on another hand, the communication which facilitate access to information, stimulate participation, empower people is called communication

(24)

23 for development (C4D) and it is within C4D that Participatory Video is used as a tool to engage communities. Using the methods and instruments of interpersonal communication, community media and modern information technologies C4D is a mean for social and political transformation which promotes participation and social change. In C4D the communication tools are deployed to facilitate dialogue3_{, launch debates and foster interactive and inclusive communication processes.}

Therefore, C4D cannot be understood solely as an activity. It must be considered as an approach (Alarcon et. al, 2016).

According to the definition developed by the 1996 United Nations General Assembly, the aim of Communication for Development is "to support two-way communication systems that enable dialogue and that allow communities to speak out, express their aspirations and concerns and participate in the decisions that relate to their development". In a humanitarian situation, social mobilization plays an important role in the response.

“It is essential to understand the difference between institutional communication, which is a useful tool to publicize what we do and report on our actions, and communication for development, which is a process that takes place in the context of programmes at grassroots level. It is a form of communication which enables people to have a say, participate and develop a sense of ownership of the projects. This type of communication strengthens national capabilities,” Alfonso Gumucio, communication expert (Bolivia)

When the affected community participate in assisting others and themselves during an emergency, it helps to develop their own resilience and consequently, social cohesion. In its website, UNICEF share several stories exploring the benefits and power of engaging the community actively in humanitarian responses. In Brazil, for instance, 20,000 students were thought how to prevent the proliferation of the Aedes Aegypti, mosquito infecting the community with the Zika virus chikungunya, dengue, and yellow fever. In a period of limited budgets and manpower and with a limited time to act quickly, the students were able to inform about 100,000 families on how to prevent the spread of the mosquito. (UNICEF, 2017) The example above shows

3_{The UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs define dialogue as the intention to seek mutual understanding and mutual} accommodation on an issue or situation through inquiry and learning leading that can lead to consensus in decision-making.

(25)

24 the importance of participation, the power within the community many times overseen, ignored or forgotten by aid agencies. However, it is important to consider the challenges of engaging the community, especially in humanitarian contexts, which present specific challenges: the need for a rapid response; the risks of working in insecure situations; and the potential for manipulation in highly politicized environments. Considering the mentioned context and challenges, Alnap consider participation as “the involvement of crisis-affected people in one or more phases of a humanitarian project or programme: assessment, design, implementation, monitoring or evaluation.” The level of involvement depends on the circumstances, and it can be challenging to define what is a ‘real’ or ‘meaningful’ participation. They also highlight what should not be considered as community participation: “activities that are carried out in exchange for a salary or ‘in kind’ payment is considered to be employment rather than participation because the population itself is not involved in decision-making processes and the humanitarian organization retains power. Many projects involve people in the execution of operational activities in return for money, seeds, food etc. (e.g. cash for work programmes). This can have many advantages: cost reduction, increase of available resources and stimulation of the local economy. However, this is not ‘participation’ unless the population itself is involved in decision-making processes and has an impact on decisions that affect them” (Groupe Urgence Réhabilitation Développement, 1994). According to the Groupe Urgence Réhabilitation Développement document (1994), there are different reasons to promote participation:

1.To guarantee the sustainability of the humanitarian assistance: aid and development agencies come and go and sometimes, especially due to funding constrains, they are not able to stay as long as it is needed. When the programs don’t include capacity building and involve the community actively, that period of need of humanitarian assistant can be extended considerably. Furthermore, when aid organizations leave, affected communities have to still deal with the consequences of the crises, in many situations, for a long period after the crises has ended, becoming, consequently, fragile and prone to the raise of a new crises. On another hand, when there is participation and their capacity is strengthened a bridge is created between relief and development and that transition goes more smoothly; the population is now capable to take the

(26)

25 lead of their own lives and give continuity to the work started by aid organizations; the social fabric is strengthened; the affected community is encouraged to be active in projects for their own benefit helping them to look into the future and overcome the traumas and helplessness feelings; the feeling of ownership over the project created by the participation supports is sustainability. 2. To make the project more relevant: when humanitarian and development organizations are able to understand better the affected people’s needs and priorities, assumptions and biases towards that population can be avoided. On-going participation and feedback throughout projects allow necessary adjustments to be made keeping the project relevant to people’s real needs and avoiding duplicating or undermining local coping strategies. “A foreigner sees what he already knows,” African proverb.

3. To reduce and avoid the negative impact of humanitarian and development responses: participatory and inclusive processes ideally should create a creates a safe space for affected community to raise protection issues that then can be tackled collectively developing strategies where they can protect themselves being aware of their rights to assistance, repair, safety, recovery and redress (Slim and Bonwick, 2005). Furthermore, participation facilitates a relationship and connection to be created between the community and aid and development workers fostering social cohesion between them creating consequently a safer environment also for aid and development workers as trust is built up on that process. In addition, affected communities have a better understanding of the local economy, culture, social and cultural environment and would be able to help to anticipate possible negative consequences of humanitarian and development interventions which might not be perceived by foreigners. 4. To build up a healthy and productive relationship between aid workers and affected community: dialogue, core element of participation, strengthens relationships and it is essential to good communication and transparency and it stimulates empathy and create a space for people to learn and understand the local traditional beliefs and customs of a population.

(27)

26 5. To make the project responsive to needed adjustments and adaptations: responding to participatory monitoring and evaluation allows a conscient and effective flexibility on the project which should continuously be adapted to the context and population needs, which are not static. 6. Increase the resources available for the project: several humanitarian and development interventions require a significant amount of labor. To be effective, sustainable and inclusive, the local population should contribute not only with labor, material, expertise and knowledge, but the responsibility for the project management should be shared with local partners, committees, etc. This way transparency is increased, and skills and expertise are built and shared.

7. To improve project’s efficiency: in humanitarian interventions efficiency and speed are important elements and often are invoked as reasons why participation is not possible in crises situations. However, they can be used to increase efficiency as the example mentioned above about the the students in Brazil who in a period of limited budgets and manpower and with a limited time to act quickly, the students were able to inform about 100,000 families on how to prevent the proliferation of the Aedes Aegypti, mosquito infecting the community with the Zika virus chikungunya, dengue, and yellow fever. The assistance of local stakeholders and members of the affected community can help to reduce project costs and to increase coverage and time-effectiveness.

8. To help affected community and aid organization workers to learn new skills: participation is based on exchange. It is important to learn lessons from local people’s experiences, especially with previous projects in case there was any, to avoid mistakes made in the past. Continuous dialogue in the project helps aid workers and affected community to learn different perspectives and new skills and build a project memory.

9. To respect organizations mandate and principles: participation is one of the principles of many organizations, as well as a requirement of codes of conduct or quality proforma to which they are committed. Furthermore, participation is coherent with other principles, such as the humanitarian

(28)

27 principles of neutrality, independence, and impartiality. The real needs of different groups of people can be identified through participatory interventions, thereby supporting the organization’s impartiality. Having good relations and contacts with a diverse range of local stakeholders can ensure a better understanding of the organization, its mandate and principles, and can reduce the risk of that the project will be be affected by the conflicting interests of stakeholders.

After analyzing the different reasons to promote participation, it is relevant to reflect about the question of “who participates?” as participation is about getting the affected population actively involved in one or more aspects of a humanitarian project or programme, but not every single affected person can participate. All communities have structures and representatives and consequently power relations. Often, after a crisis those structures are affected, changed or destroyed; however, they are rapidly rebuilt and new leaders might emerge. Aid workers have to make their best to understand those structures as they have to work with them and, at the same time, manage the power relations within it. In such situations, there are always a chance that part of the affected community is marginalized for a whole broad range of reasons. I those cases, workers should find a safe and appropriate manner to include the marginalized and get their voice heard without by-passing local structures which could consequently create tension. The need for an extensive representation should be balanced by the feasibilities of working with large groups. Participation can be direct, when members of affected communities participate as individuals in the different phases of projects and programs; or indirect, when structures such as committees represent the affected communities (Groupe Urgence Réhabilitation Développement, 1994).

As mentioned earlier on this paper, nowadays, when putting in place direct or indirect participation, humanitarians are facing a digital system complexity which creates an overwhelming flow of asymmetrical communication, information and data. If well used and managed, this intense flow triggered by digital technology can enable “whispers to become a mighty, collective roar”. Still, vulnerable groups are more likely to be excluded and not heard due to unaffordable pricing, weak infrastructure, restricted and unequal access to technology. Within that discussion, CDAC

(29)

28 also brings up the theme about doing no digital harm. Digital harm is a broad concept which is still evolving together with technology itself. In the humanitarian and development context, some examples can be: misleading and fake news and information being shared and spread rapidly; people’s identity being exposed in the digital world causing to them or their families all sorts of retaliation; people being exposed in not dignified ways; reinforcement of victimization of a community (the opposite of empowerment); etc. It is important to remind also that there is not a clear line between the benefits and the harms fostered by digital communication. The same specific digital communication activity can often trigger both, positive and negative impacts. (CDAC, 2018) For instance, the famous ‘Napalm Girl’ image where the nine yearold South-Vietnamize girl is depicted running on a road naked after being severely burned by a napalm4

attack during the Vietnam War in 1972. The photo taken by the Associated Press photographer Nick Ut’s became one of the images icons of Vietnam war, it was featured on the front page of The New York Times and was selected as the World Press Photo of the year for 1973. Over the history of photojournalism, this processes of iconisation of images had the ability to move emotions to stimulate public opinion and thereby drive political decision-making. On another hand, what are the impact that such an image had or could have had on the girl’s life? Was her portrayed with dignity? (Mortensen, Allan and Peters, 2017). This is a complex debate and we will not develop a deep analysis about it on this paper, the aim was just to acknowledge this controversial aspect that the use of communication can have in the humanitarian and development context.

Nevertheless, a very important element of participation is establishing relationships between different people or groups allowing mutual understanding and trust to be built (or re-built). It helps empathy to be developed encouraging the involved people to consider other’s ideas and needs supporting consequently the construction (or re-construction) of social-cohesion. Human relationships, often underestimated, affect directly the quality of engagement, participation and trust of affected communities. In several emergencies, the key for the success of interventions has been the good relationships built between emergency actors and local communities.

4_{Napalm is a mixture of a gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was initially used as an} incendiary device against buildings and later primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes severe burns when on fire.

(30)

29 Furthermore, the Alnap guide suggests the following different types of participation: passive, through the supply of information, by consultation, through material incentives, through the supply of materials, cash or labor, interactive and local initiative. In the early stages of a humanitarian intervention, often a very low level of participation is possible specially in scenarios where the priority has to be to save lives quickly. I those cases, participatory approaches might not even be possible nor appropriated. To adopt a genuinely participatory approach, the affected community cannot be seen only as ‘victims’, ‘recipients’ or ‘beneficiaries’. They should be perceived and treated as “as dynamic social actors with capacities and ideas of their own who are able to take an active role in decisions affecting their safety and welfare.” (Groupe Urgence Réhabilitation Développement, 1994).

In this context, considering the importance and several benefits of participation and linking it to the Participatory Video methodology, which is one of the many tools to engage with communities and apply the concept C4D, it is relevant to point out that the process (proposed activities to produce the film) is more important than the product which comes out of the PV activity (the film itself). It is in the process of communication and participation where the social change starts. (Montero and Moreno Domínguez, 2014).

(31)

30

5.The Ambiguity of Social Cohesion

After having explored what communication with communities is, its importance and how this practice which foster social cohesion in different levels is still neglected in many humanitarian and development interventions, it is core to this paper to understand what social cohesion is and why this is important in a development and humanitarian contexts.

Social cohesion is used generally to refer to common values and purpose in a society, including a sense of belonging and solidarity for people from diverse backgrounds. (Cheong et al., 2007) Participation in, and identification with, social practices are central to social integration and cohesion, where instead of having isolated groups at risk of conflict amongst themselves there is a public sphere where active citizens share and shape public places. (Jansen, Chioncel and Dekkers, 2006)

MacCoun offered the following definition of social cohesion:

“Social cohesion refers to the nature and quality of the emotional bonds of friendship, liking, caring, and closeness among group members. A group is socially cohesive to the extent that its members like each other, prefer to spend their social time together, enjoy each other’s company, and feel emotionally close to one another.”

When we talk about social cohesion in the developing and humanitarian context, we are not only talking about the social cohesions in post-conflict societies where the bonds were broken apart because of war, we are also talking about social cohesion in a multicultural context not necessary affected by war.

(32)

31

6. Dynamics Between and Within Groups

Over the past decades, global migration waves have been feeding a growing insecurity about the possible consequences of this influx of different people with diverse cultures, which build multicultural societies and at the same time inflates division among the population, fear of vanishing values and norms and anxiety regarding security. (Jansen, Chioncel and Dekkers, 2006). Allport (1954) says that attachment between members of a group does not necessary means hostility toward outgroups or outsider individuals, however, he presumes that outgroup hate and ingroup love are mutually associated. The familiar is preferred and what is different and comes from elsewhere is considered inferior, the hostility towards outer groups or individual can strengthens the feeling of belonging. However, that perception does not always leads to hostility, the attitude towards outer groups or individual can vary widely. (Brewer, 1999) For instance, in Latin America, social stratification often caused by economical inequalities is one of the main regional challenges to social cohesion. Heyneman and Todoric argue that each nation educational system has social cohesion as an objective and that is one of the reasons they invest in public schooling. Some school systems accomplish this better than others and the social cohesion objectives might not always be the same. Nevertheless, countries which face the risk to splinter use public education to help preventing it. (Heyneman and Todoric-bebic, 2000).

Nevertheless, most of the poisonous forms of racism and prejudice come from an outgroup hostility, not from an intergroup favouritism. Experiments and field studies have shown that variations in social identification and ingroup coherence doesn’t not necessarily correlate with the level of bias and rejection or violence towards outgroups. The questions which follows naturally is how and why individuals develop ingroup identification, loyalty and attachment and how and under which circumstances the formation and ingroup dynamics can lead to negative relationships, from mild to extreme levels, with outgroups. The human necessity to live as a group comes from the fundamental need to survive in a scenario of scarcity of resources or challenging and threatening environment. In the history of evolution, several humans’ characteristics which made reproduction and survival possible as isolated individuals or as couples gave place to other advantages which allow individuals to cooperate with other in order to survive in different

(33)

32 environments. In other words, as a species we have evolved to rely on cooperation rather than strength, and on social learning rather than instinct as basic adaptation. Human beings need to rely in others for long-term survival, sharing resources, giving and receiving information and aid creating a mutual cooperating, expanding and sharing resources to everyone’s benefits. For a cooperative system to work well, trust should dominate over distrust. Ingroups are bounded communities where mutual trust and obligation demarcate mutual interdependence and cooperation. (Brewer, 1999)

Based on the discussion above, it is pertinent to explore the idea of group (“mass”) psychology, as a collective imaginary belongs, and it is created by a determinate group. As Freud has explained in group psychology, an individual can be influenced by a large number of people simultaneously, people which the individual finds himself connected with by something, independently if those people are strangers in many other different aspects. This “something” which connect individuals allowing the establishment of a group, considering that different groups have diverse objects of connection and, consequently also has diverse intensity of connection, can take different forms: from believes, such as religion; to genetics, such a specific type of chronic disease, in many cases the hate, anger, disgust for something also unite people around a common point. The most relevant point here is that a group can have an influence in the behaviour of an individual. Each individual has certain characteristics which will determine a pattern of behaviours. However, the group psychology shows that those behavioural patterns can be broken or changed once the individual is under the influence of a group. (Freud and Strachey, 1925)

“The most striking peculiarity presented by a psychological group is the following. Whoever be the

individuals that compose it, however like or unlike be their mode of life, their occupations, their character, or their intelligence, the fact that they have been transformed into a group puts them in possession of a sort of collective mind which makes them feel, think, and act in a manner quite different from that in which each individual of them would feel, think, and act were he in a state of isolation. There are certain ideas and feelings which do not come into being, or do not transform themselves into acts except in the case of individuals forming a group. The psychological group is a provisional being formed of heterogeneous elements, which for a moment are combined, exactly as the cells which constitute a living body form by their reunion a new being which displays

The Potential and Limitations of Participatory Video as a Tool to Foster Social Cohesion in Development and Humanitarian Contexts