odutola@scils.rutgers.edu

There was a time when the methodologies at the disposal of social scientists in most developing countries weighed down by colonization and its more recent avatar, neo-colonization, were mainly Western templates. A 1977 UNESCO report "identified dependency as the general situation which characterizes Third World social science" (cited in Gareau 1986, p.176). In the 1960s and 70s scholars started questioning the relevance of Western social science for developing countries. Their interrogation extended beyond social scientific methodology to the institutional role and relevance of universities in generating authentic knowledge for social change. Subsequently, there was a concerted effort to expand the research agenda to include non-Western-ideas and ideals. According to Tsing (2000), "[s]ocial science theories no longer take Western genealogies for granted, but require fluency with a wider range of perspectives, from Latin American dependency theories to South Asian subaltern studies" (p. 328). Accompanying this re-orientation vis-à-vis Western social science, there has been a growing unease with the imported educational models operating in developing countries.

Over the last few decades, there has been increasing sensitivity to the fact that the educational systems created by former colonial masters were basically imperialistic tools of domination. They served imperial purposes rather than uplift the masses. According to Fals-Borda (1998), "Since the 16^th century, culture bearers from Europe have imposed Christian beliefs and capitalist principles that in most regions were counterproductive or destructive to the local" (p.225). This destruction of the local culture was systemic and sustained through educational and religious institutions that appeared natural to the uncritical (Gareau 1986, Cunningham 1993). Ogunyemi (2002) observes that the "experience in Nigeria, and indeed, other colonized countries, is that formal education had its roots in external needs and not those of the target learners or their society" (online document). It was the practice for traditional school systems to receive externally developed curricular and set goals or what Butkus (1989) calls "pre-packaged curricula." There is thereby a top-down imposition of ideas, which are more often than not imported from the West. Scholars have therefore expended considerable thought on how to make education an empowering experience for the marginalized peoples (Butkus 1989, McTaggart 1991, Hall 1992, Goldin 1999).

Paulo Freire, in his celebrated book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, makes a distinction between learning that is teacher-dependant, which he calls the, "banking approach" and the other which is learner-centred, which he refers to as "problem posing approach" (Freire 1972, p. 45). In the banking approach the pupils think that the teacher possesses all the information needed by them. The problem posing approach, on the other hand, challenges the learner, not only to know how, but also to show interest in "why" a technique or tool performs the way it does. Furthermore, he sought to generate in the students a critical self-reflection on their everyday lives. In addition to acquiring reading and writing skills, he wanted the students to embark on an "assessment of themselves and their environment" (Sanders 1968, p.7). He believed an empowering education experience could be achieved only when the people themselves are involved in the curriculum development process. Subsequently, other scholars further developed these ideas. Budd Hall, who was a key figure in the 70s at the Institute of Adult Education of the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (where a lot of the experimentation took place), highlights the work of scholars who built on Freire’s groundbreaking work (Hall 1992). In particular Hall commends Larufa (1973) and Beltran (1976) for exploring various alternative communication modes that allow for community participation. He also mentions Fals-Borda (1980) who used theatre as a vehicle for transformation and empowerment of poor communities. According to him, the struggle at a cerebral level "benefited from an interdisciplinary development drawing its theoretical strength from adult education, sociology, political economy, community psychology, community development, feminist studies… and more" (Hall 1992, p. 16,).

The initial agenda of participatory research proponents was to replace the conventional hierarchical approach, which set researchers apart from their subjects. They privileged dialogue and oral reconstruction based on the "epistemological assumption that knowledge is constructed socially" (Hall 1992, p.20). In effect, they contested the sole authorship model. To achieve wide participation they devised and experimented with various techniques. Techniques such as community drama, drawings and construction of murals, photo-novels, story telling and any other form of interaction that would allow for free flow of repressed information (Hall, 1992,). Most researchers agree that participatory methodology works well in yielding problem description and generation of new perspective and ideas through visualization and group analysis (Johansson 1999). Its main weakness is that the analysis is based on information drawn from the memory of community groups or notes and diagrams provided by them. Within this context, the introduction of cheap, portable, and user-friendly video camera was a godsend. It quickly became an integral part of the tool-kit of participatory action researchers as a record making devise with capability for instant feedback and subsequent replay of moments that occurred during the interactions. In effect, it freed the researchers from the chores of recording fieldwork data. It, however, introduced other complexities because in front of a camera people often tend to "overreact" or get intimidated by the technology. Furthermore, there is the danger of researchers sliding into a storytelling mode instead of maintaining an objective stance and recording the reports (Johansson 1999). The production values of the videos produced in course of participatory action research are also a matter of concern. While Criticos talks about the "messiness" of production, Rocha refers to the participatory action research videos as "films of discomfort" (as cited by Tomaselli, 1989, p.12). The proponents of high technical quality argue that poor sound quality and "wobbly pictures" do not accurately represent the participants. On the other hand, the experience of Michaels and Kelly (1984) with the Walpiri aboriginal group in Australia shows that when people are left to discover their own filmic lexicon we learn more about their worldview.

During participatory use of videos, participants are both the objects and subjects of production; their reception is as pertinent an issue as the style of production. As Braden (1998) observes, "the audience and the producers are often the same people, working in the same local context where the viewing takes place" (p.9). Reception theorists have observed that individuals/families react differently when collectively viewing television images compared with when they are viewed alone (Lull, 1990, Morley, 1992). We see a similar phenomenon in the case of self-generated images in participatory situations. One primary reasons for this, as Braden (1998) suggests, is the convergence of a number of factors including the familiarity of image, location of viewing, and subject matter. The members of the production team can then stand back to review their own actions and draw personal or collective conclusions that could lead to further action. However, exposure to professional production techniques on everyday television can interfere with how the participants read their own video productions.

In spite of problems associated with the participatory use of video, there are many examples of the technique’s usefulness. Canadian "challenge for change" experiments in 1967 are said to mark the beginning of participatory video technique. In Fogo Island, a small fishing community, participatory video technique was used to help the poor articulate their experience of poverty. Their perspective turned out to be in opposition to the official position. Thereafter the participatory video technique has been used in a number of different contexts. Okahashi (2000) lists various countries in which participatory use of video was adapted as part of the process of community empowerment and education. The Philippines, Columbia, and Vietnam are mentioned as countries where the technique was particularly effective. One often cited project is Banchte Shekha women organization in Western Bangladesh (Bery and Stuart 1996, online document).

Participatory methods are based on the phenomenological paradigm, which accepts that "knowledge is the result of an interaction between people" (Kane, 1995, p.22). It also accepts the premise that the "researcher is part of this construction (of facts), not independent of it" (Kane, 1995, p. 22). The binary opposition of researcher-and object/subject of research is thus ruptured leaving the terrain for collective participation. Whose voice is heard and whose knowledge counts becomes a struggle that defines the participatory project. Craig and Porter (1997) argue that there is an irresolvable contradiction between participation, (which proposes to allow marginalized people the free space and control to discover and disseminate their potentials), and effective management, which "requires meeting certain objectives, many already established long before the project begins" (p. 50). They use the access people have to the project resources as an indicator of their control over the research process.

This paper uses Oxfam’s, a non-profit organization based in Britain, project in Nairobi to examine how participatory video works out in practice. The following case study provides an in-depth analysis of the different components of the Nairobi project. Thereafter the conclusions section critically examines the Nairobi project.

Oxfam, after undertaking a strategic review of their poverty alleviation program, felt that it was vital to involve the intended beneficiaries in the formulation of its development strategies. It wanted to hear the voices of the poor, as opposed to the experts. In particular Oxfam wanted to know: How do the people define their situation and quality of life? What do they feel is most effective in improving their quality of life? What do they feel their quality of life will be in ten year’s time? Accordingly, it zeroed on participatory use of video as the methodology of choice.

Nairobi, Kenya, which is the focus of this case study, was selected as one of the places for a participatory video project. Oxfam asked Dr. Susi Arnot of University of Reading to direct the Nairobi project. She arrived in Nairobi in January 1998 with two research assistants, including the author. The research team selected eight trainees, four women and four men, drawn from four different organizations with grassroots contact, for the project. The idea was to teach the trainees who in turn would interact with the local communities and engage them in participatory video exercises.

The training was provided over a three-day workshop. The following sections provide an overview of the training process and the actual implementation of the project thereafter.

The first day started with an overview of Oxfam, its objectives, and the project itself. Oxfam’s interest in finding out directly from those suffering from poverty was explained. Also, how Oxfam would use associated research to review its poverty alleviation programs was discussed. Finally, the presence of two research assistants from the University of Reading was explained. Thereafter the program for the next three days was outlined. Here is an overview of the first day’s instruction:

Camera Operation Exercise. The students were taught basic camera operations such as focusing, maintaining white balance, and zooming in and out in a peer teaching mode: first student, who was taught by the instructor, taught what s/he had learnt to the next student and so on. Each trainee was then asked to tell in front of the camera what brought him/her to the course and his/her hopes and fears with regard to the three-day workshop. Thereafter the tape was played back.

The novelty of handling a camera was very visible as most students were at first a little hesitant. Peer group encouragement and the immediacy of the image on screen provided the needed motivation to overcome the initial reluctance. Here are a few quotes from different students that highlight the sentiment within the group at this point in the workshop:

Mapping Exercise. With this exercise, the training moved beyond camera skills to "Participatory Learning and Action" (PLA) techniques. The trainees were asked to describe Nairobi by drawing a map of the city. This was the first group exercise and active participation was mostly by those who were familiar with thinking in such concepts. There were no serious disagreements. It was fun trying to decide how to make a good presentation. But what was the essence of the task? None of the trainees asked and no explanations were offered.

After the trainees finished drawing the map, the facilitator asked what had this exercise revealed that a questionnaire might not have brought out? The following responses indicated that the trainees had got the point of the exercise:

"We concentrated on what makes Nairobi great and not on the bad sides . . ."

Quite clearly, the exercise had succeeded in sensitizing the trainees to the biases that camera manipulation, both knowing and unknowing, can introduce.

Picture Composition Exercise. This exercise focused on the different types of pictures a camera can produce if manipulated correctly. The facilitator explained with the aid of prepared diagrams the various types of shots such as close up , 2-shot, pan (left/right), and tilt (up/down). The trainees were paired and each individual had an opportunity to frame shots of his/her partner.

Touching of Shoulders. All the trainees including the two research assistants formed a circle. The facilitator asked everyone to close his or her eyes while she moved around the circle. She then said that one of the individuals had been touched and by dialogue and questioning we should try and find out who was touched as that person would be the group leader. On the other hand, if that person chose to speak up, the mantle of leadership would right away fall on him / her. The trick here was that nobody was touched. One of the objectives of the exercise was to get the trainees to read each other’s non-verbal cues as they searched for their leader. Quite obviously, the group’s attempt to identify the person who was touched failed. This process was repeated one more time. Instead of trying to work out yet again who was touched, or not touched, the group short-circuited the process by selecting Caleb, the person most respected by them, as their leader. Thus the exercise, with its own twist, succeeded in inducing the selection of a leader via consensus and dialogue. The trainees were then asked to list likely roles in the project team: interviewer, video operator, etc. The facilitator then filled in the roles the group had missed and discussed qualities required for each role.

River of Life. The workshop participants, trainees and the research assistants, were paired and each person was asked to tell the story of his or her life. To aid the process, writing materials were provided to illustrate highpoints of their life stories.

Most trainees were reluctant or could not find appropriate symbols to represent their stories. The exercise was conducted in various combinations, in one the individual told his/her story, in another the partner retold the story. It led to a lively discussion about the content of stories and the right of individuals to tell the part they are comfortable with. The facilitator suggested individuals have the right to tell their stories the they want and we should be prepared to listen and accept what people have to say.

The day ended with each person writing three things that s/he learned and three things s/he wished to know. Most participants emphasized the technical aspects of the training as things they had learned and things they wish to know. To reinforce what was learned during the day, four questions given for further thought.

On day two, a lot of time was spent on learning how to record and edit in-camera. There was a camera exercise on filming the making of a cup of tea. It afforded the facilitator an opportunity to show how collective production works, especially group communication in the field. The next segment focused on the selection of the target group. Each trainee was given five minutes to make his or her presentation answering questions such as the following: Whom do you think Oxfam should be listening to? What do they need to know about us? Where and when should the fieldwork be conducted? The responses were recorded on tape and played back to fuel discussion. For the trainees, this exercise took the learning process from the unknown (camera skills, PLA techniques) to the known. Here trainees showed their understanding of structures and groups within their communities. The consensus was that the fieldwork should be done in the slums where the most help is needed. There was no discussion of the fundamental question why people are living in slums, and what are the factors that may be responsible for their poverty. The trainees accepted the guidance without question. As far as they were concerned, answers had to be presented to questions asked by the facilitator.

The final day was spent on working out the modalities for working in the field. The discussion covered issues such as language barrier, how to handle translations, and when and how the interviews will be transcribed. Based on mapping exercise and presentations on "Whom do you think Oxfam should be listening to?" Magengo, a slum area, was selected for fieldwork.

This semi-urban settlement, now categorised as a slum, has been in existence since 1897. Most of the people who currently live in Magengo are tenants who depend on "absentee" landlords for the maintenance of the structures. The introduction of land title deeds by the government, as proof of land ownership, was identified as one of the major reasons why there are few inhabitants in the area who now own their houses. Most of the poor landowners had to sell off their land to richer individuals who could afford the required legal fees for obtaining such documents. Apart from the condition of the houses, and the general state of infrastructure decay, Magengo appeared to be a relatively peaceful area with a high level of economic activity, including an open-air market.

One of the trainees made advance visits to establish contact with the "parking boys"[i] at the "Solidarity Base"[ii] in Magengo .The feedback from the initial interaction helped the team devise a sequence of confidence building measures. On arrival, the parking boys were singing their own songs and the visiting team joined them. The songs were followed by a "mime and tell" game. The idea being to create a friendly atmosphere and at the same time to get a gage of their ability to think by associating images with words. The latter was an issue of considerable concern since they all had containers from which they sniffed glue, a cheap drug of sorts. As soon as some level of comfort was achieved, the team proceeded to record the activities on camera with a promise that they will later have an opportunity to view the tapes.

A Walk around Magengo with Two of the Boys. Two of the younger boys were chosen to show the different places they visited on a daily basis. The walk was not just about locations. They also recounted stories about each place as they came to it. The boys showed the abandoned shacks were they slept and described how they bunched up together in the night. They talked about the people who assisted them with food and the income generating activities they engaged in for survival. This tour of sorts gave the visiting team some idea about the boy’s daily lives.

Focus Group Interviews. The boys were shown how the video camera works. They were then asked to tell their stories about what brought them to the Solidarity Base. Later each of them was asked to think about: (a) three things that made them happy, (b) three things that made them unhappy, and (c) places they would like to go but could not. After each of them had an opportunity to perform to the camera, one of the older boys was put forward as the spokesperson for the entire group. He said in Swahili:

The sessions were also used for group review of tapes, especially the portions that were filmed by the trainees themselves.

Since most of the discussions were conducted in Swahili, the tapes had to be transcribed into English. Focusing and constant camera movements were some of the noticeable flaws. In addition, there were occasional technical problems with sound or picture quality because one of the procedures for adjusting the amount of light entering the camera had been forgotten. Once the tapes and the translations were reviewed, the trainees with the assistance of the facilitator drew up a list of possible issues that could be included in the video-story. The idea behind the editing of recordings was to summarise them into a compact form that could tell the life story of the boys in a short and acceptable way, that is, the story should reflect the realities of the boys the way they presented them.

A system of story construction emerged from the editing trials. Once the tapes were transcribed, the team collectively marked out relevant segments on the transcripts. Discussions were then held on how the storyboard should be put together. Usually the team could not reach a consensus till the actual footage was viewed to see how it fit in with the emerging sequence. There were times when shots were rejected because the images were not in focus or the sound quality was poor. Finally, once the shots were selected, the process of producing the rough-cut began. It involved transferring the chosen shots from the video camera to a video cassette recorder (VCR). Log sheets showing the cue-out points were created for both the dialogue and the editing cues. The completed edited version was then shown back to the boys for their comments and additions.

The edited video was regarded as a rough-cut that could be still corrected or reworked should the Solidarity boys say so. After the rough-cut was shown to them, a group discussion was facilitated by one of the trainees to find out from the boys what they thought about the video. They were also asked how they saw their future in the next ten years. One of them said he would be a "car wash boy," and that the money he made from the venture would be enough to support him and his grandmother. But most important of all he concluded by saying that:

The edited version was then shown to parents and guardians to get another perspective on the tapes and also double-check the factual aspects of what the boys had said. After the screening one of the trainees facilitated a discussion on what the parents thought were the issues of concern. The discussion covered topics such as factors responsible for children living on the streets, sniffing of glue by the boys, rehabilitation, and the state of reform schools.

A re-edited tape containing portions of the story of the Solidarity boys and that of boys from Korogosho (another slum area where work was carried out) was presented to the Oxfam Assembly. This final tape, with an English audio sub-title dubbed over Swahili, was put together using sophisticated editing facilities in Britain. The idea was to "assist" the delegates of the Oxfam Assembly to comprehend the video. The edited version, entitled "Listen for Real," was well received by the Assembly. What cannot be ascertained is if by the act of re-editing, and dubbing audio-sub titles, the Assembly learned anything about the difference in producing video materials with people and not about them. One has to wonder what would have been the reaction of the Oxfam Assembly to original tapes or even the roughly edited tapes that were brought back from Nairobi. The poverty of filmic technique may have further reinforced the material poverty on screen. The choice was between refining the tape to allow the substantive issues the boys were presenting take precedence and that of allowing the ideological statement of "crude" form of production stand along side the "crude" way of life. While the former option was chosen for good reasons, this choice also makes a statement about the entire project.

The PLA techniques are meant to generate critical awareness among the poor about their own life situations. In this case, it was used to provide planning input for Oxfam, a foreign non-profit organization. So, there was a tension intrinsic in the very nature of the undertaking. Let us see how it fared on these two dimensions.

The praxis of true representation demands that the communities being "spoken on behalf of" or, whose "image of" is constructed, must not only be seen to be participating as subjects but must somehow take control of the process. They must be allowed to determine their boundaries of representation. But then, the project involved an alien visualization technique that had to be taught. At the very outset, the facilitator, a foreigner, had to set up, without collective consultation, a framework within which the much-sought critical self-awareness would be generated. Consider, for example, very simple issues such as the contents of the workshop or even the number of trainees. These decisions, by their very nature, had to be made a priori by the facilitator. The bottom line remains that in the early stages of the project the community groups were excluded. The facilitator did not insist on the trainees making decisions about what they would like to know, decisions on the content and context were made long before the trainees were selected. The choice and composition of the audience that are allowed to participate in the semi-public space created, becomes a factor that influences the nature of story constructed. It is one thing to voice ones opinion; it is another to have it heard within the local space in which it was created.

The presence of foreigners at the various locations contributed to the inability of the participants to see themselves as real partners in the process. In fact, at times, it seemed as if our presence at the various locations was distorting the response of the participants who saw us as "development officers," some as representatives of "money-bag" Oxfam. Furthermore, meaningful participation cannot be generated via a "fly-visit" intervention. A considerable length of time is needed to build confidence, skills and trust. As Pretty (1998) argues, true participatory projects are those that empower people by building skills, interests, and capacities that continue even after the project ends. To Oxfam’s credit, it did take some what of a long-term view.

After the Magengo fieldwork, the facilitator left the scene. The research assistants and the trainees carried out subsequent fieldwork at a Somali refugee camp and Korogosho slum. Furthermore, Oxfam left the video equipment purchased for the project at its Nairobi office, with the hope that the trainees would have easy access to the equipment whenever the need arose. The Nairobi office was also asked to undertake follow-up actions on issues that were identified in the course of the fieldwork. Quite clearly, the trainees had acquired basic video camera and teamwork skills and also the ability to construct video messages. Only time will tell whether the enthusiasm of the trainees aided by assistance from the Nairobi office would be sufficient to sustain PLA activity. It is quite likely that a more robust systemic support will be necessary. Only when PLA techniques cease to be a novelty and become commonplace in the local context, we will start seeing the results Paulo Freire envisioned. Freire's approach lays a lot of responsibility on the learners themselves. The role of the facilitator is to assist the group develop critical insights into their situation. Even the issue of skill acquisition was meant to be a means to an end, but in the case of the Nairobi project it became the dominant issue.

The other dilemma of PLA technique is that once the video-message leaves the context within which it was constructed it tends to take on new meanings when viewed by audiences far removed. That notwithstanding, one major site for the struggle for poverty alleviation is the international forum, where resources can be raised. The tape of the "parking boys" was a useful vehicle for this purpose; it stirred the consciences of those who saw poverty expressed in its total nakedness. Their cry for help went beyond their immediate environment to a gathering of more than 300 people who could write checks and also plan coordinated advocacy campaigns to influence institutions and public opinion. However, as Craig Ash, head of Oxfam Campaigns has said:

Campaigning can be a slow business. Poverty isn't going away overnight, and usually the things that must change to bring about improved lives for poor people are the policies and practices of governments and corporations. And we know how resistant to change they can be (personal communication, 1998)

This statement introduces other dimensions to this project and relocates the real site of change to governments and corporations. The more fundamental structural problems cannot be addressed by PLA interventions and required a determined effort on the part of the international community.

BBC (2003). Kenya’s street children. BBC News. Retrieved May 15, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/default.stm 

Beltran, L. R. (1976). Alien premises, objects and methods in Latin American communication research. Communications Research, 3, 107-134.

Bery, R. and Stuart,S. (1996). Powerful grassroots women communicators: Participatory video in Bangladesh. Retrieved May 13, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.c4c.org/video_bang.html 

Braden, S. (1998). Where's participation without representation. The Rural Extension Bulletin, June, 8-11.

Butkus, R., A. (1989). Linking social analysis with curriculum development: Insights from Paulo Freire. Religious Education, 84 (4), 568-583.

Craig, D., and Porter, D. (1997). Farming participation: Development projects, professionals, and organisations. In D. Eade (Ed.) Development and patronage. London: Oxfam.

Fals-Borda, O. (1980). Science and the common people. Yugoslavia: International Forum on Participatory Research.

Fals-Borda, O. (1998). Peoples’ space times in global processes: The response of the local. Journal of World-Systems Research , 3 (2), 624-634.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. UK: Penguin Books.

Gareau, F., H. (1986). The Third World revolt against First World social science: An explication suggested by the revolutionary pedagogy of Paulo Freire. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 27 (3-4), 172-185.

Goldin, C. (1999). A brief history of education in the United States. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Hall, B. (1992). From margins to centre: The development and purpose of
participation research. American Sociologist, 23 (4), 15-28.

Johansson, L. (1999). Participatory video and PRA: Acknowledging the politics of empowerment. Forest, Trees and People ,40-41 , 21-23

Kane, E., (1995). Seeing for yourself: Research handbook for girls' education in Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Larufa, G. (1973). Commicacion horizontal. Lima: Libreria Stadium.

Lull, J., (1990). Inside family viewing. UK: Routledge.

McTaggert, R. (1991). Principles for participatory action research. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(3), 168-187.

Michaels, E., and Kelly, F.J. (1984). The social organisation of an Aboriginal video workplace. Australian Aboriginal Studies ,1, 26-34.

Morley, D. (1992). Television, audiences and cultural studies. UK: Routledge.

Ogunyemi, A. (2002, July). The relevance and limits of social education in Nigerian Universities. Paper presented at the Idea of Education conference, Mansfield College, Oxford.

Okahashi, P. (2000). The potential of participatory Video. Rehabilitation Review 11(1). Retrieved May 13, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.vrri.org/rhb0100.htm 

Pretty, J. (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development , 23 (8), 1247-1263.

Sanders, T.G. (1968). The Paulo Freire method: Literacy training and conscientization. (Unpublished paper).

Tomaselli, K. G. (1989). Transferring video skills to the community: The problem of power. Media Development, 4, 11-15.

Tomaselli, K.G. (1996). Appropriating images. Århus, Denmark: Intervention Press.

Tsing, A. (2000). The global situation. Cultural Anthropology, 15(3), 1-35.