4.5 Methods of data collection and instrumentation
4.5.5 Photovoice
Photovoice method was used in the study as a means of giving CDWs an opportunity to tell their story and have their voices heard through photographic evidence (Bananuka, & John, 2014; De- Coninck, 2006; Kramer et., 2013; Palibroda et al., 2009; Taylor, 2002). It was also chosen because it suits the critical theory paradigm adopted for this study (Plack, 2005). It should be noted that ‘taking photographs and telling stories as they relate to the photographs, are empowering’ (Palibroda et al., 2009, p. 8).
As a research method, Photovoice is traced to Professor Caroline Wang in the early 1990’s and has since gained popularity, especially in participatory action research ( Kramer, Schwartz, Cheadle, & Rauzon, 2013; Palibroda, Krieg, Murdock, & Havelock, 2009; Wang & Redwood- Jones, 2001). Photovoice is sometimes referred to as auto-photography (Noland, 2006; Rule &
John, 2011). Its principles are built on the fundamental tenets inherent in documentary photography, feminist research theory, and the Freirian empowerment approach (Burles, &
Thomas, 2012; Strack, Magill, & McDonagh, 2004). It is a participatory technique that involves facilitating research participants to take and analyze pictures describing their world and practices (De-Coninck, 2006; Rule & John, 2011; Stegenga, & Burks, 2013; Taylor, 2002). As Duffy (2010, p. 790) explains ,‘the cameras encourage recording of important issues and leads to discussion and reflection on the meaning of the images’.
Data collection by photovoice was specifically used with CDWs because they constitute a focal group in the work of EDF, and as an emerging group of ‘novice adult educators’ were a central interest of the study. CDWs are also a rather lowly placed group of leadership in EDF, based on their educational status and socio-economic standing in society. Photovoice was therefore used to uncover the hidden meanings beyond verbal expression in relation to their work and how they perceive it (Rule & John, 2011; Stegenga, & Burks, 2013). The central focus of photovoice was to elicit meanings of how, through images, these CDWs understand their roles in relation to adult education. It was also to act as a triangulation technique on data collection together with other methods.
Of the 9 CDWs from the 3 sampled communities, only 7 managed to participate in the photovoice exercise. The other two could not due to personal engagements. However, the seventh participant subsequently withdrew after one meeting for unspecified reasons and is therefore excluded in the final tally below. Only 6 participants managed to return the cameras, whose photos were developed for the final discussion. Data collection by photovoice took place in the second phase of data collection in the sixth month of my fieldwork.
Table: 5: Table showing CDWs/participants in photovoice activity Participant
pseudonym
Code Sex Age Highest level of education
Role in EDF Community
Teruth TER F 61 Primary 4 TBA Kiduukule
Nsemba NSE F 32 Primary 7 CHW Kiduukule
Iruku IRU M 30 Certificate CRP Kiduukule
Balifaijo BAL M 36 Senior 4 CRP Kiduukule
Noreda NOR F 52 Senior 2 CHW Busesa B
Poskali POS M 68 Primary 7 CHW Lukindo
108
In the first meeting, each of the 7 participants was given a disposable camera to carry for one week to take pictures which best describe their work and experiences as CDWs in their respective categories (see Chapter 1). They were sensitized and trained on the importance of this method and how to use the cameras. I conducted the training myself based on my experience in photography since my secondary school days. It also emerged that one of the participants had great experience in commercial photography and assisted during the training. However, during the training, CDWs were also a big resource to one another through the discussions that ensued (Palibroda et al., 2009).
At that point in time, CDWs changed roles from research participants to co-researchers (Strack, Lovelace, Jordan, & Holmes, 2010; Wiersma, 2011). In order to ensure ethical standards, participants were once again asked to sign a consent form in relation to the photovoice exercise and were also given a copy of the researcher’s introductory letter to the communities from the Resident District Commissioner. They were also reminded to always ask for permission before taking people’s photographs (Bananuka, & John, 2014; Wang & Redwood-Jones, 2001) (see Appendix 9).
After one week, cameras were collected and taken for the developing and printing of the pictures. It later emerged that three of the cameras had had technical faults and pictures could not be developed. New cameras of a different type were secured for the three people whose photography had failed. This indeed prolonged the exercise. A meeting was later convened to discuss the photographs.
In an approach suggested by Kramer et al., (2010), each participant was then tasked to select 5-7 of the most suitable photos for the study based on the guidelines given earlier. However, not all participants could raise the required number or meet the specified guidelines. In total, 50 photos were selected and marked by the photographer/research participants. This meant that each photo then had an identification code. In the meeting, each participant was given a chance to lead the group in discussing the photographs they had taken (Kramer et al., 2013). The discussion followed what Wang and Redwood-Jones (2001) called SHOWeD:
These questions were set around the mnemonic “SHOWeD”: What do you See here?
What is really Happening? How does this relate to Our lives? Why does this problem or strength exist? What can we Do about it? (Wang & Redwood-Jones, 2001, p. 562).
However, the discussion maintained flexibility and spontaneity giving individuals more freedom to say why the photos were significant to them and their work in EDF (Palibroda et al., 2009). In line with Paribroda (2009) and Duffy (2010), other participants were allowed to contribute ideas, with my guidance. Later, each participant, with the help of group members, was asked to suggest a title for each photo selected.
Photovoice, as a data collection technique, was in a number of ways very enriching to the study and the participants. Firstly, participants got excited from the start to the end as it involved the use of cameras and taking family photos and exciting scenes of their choice. Some even said it was their first time taking pictures using cameras. The method brought the research participants closer to me as the principal investigator. They moved a step beyond participants to becoming co-researchers, as they had to acquaint themselves with issues such as research ethics, data reporting and analysis. The method also seemed to empower the research participants and they debated with the authority and finality concerning certain opinions and positions. Not only could they agree and disagree among themselves, but also with the principal investigator as well. The discussions that emerged were participatory, engaging, interesting and empowering.
However, the method was not short of challenges. It was very difficult to acquire cheap disposable cameras. When I finally found them, some turned out to be faulty. Secondly, although the training of photo taking had seemed well understood, the exercise was not all successful. It also emerged that some members had not mastered the photo taking skill. Lastly and most challengingly, were the arduous ethical requirements involved with photovoice (Wang &
Redwood-Jones, 2001). It later emerged that some participants had not followed the ethical standards in full.
110