Organizing, Managing, Communicating and Leveraging Information and Knowledge to Support and Deliver CRP Results: A hands-on Workshop on Approaches, Tools, Systems and Services

Addis Ababa, 17-20 October 2012
Co-organized by IWMI/Water, Land & Ecosystems and ILRI/Livestock & Fish
Back to the event agenda

Building block 'Participatory video'

Background presentation



Results of the session



Why PV?
  • Collaborative, rather than extractive
    • Addresses research fatigue
  • Peer-to-peer knowledge sharing
    • Community analysis

Top-down vs. collaborative approach
A process that work in illiterate communities

Examples
  • InsightShare—identifying research requirements for sustainable integrated mountain development in Himalayas
  • NileBDC—increasing community representation in local innovation platforms, Ethiopia
  • Digital Green-knowledge dissemination and training

Challenges
  • Dynamic tool that excites communities, but danger of raising expectations (consider long-term sustainability)
  • Time consuming—perceived as easy but rushing creates token efforts at community participation
  • Facilitators should ensure participants have some sort of incentive
  • Projects can be hijacked by more powerful actors—may look like PV, but power dynamics may strongly influence
  • People may have good reason for not documenting/sharing their knowledge
  • Danger of using PV as an advocacy tool in places where it is not possible due to political environment

Potential uses
  • Thinking about CRPs: PV is more than just making a film, but the process you go through with community members to decide key issues/challenges and get their ideas for potential solutions
    • Useful for start of projects
  • Raises community voice
  • Acts as a catalyst for change
  • Participatory photography for monitoring and evaluation processes
    • Setting indicators from farmer perspectives, integrate into M&E
  • Creates feedback loops that can inform the project cycle
  • Scaling-up: sharing best practices, disseminating ideas between communities domestically or internationally

Discussion
  • How could PV be utilized in the CRPs?
  • What are the potential challenges involved in using PV?
  • What support is needed to utilize PV as a tool for research?
  • Marina: In Peru, developed video groups (youth, young women) who used PV as part of their community processes. They were recognized by the communities as a team that supported their decision-making processes and worked well. But the groups fell apart (people moved away, acquired media jobs). How do you keep this going/make it sustainable?
  • Sometimes you can use PV in a time-bound approach to address a specific issue. In that way, it serves its purpose. But in many cases, people want to continue these processes—it has to be something you discuss with them upfront.

Marina: For NBDC, its about development challenges and development outcomes. For the CRPS, it’s about scaling-up over very long timeframes. If we want this to be a tool that can lead to long-term change then we need to deal with the time-frame challenge.
  • In Ethiopia, knowledge centers are not being capitalized on because people do not have the capacity. Probably have a similar problem in other countries.
  • Will depend on the CRP in question. AAS is a community-drive approach, but other CRPs have their research outcomes already defined. How do we turn around this classic research approach?
  • Needs to be envisioned as a process. Many people see PV as a way of community information to farmers but we need to be more creative about looking at this as a process.

Jeremy: Have been talking to Digital Green about getting projects going for CRP projects. Greatest difficulty is coming up with a budget—D.G. does not know what the budget will be to train a new community.
  • Find that surprising. Digital Green should have an idea of the cost breakdowns involved. Need to budget for how many people are involved, equipment, cost of getting someone in for training, food, and transportation.
    • Jeremy: Those things are relatively straightforward; challenge is estimate of amount of time it takes.
  • Digital Green works through NGOs, so that may be the challenge.
  • Also important for us to work through NGOs and partners. Important to link researchers with the right development specialists.

Jeremy: How can comms and KM take advantage of participatory video being used as a research tool? For example, taking some of the PV outputs and repurposing them—putting together farmer-produced material from different sites.
  • Marina: Our comms department is worried about quality. Ideal for research, but can’t guarantee that it’s going to result in a good comms product. What’s your experience with that?
  • InsightShare has a well thought out methodological process. Quality of results is impressive. Communities are doing this on their own. Depends on how far you want to go because InsightShare does participatory editing as well—from a research point of view, seeing how communities edit is impressive.

Michael: Ethical issue of intellectual property, repackaging.
  • InsightShare is completely community-centered. About giving them tools to have a voice. When it comes to repackaging, it becomes more complicated. What if farmers’ opinions are wrong? Can we insert researchers and use it as a training video?
  • Marina: Example of PV when final product was used at international policy farmers and communities were not comfortable with it. Community backed out.
    • Multiple stages of consent need to be built into the process.

Have you come across evidence that shows the difference between PRA and PV?
  • Sometimes PRA tools might be enough. PV is not applicable in every situation. No point in doing PV if you can use PRA tools and get same results. Depends on context.
  • Can draw more of a comparison between extractive research approaches (interviews, surveys, questionnaires) vs. PRA/PV tools. Communities get nothing back from extractive processes.

Marina: Wondering how applicable this is to the CRP world. It is applicable to AAS, although there are certain top-down interests that must be negotiated. You’re talking about people develop the research agenda—realistically, how many CRPs can do this? In which CRPs, at what level, in which way? Will CRPs even really get away from being extractive?
  • Michael: PV becomes part of development process. Depends on what partners you are dealing with. For WLE, will be potential (Rainfed SRP) for PV, but not necessarily at the CRP-level.
  • Even just talking about PV can bring up important questions for the CRPs. We need to think more critically about why/how we do research.

Marina: What is your experience using this for M&E?
  • Just beginning to think about how that could work. In NBDC, with local level platforms, introducing digital cameras as a way of farmers documenting the interventions that have come out of IPs, and then using those for digital stories. At this point, just thinking about PV for M&E.

Chris: InsightShare’s training is incredibly valuable.
  • Their message of learning from mistakes is incredibly important.

Important to let farmers set indicators for what is important, feedback loops, etc.