Participatory Video and Reflexivity The Experiences of Eight Adult Learners Kyung-Hwa Yang Department of Integrated Studies in Education Faculty of Education, McGill University Montreal, Canada August 2012 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. © Kyung-Hwa Yang 2012 ii CONTENTS Abstract vi Résumé vii Acknowledgements ix 1 Introduction 1 Background 3 The Evolution of Participatory Video 6 Framing the Thesis 21 Research Questions 31 Strategy of Inquiry 32 Situating Myself 33 Organizing the Thesis 35 2 Reflexivity in and through Participatory Video 37 Is Reflexivity Good for Participatory Research? 39 What does Participatory Video Have to Do with Reflexivity? 50 Summary of Chapter 60 3 The Project 63 Context 64 Process 68 My Approach to Analysis 96 Summary of Chapter 104 4 Inside the Project: Processes and Outcomes 105 The Presentation 106 Reading the Primary Text, Ready, Set, and Engage 108 The Process of Participatory Video Making 112 What Difference Can Participation Make? 119 Summary of Chapter 124 5 The Voice of the Participants and Reflexivity 125 Contextualizing the Data 126 Producer Text 1: What the Participants Had to Say about Participatory Video 127 Producer Text 2: What the Participants Had to Say through Participatory Video 134 iii Ethical Advantages and Challenges of Participatory Video 141 Summary of Chapter 144 6 Learning as Experience 147 Learning in the Context of Participatory Video 148 The Participant Text: The Experience of Learning 150 Negative Experiences 161 Agency and Reflexivity 166 Summary of Chapter 171 7 Locating the Researcher in Participatory Video 173 Positionality in Feminist Participatory Research Scholarship 174 Positionality of the Researcher in Participatory Video: My Own Story 177 Researcher-as-Facilitator 180 Researcher-as-Educator 187 Concerning the Researcher‘s Ethical Responsibilities 196 Summary of Chapter 202 8 Toward a More Engaging, Enriching, and Educational Method 205 Summary of the Thesis 206 Responding to My Research Questions 209 Contribution to Knowledge Advancement 211 Limitations 215 Moving Forward 216 REFERENCES 218 APPENDICES 243 I. Research consent form 243 II. The research proposal of the participatory video project 245 III. Interview guide 248 IV. Interview consent form 249 V. Survey questionnaire 251 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1. The reasons for engagement 76 Figure 3.2. A still photo from the interview between Shilanda and Star 78 Figure 3.3. Roadmap 85 Figure 3.4. A map of Chicago neighbourhoods 88 Figure 5.1. The relationships among the researcher, participants, and interviewees 142 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. Introduction to the participants 66 Table 3.2. An overview of the sessions 69 Table 3.3. An overview of the interview data set 91 Table 3.4. Survey responses 93 Table 3.5. Data sets 96 Table 4.1. The content of the film, Ready, Set, Engage 111 Table 4.2. Planned procedures 112 Table 5.1. The questionnaire for individual reflection essays 126 v Abstract Participatory video is generally referred to as a process in which participants work together to create a video about their common experiences as a way of inquiring into challenges in their lives. While media activists, policy makers, and academics have used various techniques of participatory video to bring about change in participants‘ lives, participatory video, as a research tool, has yet to be studied. I explore its methodological complexity based on a participatory video project I conducted with eight adults for 11 weeks on a topic they chose. Building on John Fiske‘s cultural studies framework, I analyze the process of the project, the participants‘ experiences, and my own experience in the project. In doing so, I test and suggest a method of analyzing participatory video. The notion of reflexivity is central to my analysis. A typical understanding of reflexivity, however, is problematic to participatory research because it focuses on researchers, disregarding the important role participants‘ reflexivity also plays in the process of inquiry. Hence, I argue that it is crucial to understand participants‘ reflexivity. My thesis is based on this argument. The purpose of the thesis is to gain a deeper understanding of participatory video vis- à-vis the notion of reflexivity and vice versa. In my findings I emphasize three aspects of participatory video: (1) Participatory video can bring to light grassroots experiences. However it may overlook unequal power distribution among participants. Hence, I argue that researchers may need to intervene actively in the process of making the video, and yet act cautiously in order to prompt the participants to reflect on their assumptions more deeply and to safeguard against silencing marginalized voices; (2) Participatory video can allow participants to experience incidental, social, and critical learning. Based on this observation, I call for attention to the potential of participatory video as a tool for adult learning; and (3) The researcher‘s positionality matters in conducting participatory video. It can interfere with the process of knowledge construction and influence the participants‘ experiences with projects. The thesis sheds light on the concept of positionality in the study of participatory video. vi Résumé La vidéo participative (participatory video) est une méthodologie dans laquelle des participants produisent une vidéo sur eux-mêmes pour analyser les problèmes de leurs vies et en chercher des solutions. Divers groupes, des journalistes aux décideurs, et même dans le milieu académique, utilisent des techniques variables de vidéo participative. Toutefois, la vidéo participative, comme méthode de recherche, doit être plus explorée pour en construire une connaissance plus fine qui puisse favoriser ses applications. J‘explore la complexité méthodologique de la vidéo participative en analysant un projet que j‘ai conduit avec huit adultes pendant 11 semaines sur un sujet choisi par les participants. En me basant sur le cadre analytique que John Fiske a proposé pour le domaine des études culturelles, j‘analyse le processus du projet, les expériences des participants, et mon expérience. Ce faisant, je teste et suggère une méthode pour analyser la vidéo participative. La notion de réflexion est importante dans mon analyse. Elle, cependant, est typiquement discutée de la part des chercheurs, jetant le rôle de la réflexion des participants que joue dans le processus d‘enquête participative. J‘insiste sur l‘importance d‘entendre leur réflexion. Ma thèse est basée sur cet argument. L‘objet de la thèse est d‘acquérir une compréhension plus profonde par rapport à la notion de réflexion, ou vice versa. Sur cette base, je souligne trois aspects de la vidéo participative. Premièrement, la vidéo participative peut donner à voir les expériences des gens tout en faisant fi de la répartition inégale de pouvoir entre participants. Par conséquent, je soutiens que les chercheurs doivent intervenir activement dans le processus de production de la vidéo, tout en agissant avec prudence afin d‘inciter les participants à réfléchir profondément sur leurs hypothèses et de permettre aux voix marginalisées de s‘exprimer. Deuxièmement, la vidéo participative peut permettre aux participants de faire des apprentissages induits (au niveau de la connaissance de soi, par exemple), sociaux (dans l‘interaction avec les autres), et critique (prendre conscience de sa capacité à résoudre ses problèmes). Dérivée de cette observation, j‘insiste sur le potentiel de la vidéo participative comme outil d‘apprentissage des adultes. Finalement, je considère que l‘espace positionnel du chercheur est important dans la vii conduite de la vidéo participative. Il peut interférer avec celui des participants et influer le processus de la construction des connaissances. Mes résultats mettent en lumière le concept de l‘espace positionnel dans l‘étude de la vidéo participative. viii Acknowledgements I would like to give special thanks to my co-supervisors, Ratna Ghosh and Claudia Mitchell, even though this would fall short from acknowledging the extent of their contributions to the thesis. Like the weather, there have been good days and bad days over the last four years. The early days were tough, but Ratna Ghosh provided me with a niche where I could rest and begin to engage in scholarly conversations. She has shown me that optimism is key to success. Claudia Mitchell has also inspired me. Her support and intellectual stimulation have been invaluable to the thesis. While her academic influence may be solidly recognized throughout the thesis, I also like to note that I enjoyed walking with her ―over the mountain‖ on the way home, sharing my joys, frustrations, and other thoughts. Some of the conversations are reflected in the thesis. Anila Asghar, my thesis committee member, has impelled me to write in higher precision and to remain critical of my own writing. We have become critical friends to each other. Michael Hoechsmann, one of my initial committee members, cheered me on all the time, even before I began my research. Aziz Choudry, a professor in my department (DISE), is a generous knowledge bank. Whenever I asked for literature, he gave it to me. Lise Winer, Director of the Graduate Program of DISE, has been a source of inspiration lately. She has shown me how one can apply the idea of equity to everyday work in academia. Alison Crump, a doctoral candidate in my cohort, supported me with her editorial comments on the thesis. Acknowledgements are due to all of you. Outside the Department, Ladislaus Semali, a professor at Penn State University in the United States, has offered valuable insight into my study from the perspective of adult education. Kang Myung-Goo, a professor at Seoul National University in Korea, is my intellectual father. When I was in college, he guided me to realize what people can do with media. In Chicago, Amy Thomas Elder, Director of the Odyssey Project, has shown me what an adult educator should be like.