Technologies of Nonviolence Ethical Participatory Visual Research with Girls

Astrid Treffry-Goatley, Lisa Wiebesiek, Naydene de Lange, and Relebohile Moletsane a ABSTRACT Rapid developments in digital technologies have sparked revolutionary shifts in participatory research. Emerging tools such as digital stories and cellphilms offer participants opportunities to engage actively in research and to produce media about their everyday lives. Yet, while these may enable such engagement, researchers need to ensure that the very tools meant as technologies of nonviolence are not in and of themselves violent. This article uses a technology-based, participatory visual methods workshop conducted with girls and young women as part of addressing sexual violence in a rural community in South Africa as a case study. We identify and reflect on some of the ethical issues that arose during the workshop and how we addressed them. Our aim is always to locate our work on addressing sexual violence with young rural women within an ethics of nonviolence rooted in and responsive to the context in which we work.

KEYWORDS cellphilm, community engagement, digital storytelling, knowledge production, media culture, participatory visual methodology b

Digital and social networking technologies have transformed media production and distribution from an exclusive professional practice to a more organic and interactive peer-to-peer media culture. New participatory visual methods in research often incorporate media-based technologies and have developed in response to these advances. These methods offer rare opportunities for people in marginalized communities to become actively involved in creating media about their everyday experiences. Yet, the production of these innovative visual media texts and their potentially widespread public consumption may give rise to new and unique ethical issues, particularly in contexts of vulnerability. These issues have implications for research that seeks to ensure that as researchers we do not use tools that our participants may experience or perceive as violent.

Girlhood Studies 10, no. 2 (Summer 2017): 45-61 © Berghahn Books doi: 10.3167/ghs.2017.100205 ISSN: 1938-8209 (print) 1938-8322 (online) a ASTRID TREFFRY-GOATLEY, LISA WIEBESIEK, NAYDENE DE LANGE, AND RELEBOHILE MOLETSANE

The workshop on which this article is based was conducted as part of our ongoing work in a six-year, international, and interdisciplinary project entitled, “Networks for Change and Wellbeing: Girl-Led ‘From the Ground Up’ Policy Making in Addressing Sexual Violence in Canada and South Africa” (hereinafter, Networks for Change). This project seeks to investigate and advance the use of participatory visual methods in knowledge production, communication, and policy making. Our focus is on addressing sexual violence perpetrated against Indigenous girls and young women in Canada and rural girls and young women in South Africa. The research is framed within the interdisciplinary field of girlhood studies, an area of study that is characteristically directly informed by girls and is carried out with, for, and by girls (Greenwood and Levin 2006; Kirk et al. 2010; Mitchell and Reid-Walsh 2008). As Alison Clark and Peter Moss (2011) remind us, girlhood studies challenges the long-standing view of children as passive, incompetent, and/or inherently vulnerable research subjects. Increasingly, scholars are directly engaging with youth in research studies, including those affected by “structural conditions such as poverty and marginalization, as well as life disruptions such as violence, disaster and war” (D’Amico et al. 2016: 528). Internationally, research with youth often involves the use of community-based participatory research (CBPR) methods and, in particular, participatory visual methods (PVM) that involve creative or arts-based approaches. Proponents of PVM argue that it can help to subvert the power dynamics that arise between researchers, who are typically outsiders, well- educated and relatively privileged adults, and participants who are usually less educated and under privileged (Mitchell and Sommer 2016). Visual tools are often welcomed for making the research process more enjoyable for young participants (Carter and Ford 2013; Johnson et al. 2012), and for opening pathways for nonverbal communication in contexts of illiteracy, language barriers, or topic sensitivity (Gubrium et al. 2016; Mitchell and Sommer 2016; Theron et al. 2011). We agree with Miranda D’Amico and colleagues (2016) that the increasing application of these methods in research projects has led to a growing need for further context specific research to inform the application of particular visual methods with children and youth facing different forms of adversity. Despite, or because of, the perceived value of incorporating PVM into research, these innovative approaches and their associated technologies lead to new ethical issues (Gubrium et al. 2013). Yet, as April Mandrona (2016a) has pointed out, these remain under-researched. In the Networks for

46 TECHNOLOGIES OF NONVIOLENCE b

Change project, we attempt to address this gap by actively engaging with these ethical issues and by making ethics a central and crosscutting issue that is explored across our research sites. As we consider ways to move toward an ethics of nonviolence in the context of PVM and digital technology, we are influenced by the concept of positive research ethics; we seek to move beyond nonmaleficence—doing no harm—and to work actively to “do most good” (Moletsane et al. 2008: 114) by making the research process directly beneficial and rewarding for those involved as advocated by, for example, Shane Bush (2010), Linda Theron and colleagues (2011), and Munyaradzi Murove (2009). We focus on two emerging PVMs, digital storytelling (DST) and cellphilms, both of which involve media-based technologies. DST is a blend of digital media production and oral storytelling. Over the past two decades, DST has been used in a variety of contexts, including education, health research, community engagement, violence prevention, and social advocacy (D’Amico et al. 2016). In structured workshops, participants create short video narratives that are illustrated with photographs, drawings, music, and text. The productions are valued for encouraging creative self-expression and fostering a sense of independence, agency, and ownership among participants, and helping researchers to learn about communities from the per- spective of the community members (Burgess 2006). A cellphilm is a form of participatory video (PV) for the creation of which participants use cell phones or tablets like iPads to create short films. As Mandrona (2016b) explains, cellphilms aim to bring alternative experiences and perspectives to the fore through the production and dissemination of short videos, usually on a particular topic or in response to a prompt. They involve participants in planning, performing, and recording productions that address an aspect of the issue being investigated. In this article, we draw on a five-day PVM workshop as a case study to explore the ethics of technology-based PVMs in practice. We reflect on how we attempted to negotiate the tension between what we see as two often conflicting ethical imperatives in PVM: the requirement to abide by the protocols of traditional, formal research ethics as stipulated by university ethics boards; and the need to recognize and honor an ethics that is participatory, context relevant, and responsive. This is especially important in research work that involves marginalized and vulnerable groups with whom the negotiation of power relations can be a particularly fraught and sensitive process and/or work with sensitive issues and topics such as sexual violence. In these circumstances, failure to respond appropriately to the needs and

47 a ASTRID TREFFRY-GOATLEY, LISA WIEBESIEK, NAYDENE DE LANGE, AND RELEBOHILE MOLETSANE

desires of co-researcher participants, or the enforcement of an ethical stan- dard that contradicts this is, for us, a form of violence. For example, despite our co-researcher participants’ desire to be acknowledged for their digital productions, our university ethics boards’ requirement that research participants remain anonymous means that they cannot be publicly credited for their productions. While this is intended to protect them, in the context of participatory research in which participants are co-researchers, making them anonymous often means silencing and making them invisible. How then, can PVM, in the context of technologies of nonviolence, resolve this tension between the needs of co-researcher participants and the need to comply with ethical standards and protocols of university ethics boards? Our analysis in this article forms part of a wider, ongoing conversation within the Networks for Change project that aims for an ethics that is participatory, inclusive, networked or connected, responsive, context relevant, and which is, above all, nonviolent.

Methodology

The workshop under discussion here took place over five days in October 2016 and was the second in a series of PVM workshops that we held at one of our research sites, Khethani, a settlement made up of low-cost govern- ment and informal housing that lies adjacent to the small farming town of Winterton in South Africa. Established in the late 1990s, the settlement is home to approximately 11,000 residents. Families living in Khethani face a myriad of challenges, including high rates of unemployment, poverty, inad- equate health care that has led to high rates of HIV infection and tubercu- losis, illiteracy, poor infrastructure, crime, and sexual violence (Okhahlamba Local Municipality 2015).

Recruitment of Participants Participants were recruited with the help of a teacher from the secondary school in Khethani who leads a peer education program that incorporates drama, individual peer-to-peer support, and posters to promote awareness about teenage pregnancy and HIV infection. Between May 2016 and our first visual methods workshop in June 2016, we had three meetings with potential participants at the school. At the first meeting, we introduced the project, invited the peer educators to a second meeting, and encouraged them to invite others from their networks. Over the next two meetings, we

48 TECHNOLOGIES OF NONVIOLENCE b worked on building rapport with our potential participants and spent time obtaining assent and consent ahead of the first workshop. We distributed assent forms for the participants to sign, as well as information and consent forms (translated into isiZulu) for parents and/or guardians to sign for those under 18. We carefully explained the forms and gave the participants an opportunity to ask questions before signing and returning the completed ones (see Treffry-Goatley et al. 2016). At the first workshop in June, we had seven participants. However, by the second technology-based PVM workshop in October 2016, the number had grown to 21. These participants were between 15 and 19 years of age.

The Workshops Our aim was to use these workshops to introduce the participants to the range of PVM tools planned for use in the Networks for Change project across various sites while exploring the issues that impact their lives, including sexual violence. The first PVM workshop took place over three days during the winter school holidays (29 June to 1 July 2016). This was held at the Isibani Welfare Centre,1 a local NGO that offers a variety of health and social services to Khethani residents—including awareness programs about sexual violence, and support for victims and/or survivors of sexual violence—and is a collaborator in the Networks for Change project. The workshop focused on leadership training, participatory asset mapping, and photovoice as one technology-based PVM. After this workshop, we engaged in collaborative thematic analysis of the visual artifacts the participants produced. From this analysis, three themes emerged that were related to girl and youth safety in the community: sexual violence, substance abuse, and lack of parental involvement (see Treffry-Goatley et al. 2016). In the second workshop, held between 3 and 8 October 2016 when schools were on holiday, we used these three themes as prompts for a brain- storming session. The participants responded to the themes and shared experiences of sexual violence, substance abuse, and lack of parental involvement from their everyday lives. In this second workshop, the participants used two technology-based methods—cellphilms and digital stories.

Cellphilm Production Cellphilms and digital stories can be made on a cellular telephone that has a camera. However, the primary technology used for both methods during the workshop was an entry-level tablet computer that functions in much the same way as smartphones, of which we provided 10. First, the partici-

49 a ASTRID TREFFRY-GOATLEY, LISA WIEBESIEK, NAYDENE DE LANGE, AND RELEBOHILE MOLETSANE

pants learned how to use the tablets as sound recorders, still cameras, video cameras, and video editors using WeVideo, the free software program we had installed on the tablets. Second, in creating their digital productions, they were also taught additional skills including script writing, storyboard- ing, basic photography, and drawing. Before starting the cellphilm production, we introduced the participants to the no-editing-required (NER) approach to participatory video that was first used by Monica Mak and Claudia Mitchell in a course at McGill Uni- versity called “Visual Methodologies for Social Change” from May to June 2005, which speeds up video production considerably and allows for the creation of multiple scenes without the use of complicated editing software. We also introduced the participants to key ethical issues that they needed to consider when they were creating this visual data such as the importance of acquiring permission before taking a photograph of another person, the potential dangers to children of photographing them, the use of drawing for anonymous visual illustration, and the use of anonymous photographic techniques to protect the identity of the participants. Having been divided into small groups, the participants were given 30 minutes to develop their narratives and another 30 to devise a rough storyboard, act out their scenes, and film them. The participants seemed to enjoy creating their productions, and by the end of the first day of the workshop, the group had created five cellphilms (see Table 1).

Digital Story Creation This technology-based workshop included introducing the participants to the digital story production process as well as the screening of a number of examples of digital stories2 to give them some idea of what these might look like. The tutorial was based on the process advanced by Joe Lambert (2013) for the Centre for Digital Storytelling. We modified the traditional DST process by creating group rather than individual narratives. Again, in their small groups, the participants developed a story that they shared with the larger group during an interactive feedback session. The groups then created storyboards in which they used visuals to illustrate their stories. After a tutorial on drawing and photography, the group members completed their drawings and took photographs for their stories. This was fol- lowed by another tutorial on how to use the editing software, WeVideo, on importing their photographs and drawings, and on arranging them in sequence. Then, each group went into a quiet room and, with the assistance of one of the facilitators, made an audio recording of the story using this

50 TECHNOLOGIES OF NONVIOLENCE b

Figure 1: The storyboard for one of the digital stories.

software. Finally, the groups selected and recorded a song to sing or hum in the background of their digital story. By the end of the fourth day, the 21 participants had produced five digital stories. Table 1 summarizes the media productions (cellphilms and digital stories) created by the participants. On the final day of the workshop, we screened the digital stories and cellphilms individually, following each production with a group discussion. After the screening, each participant was asked to sign two release forms, one for their cellphilm and the second for their digital story. The forms asked participants to select either yes or no in response to questions about where, when, and how their visual products could be shared or screened.

51 a ASTRID TREFFRY-GOATLEY, LISA WIEBESIEK, NAYDENE DE LANGE, AND RELEBOHILE MOLETSANE

Table 1: The Cellphilms and Digital Stories

Cellphilms Cheeky girls Girl chased, harassed by two men because lesbian. Responds with angry retorts, runs off crying to her mother. Untitled Pregnant girl falls asleep in class and is rude to teacher. Thrown out of school by principal. Runs out wailing. Untitled Girl raped on way to store. Cries as boy drags her off. Her mother calls police and they imprison perpetrator. Untitled Boys harass a girl, suggesting that she is fat and not a virgin. She walks off crying. Untitled Three students pool their money and go to the informal liquor store before school. They arrive late at school drunk and have a physical fight over money. Digital Stories Ukudayisa umzimba An orphaned girl goes to Johannesburg to take up a job (To sell your advertised in the newspaper. Turns out to be sex work, but body) she stays for two years so she can send money home to siblings and children. She fails to send money and eventually dies of HIV. Her younger sister gets a job and buys a house for the family. Life of a teenager A well-behaved girl changes when she starts hanging out with a new crowd. She gets drunk and meets a boy. She later discovers she is HIV positive and pregnant. Her mother dies from shock at the news. Girl left alone and lost. Okwenzayo uzenzela Girl leaves her sick mother and goes out drinking with wena friends. She goes home with a boy who rapes her, infects her (What you do, you with HIV, and impregnates her. Her friends desert her. After do for yourself) the child is born, she returns to school and later studies medicine. She is then able to buy a house and car. Poverty Child finds an egg and goes out to collect firewood to cook it, but his father eats the egg. His mother calls the sangoma (witch doctor), who deduces that the father eats well while the rest of the family starves. Ubugebengu A girl lives with her father who uses all the money to buy (Criminal activity) alcohol. She leaves school, becomes a thief. She is beaten and reported to the police who jail her for many years.

52 TECHNOLOGIES OF NONVIOLENCE b

Emerging Ethical Dilemmas

Developing a Framework for Technologies of Nonviolence: Method, Equipment, and Software While the ubiquity of the cell phone has led to digital media becoming more and more accessible to the general population, the question of how to select the visual methods and the equipment and software to use with participants remains of importance, particularly in contexts of high levels of poverty and unemployment. Indeed, one of the criticisms of technology-based participatory visual research, particularly in resource-poor settings, is that researchers may dominate the participatory process through their possession of high-tech tools and their expertise in their usage (MacEntee et al. 2016b; Wang 2000). When they return to their privileged lives, they often take the equipment with them, leaving participants with no access to the tools that (supposedly) empowered them. PVM does not always require the use of high-tech tools. Drawing, for example, is an effective low-tech method (Theron et al. 2011). However, technology does give us access to new, exciting ways to work with participants and to produce visual artifacts that are meaningful and powerful to them personally and that are, at least potentially, tools for advocacy. Further, in an increasingly digital world, the opportunity for young people to learn how to use technology, such as tablet computers, gives them the valuable skills they need for the workplace. Some researchers have attempted to address these issues by leaving the equipment in the field for participants to use afterward, permanently or for a set time. Yet, this solution is associated with different ethical issues since the possession of expensive equipment can disrupt existing power dynamics in the communities and cause harm by making participants targets of jeal- ousy and even victims of violent crime (Mitchell et al. 2015; Schwab-Cartas and Mitchell 2014). Others have opted to use participant-owned mobile phones, as Vivian Lin (2016) and Caitlin Watson and colleagues (2016) note. However, when they are being filmed or photographed by members of their social group in a private space, “participants may say and do things … that might be troublesome when viewed outside of that space” (Watson et al. 2016: 44). In addition, when transferring data from the participant’s cell phone to the researchers’ devices other personal and private media may become mixed up with research data (Lin 2016). Working as we do with girls and young women in contexts of poverty and high rates of unemployment, asking our co-researcher participants to

53 a ASTRID TREFFRY-GOATLEY, LISA WIEBESIEK, NAYDENE DE LANGE, AND RELEBOHILE MOLETSANE

use their own cell phones for photography, cellphilms, and digital stories was not an option. In addition to the ethical challenges noted above, we could not assume that all our participants owned smartphones or cell phones, with or without cameras. It would have been unethical to make access to a smartphone, or at least a cell phone with a camera, a condition of participation, because this would have excluded most of the girls, thereby reinforcing economic inequality and marginalization, an act of violence in itself. Also, we carefully considered which technology we should bring and which software to use. Our decision to use the entry-level tablet computers, in this case the Samsung Galaxy Tab4, was partly because it has the same functionality as an entry-level smartphone. While cellphilm production requires only the camera function, digital stories require some of the functions associated with more advanced technology, including voice recording and basic editing software. We acknowledge that participants may not have access to this exact media device when the workshop closes, but they are somewhat likely to have access to similar tools personally or through their social networks. Had we chosen to use an iPad, for example, we would have been faced with a significantly more expensive technology, as well as limited open-source software options. Using equipment that is more accessible, we believe, is likely to enable participants to use the skills that they have acquired beyond the scope of the project. Indeed, a “key feature of the use of mobile technology in participatory visual research (and especially in participatory video) is its democratizing role that draws, in particular, on the ubiquity of the cellphone” (MacEntee et al. 2016b: 19). To further reinforce this democratic approach in the DST process, we used open-source editing software. We showed participants how to down- load this application from the Google Play store onto smartphones. This is, of course, not a perfect solution to the issue of access, since, as mentioned, few of the participants had access to these devices. Furthermore, Internet access is a challenge in this context, and the high cost of data is prohibitive.

Can Cellphilms Trigger Trauma? Going into the PVM workshop, we knew that the participants were unlikely to have created a cellphilm or done any DST before. We attempted to choose methods that would be enjoyable to them and build on their existing inter- ests and skills. For example, during the first visual methods workshop in June 2016, the participants indicated that they were very keen to include drama in our future workshops. We therefore decided to include a cellphilm

54 TECHNOLOGIES OF NONVIOLENCE b activity in the follow-up workshop. The participants embraced this activity and engaged in all aspects of the production process with enthusiasm, stating that they found it to be “fun and enjoyable.” Yet, from an ethical standpoint, informed by the works of Aline Gubrium and colleagues (2013) and Lin (2016), who suggest that using PVM to speak about traumatic events may evoke emotions or trigger past trauma, we had some concerns about using this methodology to address sexual violence with the participants because this could result in retraumatization for past or current victims of sexual abuse. While participants did not raise this issue in our formal and informal discussions, perhaps their embodiment of trauma is evident in the more dra- matic nature of the cellphilm stories they created and in the fact that in four of the five films the productions depicted girls crying as a response to abuse, assault, or injustice. Nevertheless, we wondered whether using cellphilms as a tool to create a safe space in which to talk about an issue that is so often silenced might perhaps be more beneficial than harmful. For example, we believe there is power in being able to tell a story yourself, especially for girls and young women who do not often have the opportunity to do so. This ethical dilemma requires further exploration in our work and is a challenge we intend to pursue in future workshops.

Applying Consent Processes to Group Work Using Technology-based PVMs We approached informed consent as a multi-step process. Parents and individual participants were asked for their consent and assent a few weeks in advance of the workshops. In addition, after they had viewed these visual artifacts as a group, we asked the participants to sign release forms for their visual productions to be publicly screened. All participants agreed to share their digital stories, and only two opted not to share their cellphilms. How- ever, because both were created in groups, if any member of a group did not give permission for her cellphilm or digital story to be shared or screened, this refusal of permission took precedence over the permission granted by other members of the group. This is another of the ethical challenges of creating group productions, because those members of the group who do give their permission for the production to be screened may view this as an infringement of their rights. The cellphilms and digital stories were shared at a public screening at the Khethani Community Hall in December 2016. We invited a number of local stakeholders to this event, including teachers, municipality representatives, nonprofit organization (NPO) representatives, parents of the par-

55 a ASTRID TREFFRY-GOATLEY, LISA WIEBESIEK, NAYDENE DE LANGE, AND RELEBOHILE MOLETSANE

ticipants, and girls from a nearby rural village (with whom we work in col- laboration with a local NPO called Thembalethu Care Organization). We screened all five digital stories and the three cellphilms for which we had signed approval to do so. Interestingly, a number of the participants were very disappointed that their cellphilms were not shown at this event. It is possible that those who had not given consent for their cellphilms to be screened changed their minds when they saw the work of the others being screened. However, their disappointment raised a further ethical concern about whether the participants had fully understood the release process. In response, to ensure such full understanding, and to give them the opportunity to make changes in the forms and process should they wish to do so, we planned to go over the release forms with individual participants at our meeting in January 2017.

Responding to the Creation of Media Productions with Negative Stereotypes A number of prevailing gender stereotypes were evident in the media productions the participants created. These included the view that pregnant girls are insolent and disruptive at school and should be excluded;3 the trope of the crying female that surfaces in almost all the cellphilms in response to abuse, assault, or harassment; and girl blaming for the challenging issues facing communities, like sexual violence and unwanted pregnancy and others that dom- inated the DST narratives. While our intention in using PVM was to enable the participants to describe sexual violence and other challenges they face from their own perspectives, leaving these negative stereotypes unchallenged would have been unethical and counterproductive, and may in fact have been read as agreement with these stereotypes and an acceptance of forms of violence, such as bullying, to which they often lead. We began to engage the participants in conversation about these stereotypes during the post-screening discussion. Furthermore, we plan to discuss these issues during subsequent workshops and we will ask participants to create new cellphilms and digital stories that speak back to the original ones from a more critical, gender-sensitive point of view (Mitchell and De Lange 2013; Mitchell et al. 2016).

Problems with Confidentiality: Sharing Productions Publicly and Ensuring Anonymity Protecting participant identities as required by most research ethics boards is, as mentioned, somewhat contentious in PVM, which views participants as co-authors and co-creators of knowledge and aims to develop their agency

56 TECHNOLOGIES OF NONVIOLENCE b

(Fink and Lomax 2016; Leavy 2014). Proud of their girl-authored products, and seeking acknowledgment of their work, our participants, following cin- ematic tradition, added their names as credits at the end of their productions. Several tensions emerge from this. The first, as discussed, involves the need to abide by the requirements for participant anonymity that are particularly strict when we are working with a young, vulnerable population group around a sensitive subject area like sexual violence. The second involves our participants’ desire to be recognized as the creators of their visual products, and our reluctance to render them invisible. At the risk of repetition, the for- mer, we believe, would amount to enacting a form of violence against them. Undeniably, there are valid arguments in support of ensuring that participant identities remain anonymous as required in the conditions of the ethical clearance granted by the research ethics boards at McGill University in Canada and the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) in South Africa. We took particular care to protect participant identities by removing the names of all participants for all public screenings and publications. The group of co-researcher participants in Khethani has chosen a name for themselves, the Leaders for Young Women’s Success. Using this group name in the acknowledgments allows co-research participants to be recognized for their work to a certain extent while protecting individual identities. In addition, rather than focusing on individual accounts of personal disclosure, we made sure that all the media productions address sexual violence at a community level. Following Lin (2016), we also anticipated that group stories may be more enjoyable and beneficial for participants since they would be able to support each other through the production of stories about difficult issues rather than having to address these issues as individuals. Some participants were initially rather puzzled by our emphasis on anonymity in distributing digital media productions, since they were proud of their involvement in the workshop and could not foresee any potential dan- ger in telling fictional group narratives. However, they most actively embraced the use of visual techniques, which, in some ways, enabled us to protect their identities, and as Lin (2016) noted in her own work, while, at the same, boost- ing their artistic expression. DST enabled the participants to use photographic techniques to create faceless images and drawings without faces to illustrate their stories. Indeed, compared to the spontaneous and often rather messy cellphilms in which participant identities are often clearly visible, the polished and anonymous nature of the digital stories make them easier to share with community partners and beyond. This contributes positively to advancing the policy-change focus of our project and avoids any harm to the participants.

57 a ASTRID TREFFRY-GOATLEY, LISA WIEBESIEK, NAYDENE DE LANGE, AND RELEBOHILE MOLETSANE

We acknowledge that it is not really possible to completely protect the anonymity of our research participants since theirs is a small community. In addition to recognizing participant voices and narratives in the digital stories, it is likely that community members would have heard who was participating in the workshops and may assume, easily, who made which story. Therefore, rather than having individuals present their own work, we asked them to nom- inate a spokesperson to present the productions on the group’s behalf. More- over, we made it clear at the public screening and exhibition that all visual material (and follow-up recommendations) came out of the work of the group as a whole and did not represent the views of any one participant. In this way, we wanted to protect individuals from receiving negative reactions and at the same time enable them to exercise their right to have their voices heard.

Conclusion

Using PVM to address sensitive issues with vulnerable population groups is complex and often requires striking a delicate balance between competing ethical imperatives. For us, using PVM to negotiate this tension moves us closer to creating an ethics framework for a technologies of nonviolence approach to research. This would enable ethical requirements that are more relevant and context specific and that do not perpetuate the unequal power relations that traditional research often sets up. After all, in different ways, unequal power relations lead to the sexual violence we seek to understand and remedy.

ASTRID TREFFRY-GOATLEY is a postdoctoral fellow in the School of Education at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) and interested in gender, health systems, and community engagement. E-mail: [email protected]

LISA WIEBESIEK is a PhD candidate in the School of Education at UKZN and interested in adolescent sexual and reproductive health and rights, and PVM. E-mail: [email protected]

NAYDENE DE LANGE is Emeritus Professor in the Faculty of Education at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University and interested in PVM, gender, and HIV and AIDS. E-mail: [email protected]

RELEBOHILE MOLETSANE is Professor in the School of Education at UKZN and interested in gender and sexuality education, girlhood studies, and PVM. E-mail: [email protected] b

58 TECHNOLOGIES OF NONVIOLENCE b

Notes

1. http://isibanicentre.org/tl/index.php 2. The examples focused on food security/insecurity. 3. The South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996 mandates that no girl should be excluded from school because of pregnancy or motherhood.

References

Burgess, Jean. 2006. “Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling.” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 20: 201–214. doi:10.1080/10304310600641737. Bush, Shane. 2010. “Legal and Ethical Considerations in Rehabilitation and Health Assessment.” In Assessment and Rehabilitation in Health, ed. Elias Mpofu and Thomas Oakland, 22–36. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Carter, Bernie, and Karen Ford. 2013. “Researching Children’s Health Experiences: The Place for Participatory, Child-centered, Arts-based Approaches.” Research in Nursing and Health 36: 95–107. doi:10.1002/nur.21517. Clark, Alison, and Peter Moss. 2011. Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic Approach. 2nd ed. London: National Children’s Bureau. D’Amico, Miranda, Myriam Denov, Fatima Khan, Warren Linds, and Bree Akesson. 2016. “Research as Intervention? Exploring the Health and Well- being of Children and Youth Facing Global Adversity through Participatory Visual Methods.” Global Public Health 11 (5–6): 528–545. doi:10.1080/17441692.2016.1165719. Fink, Janet, and Helen Lomax. 2016. “Sharing Images, Spoiling Meanings? Class, Gender, and Ethics in Visual Research with Girls.” Girlhood Studies 9 (3): 20–36. doi:10.3167/ghs.2016.090303. Greenwood, Davydd, and Morten Levin. 2006. Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Gubrium, Aline, Alice Fiddian-Green, Kasey Jernigan, and Elizabeth Krause. 2016. “Bodies as Evidence: Mapping New Terrain for Teenage Pregnancy and Parenting.” Global Public Health 11 (5–6): 618–635. doi:10.1080/17441692.2016.1143522. Gubrium, Aline, Amy Hill, and Sarah Flicker. 2013. “A Situated Practice for Ethics for Participatory Visual and Digital Methods in Public Health Research and Practice: A Focus on Digital Storytelling.” American Journal of Public Health 104 (9): 1606–1614. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301310.

59 a ASTRID TREFFRY-GOATLEY, LISA WIEBESIEK, NAYDENE DE LANGE, AND RELEBOHILE MOLETSANE

Johnson, Ginger, Anne Pfister, and Cecilia Vindrola-Padros. 2012. “Drawings, Photos, and Performances: Using Visual Methods with Children.” Visual Anthropology Review 28: 164–178. doi:10.1111/j.1548-458.2012.01122.x. Kirk, Jackie, Claudia Mitchell, and Jaqueline Reid-Walsh. 2010. “Toward Political Agency for Girls: Mapping the Discourses of Girlhood Globally.” In Girlhood: A Global History, ed. Jennifer Helgren and Colleen A. Vasconcellos, 14–30. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Lambert, Joe. 2013. Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives Creating Community. 4th ed. Berkeley, CA: Digital Diner Press. Leavy, Patricia. 2014. Method Meets Art: Arts-Based Research Practice. New York: Guilford Press. Lin, Vivian. 2016. “Remaining Anonymous: Using Participatory Arts-Based Methods with Migrant Women Workers in the Age of the Smartphone.” In What’s a Cellphilm? Integrating Mobile Phone Technology into Participatory Visual Research and Activism, ed. Katie MacEntee, Casey Burkholder and Joshua Schwab-Cartas, 67–86. Rotterdam: Sense. MacEntee, Katie, Casey Burkholder, and Joshua Schwab-Cartas, eds. 2016a. What’s a Cellphilm? Integrating Mobile Phone Technology into Participatory Visual Research and Activism. Rotterdam: Sense. MacEntee, Katie, Casey Burkholder, and Joshua Schwab-Cartas. 2016. “Introduction.” In What’s a Cellphilm? Integrating Mobile Phone Technology into Participatory Visual Research and Activism, ed. Katie MacEntee, Casey Burkholder and Joshua Schwab-Cartas, 1–15. Rotterdam: Sense. Mandrona, April 2016a. “Ethical Practice and the Study of Girlhood.” Girlhood Studies 9 (3): 3–19. doi:10.3167/ghs.2016.090302. Mandrona, April. 2016b. “Visual Culture, Aesthetics, and the Ethics of Cellphilming.” In What’s a Cellphilm? Integrating Mobile Phone Technology into Participatory Visual Research and Activism, ed. Katie MacEntee, Casey Burkholder and Joshua Schwab-Cartas, 183–198. Rotterdam: Sense. Mitchell, Claudia, and Jaqueline Reid-Walsh. 2008. “Girl Method: Placing Girl- centred Research Methodologies on the Map of Girlhood Studies.” In Roadblocks to Equality: Women Challenging Boundaries, ed. Jeffrey Klaehn, 214–233. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Mitchell, Claudia, and Naydene de Lange. 2013. “What Can a Teacher do with a Cellphone? Using Participatory Visual Research to Speak Back in Addressing HIV and AIDS.” South African Journal of Education 33 (4): 1–13. Mitchell, Claudia, and Marni Sommer. 2016. “Participatory Visual Methodologies in Global Public Health. Global Public Health 11 (5–6): 521– 527. doi:10.1080/17441692.2016.1170184. Mitchell, Claudia, Naydene de Lange, and Relebohile Moletsane. 2015. “Me and My Cellphone: Constructing Change from the Inside through Cellphilms and

60 TECHNOLOGIES OF NONVIOLENCE b

Participatory Video in a Rural Community. Area 48 (4): 435–441. doi:10.1111/area.12142. Mitchell, Claudia, Naydene de Lange, and Relebohile Moletsane. 2016. “Poetry in a Pocket: The Cellphilms of South African Rural Women Teachers and the Poetics of the Everyday.” In What’s a Cellphilm? Integrating Mobile Phone Technology into Participatory Visual Research and Activism, ed. Katie MacEntee, Casey Burkholder and Joshua Schwab-Cartas, 19–34. Rotterdam: Sense. Moletsane, Relebohile, Claudia Mitchell, Ann Smith, and Linda Chisholm. 2008. Methodologies for Mapping a Southern African Girlhood in the Age of Aids. Rotterdam: Sense. Moletsane, Relebohile, Claudia Mitchell, Naydene de Lange, Jean Stuart, Thabsile Buthelezi, and Myra Taylor. 2009. “What Can a Woman Do with a Camera? Turning the Female Gaze on Poverty and HIV and AIDS in Rural South Africa.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 22 (3): 1–36. Murove, Munyaradzi. 2009. African Ethics: An Anthology of Comparative and Applies Ethics. Scottsville, South Africa: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press. Okhahlamba Local Municipality. 2015. Okhahlamba Local Municipality Language Policy. Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: Okhahlamba Local Municipality. Schwab-Cartas, Joshua, and Claudia Mitchell. 2014. “Cellphones, Participatory Video and Indigeneity in Community-Based Research.” McGill Journal of Education 49 (3): 603–620. Theron, Linda, Jean Stuart, and Claudia Mitchell. 2011. “A Positive, African Ethical Approach to Collecting and Interpreting Drawings: Some Consideration.” In Picturing Research: Drawing as Visual Methodology, ed. Linda Theron, Claudia Mitchell, Ann Smith and Jean Stuart, 49–62. Rotterdam: Sense. Thomas, Gary. 2011. “A Typology for the Case Study in Social Science Following a Review of Definition, Discourse and Structure.” Qualitative Inquiry 17 (6): 511–521. doi:10.1177/1077800411409884. Treffry-Goatley, Astrid, Lisa Wiebesiek, and Relebohile Moletsane. 2016. “Using the Visual to Address Gender-based Violence in Rural South Africa: Ethical Considerations.” Learning Landscape 10 (1): 341–359. Wang, Caroline. 2000. “Commentary: The Future of Health Promotion: Talkin’ Technology Blues.” Health Promotion Practice 1 (1): 77–80. Watson, Caitlin, Shanade Barnabas, and Keyan Tomaselli. 2016. “Smaller Lens, Bigger Picture: Exploring Self-Generated Cellphilms in Participatory Research.” In What’s a Cellphilm? Integrating Mobile Phone Technology into Participatory Visual Research and Activism, ed. Katie MacEntee, Casey Burkholder and Joshua Schwab-Cartas, 35–50. Rotterdam: Sense.