What participatory methods can teach us about ethical communications

Participatory photography and video techniques have evolved over many decades of diverse practice around the world.

They have endured as powerful ways for unheard voices to be amplified on important issues, bridging divides and sharing knowledge. Sitting alongside are various approaches to co-creation, in which communications professionals take a much more active role in the storytelling as part of a collaboration with a group or community.

As NGOs continue to interrogate the power dynamics within their work, participatory and co-creation techniques offer insights for anyone looking for more ethical and inclusive approaches to communications but unable to undertake fully participatory processes. If you want to shift from storytelling about towards storytelling with, here are some lessons we have learnt over the course of more than two decades of practice.

Everything must start with radical honesty

Those who share their stories deserve the highest levels of honesty, transparency and accountability from the outset. Managing the expectations of those we work with – whether they are participants, collaborators or the subject of our stories – requires a highly proactive level of honesty.

We strive to be open and transparent about what might change (quite possibly, not that much), how they might benefit personally (often, very little), how much control they have once the process is complete (frequently, not a great deal) and who stands to benefit financially, reputationally and professionally (invariably, someone else; frequently, it is us). This level of radical honesty ought to be the starting point for any communications or storytelling process.

This is going to take time

Our participants have a right to expect our time and undivided attention. Our trauma-informed processes typically take weeks of intensive work, during which time trust is earned and bonds are forged. We create emotionally and physically safe spaces where people feel respected, heard and in control of their stories.

Participatory storytelling is not a “content-gathering” exercise but a human encounter. It’s a relationship and a way of being with people that involves deep listening and careful engagement. Our participants are not problems to be solved; they are individuals with layered identities, emotions, experiences and lives.

We don’t think it’s reasonable or respectful to spend an hour or two collecting people’s stories before swiftly moving on. Spend the whole day, stay the night, share a meal, take a walk together, and get to know one another before lifting your camera or notebook. If you don’t have the time or the budget for that (minimal) level of engagement, consider whether you have the right to be there at all.

Consent is a conversation

Many organisations are now taking a more careful and respectful approach to ensuring contributors give genuinely free, prior and informed consent. The situation has undoubtedly improved significantly over recent years. Nevertheless, it is often treated as a singular event; a process that concludes with the granting (or not) of consent, with the signing of a document. But in the real world, situations shift and people change their minds over time.

We see consent as an ongoing dialogue. Before anything is recorded – and instead of using a written (often legalistic) document that sets out our terms and conditions – we talk to the people we are asking for consent. We explain who we are, the purpose of the production, how and where it might be used, who stands to benefit and what risks it might present. We ask them what they have understood, what they do and do not consent to and what risks they anticipate. It’s an opportunity to listen, learn and understand what impact (positive and negative) we might have. It’s also a chance to correct any misunderstandings they may have and manage expectations.

For us, consent is an iterative process in which contributors have multiple opportunities to give or withdraw their permissions: before anything is recorded, immediately after (having reviewed the content together) and following any editing or recontextualisation. Thereafter, they can withdraw or manage their consent at any stage in the future.

Local context is everything

As a person taking part in a participatory video and photography project with Action Against Hunger in Senegal said: “Taking a picture of someone comes with responsibilities.” –

Participatory approaches create safe spaces for participants to define what is culturally or ethically appropriate, determine what is off-limits and infuse the process (and output) with their culture, character and worldview.

Community-based screenings of films and exhibitions of photographs are opportunities for dialogue with the wider community. In this way, the subjects of stories can determine how they want their circumstances portrayed, what fair representation means to them, and fact-check the stories for anything inaccurate or misleading. Given sufficient time and patience (see above), this is something that can be incorporated into any story-gathering process.

Be prepared for shifting narratives

If there’s one thing that participatory practice has taught us, it’s that whatever you thought the story was at the start, it will have evolved into something very different by the end. It is always more complex and nuanced than you thought, and probably less satisfying than the story you were told before you arrived. By allowing the story to emerge, we risk more. But, hopefully, we inch closer to a true representation.

Embrace the complexity

Real stories rarely (if ever) conform to a neat narrative arc that audiences can easily digest and understand. Shit is complicated. As facilitators, we try to embrace the complexity and help participants tell stories that treat the subject (and their audience) with maturity and respect. You don’t have to hide the contradictions. Find space for happiness and humour alongside pain and suffering, and celebrate resilience and fragility. That’s where humanity lives.

Likewise, we never strive to tell universal stories. Because we embrace complexity, we’re unlikely to create neat and tidy narratives, and this reduces the chance of our stories representing common or shared experiences. Stories can only represent the experiences of their subjects  – with all their complexities and nuances – they don’t need to represent an entire issue or the lives of others.  

You’re going to have to let go

Participatory communications require us – as facilitators – to relinquish control over the production, storytelling, representation, voice and intention. If you’ve ever been with participants as they film or photograph one thing, when you can see something more interesting or powerful happening elsewhere, you’ll know how difficult letting go really is. It’s hard to do, but the rewards are there if you trust your collaborators.

You can discover more about Ingrid’s work by visiting fotosynthesiscommunity.org and Gareth’s work by visiting equals.org.uk.