Participatory video: when communities hold the camera

FAO describes participatory video as "a communication approach to video production and sharing in which community members and stakeholders actively participate in the planning, creation and dissemination of video content".¹ InsightShare calls it a set of techniques to involve a group or community in shaping and creating their own film.² Its guide is clear about what it is not: a traditional documentary or a video scripted by the commissioner.²

FAO notes that participants can use it to raise awareness, advocate for change or document their own stories and realities.¹ It points to work in Tabasco, Mexico, where participatory video strengthened the capacity and decision-making of farmer organisations, and in Bolivia, where Indigenous Peoples' organisations used it to document and share local knowledge.¹

Most organisational films are made about communities. Community filmmaking starts from a different question: who gets to decide what the story is? The Doc Society's Impact Field Guide argues that impact depends on process as well as outcomes, and that documentary practice has often reinforced inequity.³ It cites Arthur Pratt of WeOwnTV, an African-owned initiative in Sierra Leone that trains local filmmakers, who wants filmmakers to stop making films about communities without hiring people from those communities.³

The same guide quotes a simple test for anyone with a camera: "acknowledge your positionality, including the power you wield when you pick up a camera."³ For communications teams, that means being honest about who sets the agenda, who edits and who benefits from the finished film.

InsightShare's guide to combining participatory video with the Most Significant Change technique sets out a clear process.² At its core, participants share stories in a story circle, each group selects the story of most significant change to record, the story is filmed and informed consent is sought.² The wider process runs in six stages:

• Planning and preparation
• Collecting, selecting and filming stories
• Participatory editing
• Screenings and selection
• Participatory analysis, with a video report
• Dissemination

FAO's practitioner guide, written with Digital Green and the University of the Philippines Los Baños, places production within a wider communication process that begins with a participatory appraisal to identify issues and audiences before any video is made.⁴ It divides production into pre-production, production and post-production, and advises that stakeholders agree on the content and use of the video before production begins.⁴

In our own practice, we would add one more planning step: agree in writing, before filming, who will hold the footage, how the organisation may use it, and that participants will receive copies. Questions of ownership are far easier to settle at the start than after a powerful film exists.

Consent in participatory video is not a single signature. InsightShare describes a staged process in which storytellers review their footage and decide what can be shared publicly and what should be deleted, and edited videos are shown back to participants before any public use.² In its words, "A rigorous consent process ensures participants have full editorial control."² People whose stories are selected but who do not want to appear can record their voice or have the story written down instead.²

WITNESS lists four elements of informed consent: disclosure, voluntariness, comprehension and competence.⁵ The Impact Field Guide describes consent as "ongoing and informed" and asks filmmakers to discuss risks such as security and the effects on family and colleagues.⁶ For children, UNICEF requires permission from both the child and the guardian, in writing where possible, obtained without any coercion.⁷ InsightShare likewise reminds facilitators that anyone under 18 also needs parental consent.²

InsightShare calls the facilitator's role crucial, and lists the key skills as active listening, patience, an ability for self-reflection and being non-judgemental.² In editing, its aim is to leave the original content and natural flow of each story intact.² It prefers editing on site, directed by the storytellers, and offers a "paper edit" as a fallback, in which participants mark on paper what to keep, what to cut and how extra footage should be used.² FAO notes that editing can be done on a mobile phone or a computer using simple, accessible platforms.⁴

Telling personal stories can bring up difficult feelings and experiences, so InsightShare advises facilitators to plan for emotional support.² The Impact Field Guide is frank that there are limits to what any team can do to protect participants from harm.⁶ Plan for that honestly, especially on sensitive subjects.

Screenings are where participatory video often has its greatest effect. InsightShare notes that screening videos to mixed audiences can bring together communities and decision-makers, and that participants should receive a copy of their own video.² FAO recommends a collective approach to sharing in community settings, with activities before and after each screening, and says community video "creates a culture of participation and ownership".⁴

Not every participatory process is right for every purpose. If your organisation needs a polished film on a fixed deadline with set messages, commission a documentary and involve participants through consent and review, but do not call it participatory. Where you do hand over the camera, keep the commitments you made, and remember that once a video is public, it can be used in ways beyond your control.⁵

• Purpose, content and use agreed with the community first
• Experienced, non-judgemental facilitator in place
• Story circle and group selection of stories
• Staged consent, including the right to delete footage
• Parental and child consent for anyone under 18
• Editing directed by participants, or a paper edit
• Emotional support planned for sensitive stories
• Copies returned and screenings held locally first