Ethical Issues in Using Participatory Video in Addressing Gender Violence in and Around Schools: The Challenges of Representation

This paper, presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York City, New York, United States, in March 2008, discusses ethical and theoretical issues of conducting participatory research with young people. The report reflects the authors' work with boys and girls in rural schools in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, using participatory methodologies, particularly visual (photo-voice and video-documentaries), to examine the nature and impact of gender-based violence on the lives of young people and to explore possible strategies for intervention. According to the report, while a number of scholars and organisations identify a set of basic principles that should be observed in doing research or working with children through participatory methodologies, there is a relative absence of a sustained focus on ethical considerations and the potential harm that "well-intentioned" researchers might cause in the name of "least harm". The paper attempts to map out some of the key issues that the authors regard as critical to engaging ethically in research on gender-based violence in and around schools in South Africa, particularly when visual methodologies are used.

According to the report, participatory video offers a valuable method for research collection; however, ethical considerations are vital. First, the authors believe that ethical participatory research with children involves ensuring that their participation is both voluntary and relevant. This means that the issues addressed should include those that directly affect their lives, and their participation should be of benefit to them. Secondly, many proponents of participatory methodologies believe that only when children have a significant voice can such interventions stand any chance of being successful. For the authors, this means creating a child-friendly environment, using child-centred ways of doing research.

The report outlines a case study of a video made by a youth group in which a rape occurs. It questions whether such a process may have some harmful impact on the participants. It also questions what right/responsibility researchers may have to uncover these sorts of situations and then inevitably "walk away" from them. For example, the report observes that it is one thing for the research team to help communities document cases of gender-based violence, but how does the research team help to protect the informants? How does the research team ensure the often-promised anonymity and autonomy of the participants in cases where such participants are minors and are under the guardianship of the teachers (and other adults) guilty of abusing them? As stated by the authors: "To put it more broadly, what are the dangers to children and young people brandishing cameras in and around schools and/or asking questions about sensitive issues such as gender-based violence, AIDS, and other issues, and thus breaking some of the culturally-based taboos set to regulate their behaviour in these communities? Would adult researchers accompanying them during their picture-taking, or informing them about the dangers of visual work suffice? Would teaching them to request informed consent from their subjects be enough? The issues are very real since the safety of the child video-makers or participants more generally is at stake."

The authors propose that, in the context of gender-based violence and HIV-related stigma and the violence it generates against girls and women, researchers and activists may use already published writings as data sources and prompts for girls to openly, albeit indirectly, discuss issues that affect them without any direct threat of censure and/or violence against them. Furthermore, video documentaries can, in some ways, also circumvent some of the ethical concerns that arise more directly in photo-voice. When the episodes in the video documentaries are staged, some distance is provided for the participants to discuss the pertinent issues in a relatively safe space without their views being attributed to them and held against them, thus, as stated here, reducing the ethical concerns inherent in this kind of work.

According to the author's experience, public viewings of the documentaries made during such a participatory video process in the schools provided an opportunity to obtain feedback and evaluate the value of the project. These public viewings also offered an opportunity to observe any negative impacts the project could have on the children who participated and to take some ameliorative steps where necessary and where possible.

The authors propose that the ethical issues surrounding "least harm" must also contribute to "most good". For Ethical Review Boards in universities and research units, too often the principle of least harm, they argue, is not balanced with "most good", and even least harm is defined only in relation to perceived immediate dangers but not in relation to, say, long-term disillusionment. For example, there is a danger of raising expectations of children and young people that something good will come of a study, when researchers know that this is unlikely given the time or costs involved. The report concludes that, knowing the long-term benefits when girls’ participation is taken seriously, there is an even greater responsibility to balance least harm with most good.