Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a PHOTOVOICE-DUOETHNOGRAPHY-Autosaved.pptx
Semelhante a PHOTOVOICE-DUOETHNOGRAPHY-Autosaved.pptx (20)
Último
Último (20)
PHOTOVOICE-DUOETHNOGRAPHY-Autosaved.pptx
- 2. PHOTOVOICE Developed by Caroline Wang and Mary Ann Burris in 1990’s It is use with the marginalized groups which are the photovoice participants. Through the use of a specific photographic technique, they identify, document, and represent their community’s strengths and concerns from their own perspective (Wang 1999). 2
- 3. Photovoice • It was initially conceived as a health promotion tool. Over time, it has been applied in: • Disciplines of education; • Disability studies; • Public health; • International development; • Parenting; • refugees. 3
- 4. Photovoice Interrogates contextually based meanings Insider perspective Generate new insights Into our socially constructed realities and cultures 4
- 5. Photovoice was born out of three distinct theoretical frameworks 1.EMPOWERMENT EDUCATION FOR CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS • purports that individual and community involvement are necessary to achieve social equity. FEMINIST THEORY • seeks to develop a political consciousness in the face of unequal gendered relationships DOCUMENTARY PHOTOGRAPHY • attempt to capture the everyday lives of a specific group of people to produce an emotional testimony of their experiences 5
- 6. • Wang and Burris used the various strengths of each of these three frameworks to create photovoice methodology. • The overall aims of each of these frameworks support an action- oriented, participant-directed method. 6
- 7. PHOTOVOICE 7
- 8. Photovoice Objective 1. For participants to identify, record, and reflect on community needs; 2. To promote critical dialogue; 3. To reach policy makers to enact social change toward community improvement (Wang and Burris 1997) 8
- 9. RESEARCH PROCESS Photovoice uses participatory research methods. Participatory research models were developed in response to critiques of the power dynamics inherent in traditional research methods wherein the researcher usually makes the key decisions that pertain to the research process. 9
- 10. •Not all participatory models are created equal. •Photovoice can also be conducted in controlled, researcher-directed settings, which creates an authoritarian, rather than authoritative, research model. NOTE 10
- 11. STEPS FOR CONDUCTING A PHOTOVOICE STUDY 1. Select and recruit a target audience of policy makers or community leaders. 2. Recruit a group of photovoice participants. 3. Introduce the photovoice methodology to participants and facilitate a group discussion. 4. Obtain informed consent. 5. Pose an initial theme for taking pictures. 6. Distribute cameras to participants and review how to use them. 7. Provide time for participants to take pictures. 8. Meet to discuss photographs. 9. Plan with participants a format to share photographs and stories with policy makers or community leaders. (Wang 1999) 11
- 12. DUOETHNOGRAPHY Duoethnography is a collaborative research methodology that invites researchers to serve as sites of inquiry. Through juxtaposition, the voices of each researcher are made explicit, working in tandem to untangle and disrupt meanings about a particular social phenomenon. 12
- 15. Duoethnography younger sibling of autoethnography take a postmodern view of identity It acknowledge the culturally layered, contradictory, socio-political and constantly changing nature of identities researchers work together to generate data, reflect on the experiences, acknowledge and respect difference, and check with each other as to what should be included in the final narrative 15
- 16. Similarities with authoethnography Difference data are generated by one author and is then interrogated and interpreted using relevant theory, creating a “narrative sandwich”, and by a focus on writing as a method of inquiry duoethnography differs in the critical nature of the collaboration, where both researchers are involved in the process of generating data, and in subsequently interrogating their unique experiences of a shared phenomenon. 16
- 17. Working lives of participant 1 Working lives of participant 2 Duoethnography provides a method to examine and critique the intersection 17
- 18. REFERENCES • Camille A. Sutton-Brown (2014) Photovoice: A Methodological Guide, Photography and Culture, 7:2, 169-185 • Esther Fitzpatrick, Sandy Farquhar, (2018) "Service and leadership in the university: duoethnography as transformation", Journal of Organizational Ethnography, https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-08-2017- 0037 • Yang,Y. (2023). How to Conduct a Photovoice Systematic Review: Lessons Learned and Recommendations.The Qualitative Report, 28(4), 979-990. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/ 2023.5792 18
Notas do Editor
- Caroline Wang and Mary Ann Burris developed the photovoice methodology in the 1990s. Typically used with marginalized groups, photovoice participants identify, document, and represent their community’s strengths and concerns from their own perspective through the use of a specific photographic technique (Wang 1999).
- This participatory action research strategy was initially designed for health promotion and has gained popularity in various fields such as education, disability studies, public health, international development, parenting, and refugees.
- It interrogates contextually based meanings from an insider perspective as a means to generate new insights into our socially constructed realities and cultures. It oscillates between private and public worlds in its attempt to publicize and politicize personal struggle via photography, narratives, critical dialogue, and social action. Thus, photovoice broadens the nature of photography from being a fine art form to being central to socially and politically engaged praxis.
- EMPOWERMENT EDUCATION FOR CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS Freire’s concept, empowerment education for critical consciousness, purports that individual and community involvement are necessary to achieve social equity (Carlson, Engebretson, and Chamberlain 2006). Having now become synonymous with emancipatory community development approaches (Carlson et al. 2006), this approach encourages critical group dialogue in an attempt to foster critical understanding and critical action (Freire 1973). 2. FEMINIST THEORY It is grounded in the assumption that knowledge is experiential, and seeks to develop a political consciousness in the face of unequal gendered relationships (Ramazanoglu and Holland 2002). 3. DOCUMENTARY PHOTOGRAPHY Documentary photographers attempt to capture the everyday lives of a specific group of people to produce an emotional testimony of their experiences (Jing and Yun 2007) as they narrate stories in a photographic language to express the social conscience (Strack, Magill, and McDonagh 2004). It is at once humanistic, emotional, and compassionate as it is radical and political (Kuo 2007).
- Wang and Burris used the various strengths of each of these three frameworks to create a photovoice methodology. The overall aims of each of these frameworks support an action-oriented, participant-directed method.
- Photovoice is grassroots activist research rooted in problem-based inquiry (Burris and Wang 1997). It is steeped in the tradition of including visual representation in research due to its ability to transmit messages (Wang et al. 2004) and to ignite social critique (Stanczak 2007) against a contextualized backdrop that is culturally grounded.
- Photovoice researchers put cameras in the hands of individuals who are often silenced in the political sphere so that they can represent their community and narrate their everyday experiences using their own voices (Foster-Fishman 2005) to become catalysts for social change. The primary objectives are threefold: (1) For participants to identify, record, and reflect on community needs; (2) To promote critical dialogue; (3) To reach policy makers to enact social change toward community improvement (Wang and Burris 1997). With the intent to benefit the participants and community involved, photovoice methodology includes an explicit political agenda
- Photovoice uses participatory research methods to encourage participants to lead the research process as they visually represent and narrate their everyday experiences (Foster-Fishman 2005). Participatory research models were developed in response to critiques of the power dynamics inherent in traditional research methods wherein the researcher usually makes the key decisions that pertain to the research process. photovoice also encourages participants, who are assumed to be experts of their own situation (Wang, Burris, and Ping 1996) to draw upon their personal histories and experiences, while emphasizing the importance of telling their story, rather than trying to tell the story. Photovoice researchers conceptualize this practice as a medium of knowledge transfer, whereby the researchers and policy makers are on the receiving end of instruction (Wang 1999; McIntyre 2003)
- As a cautionary note, all participatory models are not created equal. Jurkowski (2008) notes that though photovoice was developed to be a participatory means in which to engage the participants in all phases of the project, it is not always implemented as such. Photovoice can also be conducted in controlled, researcher-directed settings, which creates an authoritarian, rather than authoritative, research model.
- 1 Select and recruit a target audience of policy makers or community leaders. 2 Recruit a group of photovoice participants. 3 Introduce the photovoice methodology to participants and facilitate a group discussion. 4 Obtain informed consent. 5 Pose an initial theme for taking pictures. 6 Distribute cameras to participants and review how to use them. 7 Provide time for participants to take pictures. 8 Meet to discuss photographs. 9 Plan with participants a format to share photographs and stories with policy makers or community leaders. (Wang 1999)
- Duoethnography is a collaborative research methodology that invites researchers to serve as sites of inquiry. Through juxtaposition, the voices of each researcher are made explicit, working in tandem to untangle and disrupt meanings about a particular social phenomenon. We gravitate to duoethnography for its evocative power and the opportunity this methodology provides to engage in meaningful self-study in the presence of another
- In duoethnography, the researchers are simultaneously participants, coming together to engage in conversational dialogue about a social phenomenon of mutual interest, and through a process of juxtaposition, work together to untangle and disrupt one’s own assumptions while paying heed to the broader meta narratives influencing how they see themselves and the social reality of others (Norris, 2008; Sawyer & Norris, 2013). Dialogue is a crucial component to duoethnography. Through descriptive narration, stories, and examples, researchers chronicle their lived experiences, avoiding unnecessary or distracting language so readers “can insert their own narrative alongside (or against) those juxtaposed by the duoethnographers” (Schultz, 2017, p. 508).
- We use the methodology of duoethnography to focus on the interplay between personal experiences of academic service and broader social, cultural and political contexts ( Juntrasook et al., 2013, p. 210). Most important in this duoethnography is how personal, familial stories reveal themselves as unique forces that underpin our service roles in the organisation.
- If ethnography is the parent of autoethnography (Allen-Collinson and Hockey, 2008), duoethnography is the younger sibling of autoethnography. Like autoethnographers, duoethnographers typically take a postmodern view of identity. Premised on postmodern explanations of subjectivity, duoethnographers acknowledge the culturally layered, contradictory, socio-political and constantly changing nature of identities (Sawyer, as cited in Krammer and Mangiardi, 2012). As a methodology, it has a close affiliation with collaborative autoethnography, where researchers work together to generate data, reflect on the experiences, acknowledge and respect difference, and check with each other as to what should be included in the final narrative (Allen-Collinson and Hockey, 2008)]
- There are also similarities to co-produced autoethnographies (Kempster et al., 2008) where data are generated by one author and is then interrogated and interpreted using relevant theory, creating a “narrative sandwich”, and by a focus on writing as a method of inquiry (Richardson, 2008). However, duoethnography differs in the critical nature of the collaboration, where both researchers are involved in the process of generating data, and in subsequently interrogating their unique experiences of a shared phenomenon. Throughout, they seek understanding and remain open to transformation
- Duoethnography provides a method to examine and critique the intersection of our working lives in the university organisation, and to interrogate our self-identity and position within the larger social context (Herman, 2017). In the research article written by Fitzpatrick E. and Farquhar S. (2018) entitled Service and leadership in the university duoethnography as transformation, they stated that “Our data gathering has taken several years, 2012–2017, while much of this has been informal conversations and sharing of stories, we have, over the past five years, taken the time to record (audio and written) our conversations. This informality of data gathering speaks to the ethnographic lived experience of the participants (ourselves). Each researcher shares experiences through various narrative forms, including written conversations, audio or visual recordings, photographs, and poetry. The narratives are juxtaposed, revealing differences and commonalities that form the basis of narrative exchanges, revealing both authors’ different social and cultural formations of self. Personal narratives become shared inquiries, layered to reveal the intersubjective and ambivalent nature of personal and group identity (Sawyer and Liggett, 2012).”