EMPYREAN RESEARCH
  • Home
  • Vision
    • Who We Work With
  • Activities
    • Research
    • Facilitation
    • Community-University Partnerships
    • Teaching and trainings
    • International Development
    • Evaluation and Learning
    • Reflective Practice
    • Workshops
    • Vision Teams
  • Educational Tours
  • Resources
  • Blog
  • Bios
    • Other Empyrean Organizations
  • Contact

When Technology Meets Participation, Part 3: An Interview with Joanna Wheeler

12/4/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
Wheeler facilitating a digital storytelling for transformation workshop with Rastafarian bossie doktors in the Cape Town.
The previous two blogposts reviewed the new research report Translating Complex Realities Through Technology that I co-authored with colleagues at the Sustainable Livelihoods Foundation (SLF) in Cape Town.

In this post, I interview one of my co-authors on the report, Dr. Joanna Wheeler. Wheeler, now based at the University of the Western Cape (UWC), has worked in participatory research for the past twenty years. Her work started in the favelas of Brazil, looking at the linkages between democracy, violence and social change. She notes in the interview, “Violence played a key role in how social change happened, or often didn’t happen.”

After many years working at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), she relocated to Cape Town. Working in Cape Town provided an opportunity for her to engage more deeply with communities and more in a sustained manner than flying in episodically from England.
​
In the interview we discuss her work with various forms of participatory storytelling and film which have become central to her research practice in recent years. In her 2014 TED talk, Wheeler reflected on the importance of digital storytelling for transforming the narratives about individuals living in marginalized contexts. In this interview she discusses her subsequent expansion of this work to include collective analysis processes of digital stories and group filmmaking.
​

Key points from the interview include:
  1. Because participatory video often aggregates many people’s stories, it often fails to create a compelling narrative.
  2. Storytelling enables transformation: the stories are personally transformative for storyteller, and also create the possibility for wider transformation, in the community, politically, etc.
  3. According to Wheeler: “The story is told for the storyteller, not for the audience, and that’s what makes it powerful when we watch it.”
  4. Narrative changes people’s perspectives: 1) It allows the storyteller to change their narrative about who they are, their own perceived identity. 2) It can also reshape the conventional narrative told about a group or community, reframing it on their own terms.
  5. The storytelling process is driven by principles which guide the methodological choices. The process is not directed by a set method or defined series of steps.
  6. These principles guide decision-making in complex, perilous contexts: “You have to turn to the principles because relying on the tools alone won’t help you,” says Wheeler.
  7. Wheeler now uses a multi-layered process in research: digital personal storytelling for transformation, then collective analysis of those stories in which participants are able to see the connections and patterns which link their stories with others from their community or group.
  8. Collective analysis of stories helps people to see the wider systemic processes which are driving the challenges they face.
  9. Based on the collective analysis, the participants then identify the key themes they want to share with others and create a collective narrative which conveys the essential experience of the group.
  10. Unlike individual storytelling, which is very personal and reflective, the collective narrative-- often a film--is a very focused, intentional a tool for bringing attention to and intervening in the current situation in order to improve it.
  11. Relationships and trust are key to these processes. The more sensitive the subject matter, the more trust and the deeper the relationship required. All of which requires time.
  12. Such processes can’t be rushed. Trust between the participants and the facilitators is key, but also building trust in the group is necessary to help them figure out how they are going to function and make decisions as a team when the stories and research are shared publicly.
  13. This layered process of research builds the capacity of participants to not only to envision the alternative future they want to create, but it also heightens their capacity to own and present their ideas in public fora with government and media, without the professional researcher acting as an intermediary for the group. This gives the work even more legitimacy because it is both created and articulated by the participants.
  14. These processes are a space for these community members to reflect and to hone their thinking on the critical issues in their community and to recognize how much they do know about the situation. This is especially difficult to achieve otherwise in contexts of persistent violence and insecurity.
  15. The videos are a tool for participants to put their ideas and experiences directly into the policy dialogue in a way in which they have control over exactly what is said, even if they are not strong public speakers, because they have already scripted and recorded the exact language and narrative that they want to share long before they step onto the stage.
  16. Participation isn’t just about participation in a piece of research; it’s about heightening the skills of the community researchers to participate in civic and political life over the long-term in order to shape their futures for the better, in their own terms.
  17. The clarity of thought and action that participants achieve in participatory research processes is potentially a better indicator of its success than its research output.
  18. Such transformative research practices, because they depend on time, reflection and relationships, do not fit into conventional research timeframes and typical funding cycles.                                                                                                                              
Looking forward, Joanna is interested in better understanding how community-based, participatory research can equip participants with the sustained political will to create systemic change. What are the mechanisms and processes that build the capacity for change over the long term, not just within a defined research process?
 
Joanna also raised the possibility of returning to her American roots. “After 20 years of doing this work overseas, I am feeling compelled to bring it back to the US.”  We at Empyrean Research would welcome this opportunity to continue our collaboration with Joanna here in our local context, in our communities in Tennessee and across the United States.         

​​
0 Comments

When Technology Meets Participation, Part 2: Everyday Participatory Accountability

11/23/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
Henry, a Rastafarian bossie doctor from Cape Town, narrates his storyboard during a digital Storytelling for Transformation workshop connected to the Translating Complex Realities research.

In the previous post, I introduced the Translating Complex Realities report, based on a research collaboration between Empyrean Research and the Sustainable Livelihood Foundation (SLF) in Cape Town, South Africa. The focus of the study was to examine how the use of technology impacts citizen participation in research and political processes.

From the beginning of the project, I and my coauthors--Joanna Wheeler, Gill Black, Andrew Hartnack and Mariam Waltz—were particularly interested in how technology could enhance the voices of citizens to make them more readily heard by government. In other words, what could these new processes teach us about government accountability?

We examined a variety of research processes carried out by SLF over the past seven years. To inform this analysis we looked retrospectively at three streams of work which SLF had already completed. These included:

·       Multiple, rounds of research on the ever-evolving informal economy within the Cape Flats townships surrounding Cape Town.
·       A series of research activities and actions regarding participatory monitoring and accountability (PMA) which served to give voice to communities in feeding back to the South African government on its local service provision within the townships, in particular around public safety and community policing.
·       Collaborative worked carried out with the CSO Sonke Gender Justice regarding the causes and responses to gender-based violence (GBV) within the townships.

To add further specificity and breadth to the study, we also carried out two new projects expressly for this research:

·       One focused on natural resources conflict, building on earlier work and relationships SLF had established with Cape Town’s community of Rastafarian bossie doktors, whose practice of natural healing relied on plants harvested from protected government natural areas.
·       The other project focused on government-organized community health councils which monitor the quality of health services provided in the townships by a variety of non-governmental organizations contracted by the government to provide front-line care to citizens in these areas.

All of the cases included in the analysis were within the South African context, within Cape Town and its townships.

The cross-cutting analysis of the five cases provides significant insights into accountability in South Africa, on the ways government engages with citizens at the community level, and what is needed to make these everyday interactions a new locus of government accountability:

1.      Accountability isn’t only systemic, also it’s personal. Engagement with the state is an everyday experience for citizens—with neighborhood police, with service providers, with local government officials, etc.
 
2.      The accountability discourse frequently overlooks day-to-day forms of accountability and must take a participatory turn to account for these citizen-level experiences of the state.
 
3.      A shift toward ‘participatory accountability’ would acknowledge the daily forms of marginalization/exclusion perpetrated by the many faces of the state.
 
4.      Accountability is both a process as well as an outcome.
 
5.      Accountability in South Africa is hampered by a persistent distrust of government which lingers from the apartheid era.
 
6.      Efforts to improve government accountability most acknowledge social and historical contexts.
 
7.      The impacts of intermediary civil society organizations on government accountability are often non-linear and borne out over time. Success depends on a variety of factors and actors.
 
8.      Government responsiveness must happen through government engagement with people’s everyday lives.
 
9.      Government accountability requires giving attention to developing the most marginalized peoples’ abilities to articulate their experiences and positions.
 
10.  Everyday citizen experiences with the state can recast accountability issues, and are a necessary element to meaningful dialogue with those in political power.
 
11.  Accountability is not a binary of citizen and state; there are multiple-overlapping forms of power which exist at the local level in which citizens operate on a daily basis.
 
As the report concludes:
 
There is not just a ‘macro’ state of institutions and elected officials. The state exists in small, everyday forms in people’s lives... This research shows how the state is perpetuated through relational dynamics and micro interactions. As such, citizens actively engage with the state in numerous ways, both informal and formal, on a daily, even hourly, basis… What is missing is a lens to notice and analyse these micro interactions as forms of citizen–state engagement and to leverage these intentionally as mechanisms for increasing accountability (27).

We hope this paper creates a dialogue about how to bring the accountability discourse to the level of marginalized citizens, to acknowledge their daily, lived experiences of the state, so that these citizens can be key actors in demanding, shaping and maintaining various forms of government accountability which enhance their security, wellbeing and livelihoods.
0 Comments

When Technology Meets Participation, Part 1: Lessons from South Africa

11/5/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture

Empyrean Research, working in the collaboration with the Sustainable Livelihoods Foundation (SLF) in South Africa and the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) in the UK on a project funded by Making All Voices Count (a joint initiative funded by DFID, USAID & SIDA), recently completed a study examining how the use of technology impacts citizen participation in research and political processes. The final report, Translating Complex Realities Through Technologies, was published in July by IDS.

From the beginning of the project, I and my coauthors--Joanna Wheeler, Gill Black, Andrew Hartnack and Mariam Waltz—were particularly interested in how technology could enhance the voices of citizens to make them more readily heard by government. At SLF, my colleagues had been incorporating a variety of technologies into their research processes since the organization’s founding in 2010. They were quite familiar with the perceived value-added of incorporating technology into their research; the tech dimension appealed to many policy-makers, who felt the incorporation of tech inherently qualified research as ‘cutting-edge’.

While there was identified value on the policy side of the equation, that technology frequently grabbed the attention of government officials, at least initially, what had been less analyzed, however, was how technology affected the everyday citizens who participated in the research process and whether the technology actually helped them to more effectively achieve their goals when pressing the government and other stakeholders for change. Specifically, the research asked the following questions:
 
  • What conditions are necessary for participatory knowledge processes to use technology effectively to increase government responsiveness?
  • What are the different contributions (if any) that technology-enabled approaches make to fostering citizen engagement and shifting the perspectives of government actors at different levels?
  • What can be learned about the role of intermediaries in using various technologies and processes to achieve the above aims?
 
In order to better understand these intersecting issues empirically, we examined a variety of research processes carried out by SLF over the past several years. We looked retrospectively at three streams of work which SLF had already implemented. These included:
  • Multiple, rounds of research on the ever-evolving informal economy within the Cape Flats townships surrounding Cape Town.
  • A series of research activities and actions regarding participatory monitoring and accountability (PMA) which served to give voice to communities in feeding back to the South African government on its local service provision within the townships, in particular around public safety and community policing.
  • Collaborative worked carried out with the CSO Sonke Gender Justice regarding the causes and responses to gender-based violence (GBV) within the townships.

To add further specificity and breadth to the study, we also carried out two new projects expressly for this research:
​
  • One focused on natural resources conflict, building on earlier work and relationships SLF had established with Cape Town’s community of Rastafarian bossie doktors, whose practice of natural healing relied on plants harvested from protected government natural areas.
  • The other project focused on government-organized community health councils which monitor the quality of health services provided in the townships by a variety of non-governmental organizations contracted by the government to provide front-line care to citizens in these areas.

All of the cases included in the analysis were within the South African context, within Cape Town and its townships.

Within these five cases a variety of technologically-enabled research methods were utilized, including:


  • Digital storytelling
  • Collective narrative-based filmmaking     
  • Collective(photo)Voice
  • Participatory geospatial mapping
  • Community-hosted exhibitions
  • Film screenings and policy dialogues
  • Social media campaigns
 
The paper provides further description of each method and how it was woven into the research methodologies of the different case studies. Annexes at the end of the document provide extensive explanation of the informal economies work, the process with the bossie doktors, as well as the research with the community health committees.

Key findings of the cross-cutting analysis related to participatory methodologies and technology include:


  1. Sustained participatory research processes are valuable for helping to build trust within communities and with civil society actors. They also affirm to citizens that they are not alone in their concerns/experiences.
  2. Information shared with governments by communities through research processes can potentially be used against them and can make the communities more vulnerable rather than empowered in certain instances.
  3. Technologies such as digital storytelling and exhibitions make invisible citizen knowledge/experience visible and visceral to government actors in a way that traditional research cannot.
  4. Technology can help make visible systemic forms of injustice. The interpretation of this data by citizens adds additional validation and specificity to such meta-analyses.
  5. Participatory processes can, over time, help enhance the capacity of citizen groups to engage effectively with the state at a variety of levels.
  6. Collective participatory processes can help citizens connect their individual experiences to wider structural issues at the state and systemic levels.
  7. Collective storytelling can renew the hope of participants by making their stories heard and by linking their experiences with others in the community.
  8. The short-term effectiveness of participatory tools is impacted by the background of the group. Those with a group identity or previous research experience can move more quickly through processes than a group which is new to participatory research.
  9. Scaffolded, evolutionary, iterative processes of participatory research are more beneficial for community participants than one-off research activities.
  10. The use of technology in research processes does not lessen the need for experienced researchers. Indeed, experienced researchers are critical for preventing the technology from dominating the process and trumping the knowledge of citizens.
  11. Technologically-enabled research can provide a larger and more visible a platform for citizens to share their concerns and solutions.
  12. Using technology as part of a participatory research process requires mediating between different forms of knowledge and experience so that one form of knowledge does not dominate or outweigh the other.
  13. The use of technology in participatory research is neither good nor bad. It can amplify the visibility of the research but does not change the inherent quality of the research output.
  14. Technology can play a supporting role in participatory research, but the quality of such work is premised on the quality of relationships and the level of trust which exist between the researcher facilitators and the community researchers/participants.

The inclusion of technologically-enabled research methods in participatory research processes can open new possibilities for how participatory data can be created and how it can be disseminated. However, technology is not a shortcut, nor does it change the nature of participatory work. Relationships, trust and clarity of purpose remain the cornerstones of effective participatory practice.  Technology can amplify what is produced but it can cannot be a substitute for these prerequisite conditions.

Part 2 of this piece will focus on the findings of this research which relate to government accountability.


0 Comments
    Picture

     Felix  Bivens

    Felix is the founder and director of Empyrean Research. Based in Tennessee, he travels widely with his work for Empyrean.

    Categories

    All
    Accountability
    Action Research
    Action Research Journal
    Appalachia
    Appalachian Land Ownership Study
    Appropriate Technology
    Bangladesh
    Barefoot College
    Bunker Roy
    Cape Town
    Clients
    Cognitive Justice
    Community Based Research
    Emerging Leader Labs
    Gift Economy
    Joanna Wheeler
    Mission
    PAR
    Participatory Action Research
    Participatory Development
    Participatory Research
    PUKAR
    Reflective Practice
    Regenerative Farming
    Regenerative Systems
    Research
    Social Enterprise Incubator
    Solar Mommas
    South Africa
    Technology
    Tilonia
    Transformative Knowledge
    UNESCO CBR Chair
    Vrije University

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    RSS Feed

    If you are using Google Chrome as your browser, you will need an extension to receive this feed. Get it here: http://tiny.cc/3sv17w
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
  • Vision
    • Who We Work With
  • Activities
    • Research
    • Facilitation
    • Community-University Partnerships
    • Teaching and trainings
    • International Development
    • Evaluation and Learning
    • Reflective Practice
    • Workshops
    • Vision Teams
  • Educational Tours
  • Resources
  • Blog
  • Bios
    • Other Empyrean Organizations
  • Contact