Field Methods http://fmx.sagepub.

com/

Participatory Photography as a Qualitative Approach to Obtain Insights into Farmer Groups

Elisabeth Gotschi, Robert Delve and Bernhard Freyer Field Methods 2009 21: 290 DOI: 10.1177/1525822X08325980 The online version of this article can be found at: http://fmx.sagepub.com/content/21/3/290

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Field Methods can be found at: Email Alerts: http://fmx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://fmx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://fmx.sagepub.com/content/21/3/290.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 21, 2009 What is This?

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

Participatory Photography as a Qualitative Approach to Obtain Insights into Farmer Groups

ELISABETH GOTSCHI
University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), Institute of Organic Agriculture

ROBERT DELVE
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropicale (CIAT)

BERNHARD FREYER
University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), Institute of Organic Agriculture
Participatory methods and visual tools are increasingly popular as qualitative approaches for enriching and complementing quantitative survey tools for understanding livelihoods and assessing and documenting impacts of development projects. However, the use of visual tools for analyzing and documenting social processes is still in its infancy. This article reports on an innovative attempt in adopting existing methods of using disposable cameras to stimulate interviews and focus group discussions with groups of smallholder farmers and to obtain new insights into farmer group dynamics and social capital of groups. Keywords: participatory photography; smallholder farmer groups; Mozambique; visual research methods; social capital

INTRODUCTION
Participatory methods and visual tools are increasingly being used to (1) develop a rich and deep understanding of individuals and groups and their beliefs, cultures, traditions, or social relations (Heisley and Levy 1991); (2) give the researched a voice (Markwell 2000; Wang et al. 2004) and/or obtain insights into how the researched think about the research topic
The authors are grateful to farmer groups in Bzi District for their willingness to participate in the research and share their pictures with us and a broader audience. Many thanks to the District Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Development in Bzi District, PROMEC, and UDAC for their support in the field. The study was funded by the Government of Austria.
Field Methods, Vol. 21, No. 3, August 2009 290308 DOI: 10.1177/1525822X08325980 2009 SAGE Publications

290

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

Gotschi et al. / PARTICIPATORY PHOTOGRAPHY

291

(Worth and Adair 1975); (3) provide an additional qualitative approach for enriching and complementing data from other sources (e.g., semistructured interviews, quantitative surveys) (Markwell 2000; Clark and Zimmer 2001); and (4) share the stories of pictures between group or community members with policy makers, government, and others (Singhal et al. 2004; Wang and Pies 2004; Wang et al. 2004). Images such as photographs have been used in various ways in research (e.g., for illustration, documentation, or as research tools [methodology]). In early examples from 1890, photographs were used as an influential vehicle for social critique (Stanczak 2004: 1472), although this critique has been articulated by the researcher and not by the people concerned. Historically, photos have been used for documentation, illustration, and to confirm verbal text, rather than being integrated into theoretical arguments (Harper 2003:242). This predated the realization that photos can make sociology, ethnology, and anthropology more communicable and understandable to a broader public (Harper 2003). Once photography entered empirical social research, pictures have been used as a can opener for deeper reflection and discussion within the interview process (Collier and Collier 1986, quoted in Stanczak 2004:1473), leading to a deeper understanding by researchers of the different insights into the subject from the respondents point of view. In recent years, visual data have become increasingly popular for answering research questions about social change or for investigating social and ethnic groups and their ways of thinking and organizing their world (Worth and Adair 1975:42). Looking at traditional research tools (such as quantitative surveys) as one-way communication that extracts data, the development of participatory research tools changed these interactions between the researcher and the researched toward a more dialogical relationship, leading to a transformed or enlightened understanding as an outcome of the interaction (Roulston 2006:11). In this article, we report on the use of participatory photography with farmer groups in a case study of rural Mozambique. We discuss how this methodology helped us obtain new insights into group dynamics and social capital that we could not capture with surveys, focus group discussions, or semistructured interviews.

CONTEXT OF THIS STUDY

A common approach of development aid and government extension services in rural Africa is to organize smallholder farmers into groups to

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

292

FIELD METHODS

increase efficiency of support and facilitate the transition from subsistence farming toward market orientation. These agencies and extension services, however, focus on technology and/or economic aspects, while social dimensions, such as group dynamics, development of social networks and social capital, and perceptions of the so-called beneficiaries, are rarely considered in the process, monitoring, and evaluation. Prior to the present research conducted between March and June 2006, we investigated how the introduction of groups in rural Africa changes social capital and networks of group members and assessed gender differences in access to information, creation of contacts, and supportive networks (Gotschi 2006). However, just as it has been a challenge to assess social capital at the group level, it has also been a challenge to move beyond structural aspects of social capital and to capture cognitive or bonding aspects. Our experience with using semistructured interviews and focus group discussions with farmers made it clear that farmers were not used to reflecting on and talking about cognitive aspects of groups, what group membership meant to them, whether it changed their social relations, how they thought they benefited, and the broader meaning of groups for themselves or the communities in which they live. Besides these practical difficulties, social capital cannot be simply aggregated from individuals to groups (Schuller, Baron, and Field 2000). We conducted a case study in Bzi District, Mozambique, using participatory photography to stimulate farmers in discussing their group membership and to assess what it meant to them as individuals, families, groups, or community. We hoped the combination of appraising photos, analyzing group processes, and having discussions with farmers would allow us to obtain insights into qualitative dimensions of social capital of groups, including group dynamics, solidarity behavior, collective action, and so forth. We further hoped the methodology applied would allow us to grasp the farmers point of viewhow being a member in the groups has an impact on their livesand to obtain insights into their vision of their world (Malinowski 1922, quoted in Worth and Adair 1975:12). Specifically, we were interested in how social capital is expressed within a group, moving beyond the assessment of groups to achieve common objectives (e.g., increase volume of sales, construct storehouse) as well as individual perceptions of trust, group cohesion, and networks toward insights into the collective dimension of bonding social capital. Issues of group dynamics, power, and solidarity among group members were analyzed collectively in group discussions or individually with farmers when evaluating the process as well as the pictures.

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

Gotschi et al. / PARTICIPATORY PHOTOGRAPHY

293

LITERATURE REVIEW
Introducing photography into research is known in the literature as photo elicitation (Robertson 2005), autodriven photo elicitation (Samuels 2004), photo-elicitation interviews (Clark-Ibnez 2004), photovoice (Wang et al. 1998; Wang and Pies 2004; Wang et al. 2004), photo novella (Wang, Burris, and Ping 1996), photo interviewing, and reflexive photography or autodriving (Hurworth 2003). Participatory photography emphasizes the active role of participants in the generation and interpretation of photos and understands it as a research method that hands over the cameras to peopleindividuals or groupsfor the purpose of eliciting information to inform a research project and stimulate self-reflection and interactions with others. Basically, there are two traditions of working with photography in social sciences: ethnography, which accredits origins of the methodology to Collier (1957, quoted in Samuels 2004:1529), and applied social research in the tradition of Wang (e.g., Wang, Burris, and Ping 1996). However, these two traditions do not fully acknowledge each other, and terms are often used in diffused ways. The term voice, auto, or participatory is often used to indicate that the cameras have been handed over to the researched; in other approaches, the researcher or a third person takes the photos. In addition to looking at the action of who has control over the camera and taking pictures (researcher or researched), there is a further need to assess the purpose of the pictures: whether they are used to give respondents a voice or to provide a somewhat objective record of participant experience. As Cling et al. (2006) have pointed out, researchers have used visual narratives (e.g., photos, videos) to improve objectivity of responses. Different views can be captured when a respondents first reaction is confronted with images of his or her own reality. Creating cognitive differences in respondents to provide the researcher with deeper insights into respondents reasoning is fundamentally different from using photos to give the researched a voice and seeing the world through their eyes.1 It is evident that the way people take pictures and what they choose to take (and not to take), are related to other patterns of their way of life (Worth and Adair 1975:42) and the way they think about, structure, and organize their realities (Worth and Adair 1975). Using photos taken by the researcher or a third party (Heisley and Levy 1991) is an excellent way to conduct theory-driven research (Clark-Ibnez 2004:1509), but handing over the camera to the researched is a more inductive research approach (Clark-Ibnez 2004:1509). Asking people to take pictures on a given research topic gives some degree of power back to the subjects in the sense that they could use photography as a means of telling their own stories through the photographs (Markwell 2000:92),

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

294

FIELD METHODS

and differences in views from the outside researcher and the insider view of the researched can be made visible (Stanczak 2004). Other studies in the tradition of Freire (1972) go beyond answering questions. Using photography is a mean to seek to act upon, the historical, institutional, social, and political conditions that contribute to personal and community problems (Wang et al. 2004:911). Thus, these studies are action oriented, and the method becomes a tool that enables people to define for themselves and others, including policy makers, what is worth remembering and what needs to be changed (Wang 2005). A number of studies allocate cameras to individuals, determine the framework of the research, and direct the participants as to what to take pictures of to develop grounds for some action/project and answer the research questions (Clark-Ibnez 2004; Samuels 2004). The translation of these instructions into taking pictures (i.e., the shape and carrying out of the research) is in the hands of the researched. Our study takes the methodology a step further and hands cameras to groups of farmers (such as associations or business clubs). Despite the recent increase in studies using photography, little has been documented about how to develop a methodology working with rural communities or groups such as associations or cooperatives. Groups as a concept in the reviewed studies are an element in the methodology when discussing the pictures (i.e., photographers share their pictures with other people during focus group discussions, whereas the process of generating data is done by individuals) (Wang, Burris, and Ping 1996; Verma 2001). To our knowledge, there have not been studies using photo cameras that have allocated cameras to communities or groups, associations, or cooperatives.

DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH METHOD

Three farmer groups (between eleven and thirty-five members each) were purposively chosen from groups we studied earlier in 20042005. The process consisted of three cycles of photography with each of these groups, asking them to take pictures with disposable cameras (containing twentyseven pictures each) to analyze critically and collectively their group membership, required investments, problems they face, coping strategies, and benefits from being in the group (see Table 1). By handing cameras to farmers in a stepwise process over time, the research accounted for a learning period, because farmers had not taken pictures before and were not used to thinking about themselves and their roles as members in groups. It further allowed the groups to include a broader range of topics that they would only discover as the process developed.

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

TABLE 1
Step 2 Step 3

Overview of Participatory Photography to Obtain Insights into Group Dynamics and Livelihoods

Step 1

Approach

Collective camera: researcher request of group to take pictures of its activities

Objective

Insights into group and its activities

No. cameras 1. Field visit

Researcher identification of three pairs/ individuals (men and women) to take pictures on benefits and problems of being members Benefits and problems that individuals encounter by being member of the group Three per group

Collective camera: group decision to takes pictures of themselves on topics they wish to discuss further among themselves and with researcher Objectives based on group discussion: allowing farmers to integrate ideas Two per group

2. Field visit

Two per group Discussion of ethical issues; training camera use [Develop pictures] Select of pairs/individuals and explanation of goal [Develop pictures] Individual discussion on pictures and presentation to group

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

3. Field visit 4. Field visit

Group discussion of pictures

Explanation of goal [Develop pictures]

5. Field visit

Final

Group discussion on pictures Discussion of process and overall assessment of pictures; preparation of posters for final presentation One-day meeting of representatives of presentation all farmer groups to discuss among themselves and exchange experiences with nongovernmental organizations and policy makers

295

296

FIELD METHODS

To introduce the methodology (Step 1, first field visit, Table 1), there was a group discussion about photography, power, potential risks, and considerations of ethical issues (Wang 2005). As our research project introduced an entirely new practice and frame of reference in Bzi District, farmers had little or no prior conceptions on the use of a camera and the sorts of pictures that cameras are usually used for. Consequently, the first group discussion around ethical issues did not bring up issues of the responsibility of group members who carry the camera with respect to privacy rights of others. Farmers were not able to describe acceptable ways of approaching somebody or a situation to take a picture of it. Nor were they able to identify possible risks for photographed people so that the farmers could reduce the risks of people losing privacy, being embarrassed, or being exposed, as suggested by Wang and Pies (2004). Farmers either kept quiet or said they did not know what to consider:
We do not have experience in that. So who knows what to do or not? . . . If it was the second time we would have already some experience. And we could explain better.2 (Farmer, Inhamuchindo)

In retrospect, the process revealed that farmers intuitively took pictures that were socially acceptable. This is probably because they used the cameras in the public sphere of groups rather than to produce insights into family life. When discussions were repeated (Steps 2 and 3, second field visit onward), farmers expressed some of the dangers and identified responsible ways of how to take pictures:
One could not take a picture with the wife of another man, because if then later the man would see the picture there would be confusion. He would ask What is the photo for? And it would be difficult to explain. If it was any women you could take a picture, but a wife if you put your arm around her, the husband would be very angry. (Farmer, Grudja)

During Step 1, in which farmer groups received the first cameras, they were asked to take pictures that show people, situations, things, and places that represent their ideas of the group and its activities, benefits, and problems. A focus group discussion on what it meant for members to be part of a group, what type of group activities they conducted, how being part of a group has improved their livelihoods, and what problems remained helped farmers contextualize the ideas and ensure that they understood the research objectives and what to take pictures of. It also stimulated discussion and reflection among the members themselves.

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

Gotschi et al. / PARTICIPATORY PHOTOGRAPHY

297

After 14 days, the cameras were collected; this second field visit was used for reflections on how the process of taking pictures went, who was in charge of the camera, what went well, and what could be improved in the future. Then Step 2 began. In the third field visit, we brought back pictures (Step 1) to discuss them with the farmer group. Questions to stimulate group discussions included: Why did you take this picture? What is in the picture? What else could this picture represent? Are there any other associations concerning this picture? After discussing pictures, the cameras distributed during Step 2 were collected, and the final wave of photography started (Step 3). In the fourth field visit, individuals were asked to select the most important pictures, present them to the group, and explain why they chose these pictures and what the pictures meant to them as individuals and as a group. Having discussed pictures generated in Step 3, the fifth field visit reviewed topics discussed over the process. The groups were asked to select from about 180 pictures the most important ones that they wanted to share with other groups and policy makers in the final presentation in the district capital. Pictures farmers chose were diverse, but most demonstrated their achievements and activities, encouraging policy makers to further strengthen the groups. In one group, pictures were selected to communicate problems and request assistance from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Data obtained from participatory camera are rich: There are multiple ways of analysis (Table 2), and each can be distinguished by whom the analysis is done: the researcher, the researched, or both. Furthermore, an assessment of differences as to what types of pictures have been taken in different farmer groups or gender groups provides valuable insights. Process Although initially, the methodology was the same in the three farmer groups, the process varied considerably, and we needed to adapt the methodology in two groups. Farmers in Grudja arranged several meetings to discuss what types of group activities they do year-round. They decided that marketing was their most important activity, and although there would be no marketing activities when they were taking pictures, the farmers arranged simulations of the most important activities. For example, farmers would sit as a group, discuss how to best document their group activities, and share responsibilities while they did this.

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

298

FIELD METHODS

TABLE 2
Different Levels of Analysis of Participatory Photography
Relevance to Research on Social Capital and Group Dynamics Networks, power distribution within the group, participation in the process, inclusion versus exclusion of members, and possible conflicts Visualizing the context: people (family, group, community . . .), agriculture (crops, livestock . . .), infrastructure (house, market, road . . .) Interpretation of pictures by group/individuals. Impact of group on livelihoods; activities, benefits, conflicts, and problems; relations within the group: leaders/members only, men/women, elders/younger . . . Differences in perception of importance of group for gender, education, wealth category, age, position within/between different farmer groups

Focus of Analysis Process

Research Question Who takes pictures? Who keeps camera? Who interprets/talks about pictures? What type of pictures? What is represented in the pictures?

Content/context

Farmers interpretation of pictures/presentation to other groups, NGOs

What is the story of the pictures?

Assessment of differences by the researcher

Is there a difference in taking and interpreting pictures for different groups?

In Inhamuchindo, the president kept the camera for himself and acted as photographer. He took pictures of group members and other people in the community, thus trying to increase his social reputation by promising people to get them their pictures. The number of shots available, however, was not sufficient to take pictures of everybody, and at the next meeting, angry farmers reported that they, too, wanted their picture to be taken (see Figure 1). We decided to repeat Step 1 instead of moving on to the next phase. In later stages of the research, it was interesting to learn that in this community, farmers actually saw the group as something to receive benefits and resources from and did not understand it as a framework to engage in, define, and achieve collective goals. The group remained an abstract concept, the project of an NGO, and had very little meaning. In all groups, it was observed that cameras were predominantly used by men, and in two cases, cameras allocated explicitly to women (Step 2) were even taken away from them by their husbands or (male) group leaders (Figure 2).

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

Gotschi et al. / PARTICIPATORY PHOTOGRAPHY

299

FIGURE 1 Getting My Picture

NOTE: This is . . . with his wife in his field. He is happy, he also wanted to get his picture (president of Inhamuchindo, who also took the picture).

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

300

FIELD METHODS

FIGURE 2 Training Women

NOTE: Women were trained in how to handle cameras and take pictures. In a number of cases, group discussions revealed that male leaders or husbands used their power and took cameras away from women (picture taken by authors of the study).

Content and Context Agricultural activities and pictures of group members were the two predominant themes in the three groups, but approaches to visualize the group and group activities differed remarkably. Farmers in Grudja found that their most important activity is a market day and its preparations (Figures 3 and 4). However, the time for the research did not correspond with this important event, so they arranged equipment and mobilized the community to simulate these activities. Unlike in Grudja, Jovens decided not to simulate activities but to take pictures of real situations, so they decided to keep the camera (Step 1)

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

Gotschi et al. / PARTICIPATORY PHOTOGRAPHY

301

FIGURE 3 Working for Common Objectives

NOTE: We are measuring the size of the plot for everybody who wants to contribute to the market day. So we can sit and calculate how much we will be able to sell as a group. This is necessary for discussing a price with the traders. We know already that in an average year one hectare will give us 750 kg of sesame (president of Grudja, who also took the picture).

until they could harvest their fields, causing considerable delays in the research process. The pictures demonstrated the importance of mutual assistance and enforcement of common norms to achieve collective goals:
Farmer: We are checking on the quality of produce supplied by people. At times farmers add sand or water to increase the weight of the produce and to get more, so we need to check carefully. . . . If the trader finds out all of us are in a bad position, . . . we have one person that is responsible to open the bags and check the quality. To see whether one has put in sand. Researcher: What do you do if you find sand mixed to the sesame? Farmer: If there is sand, we delete his name from the list. And we do not accept the delivery. Researcher: Does this happen very often? Farmer: It happens, yes. Researcher: Why would somebody put sand? Farmer: To increase the kilograms. We have somebody to check. We need to be very careful as we can guarantee a good quality. When we find out there is this type of problem we take off the name from the list and send him home. If he still wants to sell he can prepare the produce in a better way and bring

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

302

FIELD METHODS

FIGURE 4 Simulation of Marketing Activities

NOTE: Here we come together to prepare for the marketing. We have already received bags from the trader and we know already the price. Now we are ready to give bags to the farmers who want to sell their sesame. They need bags to transport (member of Grudja, who also took the picture).

it again . . . . People feel ashamed but still they come back because they need the money from the business.

Farmers Interpretation Discussing pictures with farmers was an exciting experience, as farmers discovered new perspectives and developed a new sense of assessing the value of their group and group membership. In the beginning, farmers hardly reported more than what was visible in the picture: This is . . . in his field of maize (Figure 1), or Here we are measuring the size of the plot (Figure 3). As the research moved on, the focus of taking pictures changed, and more sensitive topics were introduced and discussed, such as living conditions within the community (Figure 6) or conflicts with NGOs or local authorities. Farmers in Grudja, for example, discovered their crucial role in linking community members with local authorities or the extension service and vice versa by asking, on one hand, in the name of the community for

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

Gotschi et al. / PARTICIPATORY PHOTOGRAPHY

303

FIGURE 5 Collective Action

NOTE: It is our task [as group members] to ensure that all community members receive the spraying. If we miss out one, we all suffer (group member of Jovens, who also took the picture).

support in pest control and acting, on the other hand, as multipliers of extension officers in passing on information or providing services that extension officers cannot offer due to limited capacities (Figure 5). These newly generated insights into their own role within and value for the community have also been expressed by farmers: Working with pictures has helped us a lot. We feel as a group and we have experienced good feelings (farmer in Grudja). Assessment of Differences by Researcher Discussions revealed that in some groups, members developed a sense of belonging to the group that became a framework to engage into joint activities, develop shared norms, and achieve common goals. In these groups, cameras were shared among members, and the content of what to take pictures of was discussed as a group. The type and content of pictures were directly linked with the social capital of the group. For example, the cameras handed to Grudja demonstrated a range of group activities,

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

304

FIELD METHODS

FIGURE 6 Lack of Internal Solidarity

NOTE: My husband did not return from civil war, so I live alone. There were windstorms that have destroyed my house, so I have nowhere to go and there is no money to rebuild the house. This is why I have to put my belongings in this tree. . . . I sleep outside, even if it rains (female member of Grudja; picture taken by her female group colleague).

whereas the pictures of Inhamuchindo represented people in their fields. This demonstrates a different quality of the social capital in these groups and what they consider importantgroup activities versus individuals. Analysis of the process further enabled insights into power structures in these two groups, as in Grudja, people sat and discussed as a group, whereas in Inhamuchindo, a dominant president decided by himself and acted in his own interest. This is, interestingly, also manifested in the pictures format: landscape in Grudja versus portrait in Inhamuchindo. Despite revealing how farmers as a group would work together to achieve common objectives (such as quality standards and organization and preparation for market day) and some sort of corporate identity to appear to the outside world as one coordinated voice, pictures also revealed that the same group did not develop a sense of solidarity among its members but had strictly separate private and group issues. Pictures taken by a female member displayed her miserable living conditions. Although the group is aware of

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

Gotschi et al. / PARTICIPATORY PHOTOGRAPHY

305

her problem, her group members are not willing to help her overcome the problem, and the issue had not been put on the agenda of group meetings to discuss collectively whether and how to assist their fellow member. Despite the groups potential to address common needs, it fails to incorporate the specific needs of individuals and become a vehicle for social critique and change. Farmers found the pictures useful for communicating the value of the group to other people. In Grudja, farmers wanted to use the pictures to explain the value of the groups to others so that more people would create groups to benefit the members and their communities. NGOs and extensionists were interested in using some pictures (with the consent of farmers) to integrate them in their efforts to create groups in new communities and communicate more efficiently with farmers.

CONCLUSIONS
Despite the growing body of social capital literature, the social capital of groups has not received sufficient interest, probably because of methodological difficulties. Results have demonstrated that social capital defined as ability to work together for shared objectives (Coleman 1990; Schuller, Baron, and Field 2000) and altruistic behavior for the benefit of the community (pest control, estimation of collective production, etc.) does not necessarily correspond with high levels of internal solidarity or accommodate the individual needs of group members. The group is a platform from which to negotiate common interests and overcome regional problems that need to be addressed through collective action (Bebbington and Carroll 2000), but it does not necessarily provide a framework to guarantee security and relief in case of substantial needs of deprived individuals. The use of participatory photography enabled us to identify and explore issues within groups that are not possible to assess through an assessment of social capital at the level of members. The methodology also allowed the researched to participate and reflectalone or together as a group or with the researcherabout issues concerning their group membership and on developing strategies to address (common) problems. Being able to see and point at conditions and sections portrayed in pictures turned abstract discussions into concrete and comprehensive reality, and the pictures created a new frame of reference for both the farmers and the researcher. Encouraging farmers to speak out about the pictures and tell why they were taken and what they represent triggered discussions around activities and topics that otherwise are difficult to talk about.

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

306

FIELD METHODS

Pictures not only stimulated communication within the group or served as a medium for self-reflection, they also allowed the researcher to see the groups from the perspective of the farmers themselves and obtain new insights into the research subject. Linking these findings back to the development process itself should help development agencies better target their interventions for ensuring the transition of subsistence to market-led agricultural production.

NOTES
1. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for drawing our attention to this distinction. 2. Interviews are translated from Ndau and Portuguese.

REFERENCES
Bebbington, A., and T. Carroll. 2000. Induced social capital and federations of the rural poor. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper 19, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://siteresources .worldbank.org/INTSOCIALCAPITAL/Resources/Social-Capital-Initiative-WorkingPaper-Series/SCI-WPS-19.pdf (accessed October 15, 2004). Clark, L., and L. Zimmer. 2001. What we learned from a photographic component in a study of Latino childrens health. Field Methods 13 (4): 30328. Clark-Ibnez, M. 2004. Framing the social world with photo-elicitation interviews. American Behavioral Scientist 47 (12): 150727. Cling, C., X. Wang, M. Shih, and Y. Kedem. 2006. Digital photography and journals in a kindergartenfirst-grade classroom: Toward meaningful technology integration in early childhood education. Early Education and Development 17 (3): 34771. Coleman, J. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap. Collier, J. 1957. Photography in anthropology: A report on two experiments. American Anthropologist 59:84359. Quoted in Samuels 2004:1529. Collier, J., Jr., and M. Collier. 1986. Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Quoted in Stanczak 2004:1473. Freire, P. 1972. Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Sheed and Ward. Gotschi, E. 2006. Farmer groups in Bzi District, Mozambique. Social capital formation in the smallholder sector. PhD diss., University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Institute of Organic Agriculture, Vienna, Austria. Harper, D. 2003. Framing photographic ethnography. A case study. Ethnography 4 (2): 24166. Heisley, D., and S. Levy. 1991. Autodriving: A photoelicitation technique. Journal of Consumer Research 18 (3): 25772. Hurworth, R. 2003. Photo-interviewing for research. Social Research Update 40. http://sru.soc .surrey.ac.uk/SRU40.html (accessed August 11, 2007). Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the western Pacific. An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: George Routledge & Sons. Quoted in Worth and Adair 1975:12.

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

Gotschi et al. / PARTICIPATORY PHOTOGRAPHY

307

Markwell, K. 2000. Photo-documentation and analyses as research strategies in human geography. Australian Geographical Studies 38 (1): 9198. Robertson, B. 2005. Photo elicitation: A window through which to view youth leisure in isolated communities. Paper presented at the 11th Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, Department of Recreation and Tourism Management, Malaspina University College, Nanaimo, BC, Canada, May 1720. Roulston, K. 2006. The reflective interviewer: Key issues in qualitative interviewing for social sciences research. Paper presented at the International Institute for Qualitative Methodology conference: Advances in Qualitative Methods, Surfers Paradise, Queensland, Australia, July 1416. Samuels, J. 2004. Breaking the ethnographers frame. Reflections on the use of photo elicitation in understanding Sri Lankan monastic culture. American Behavioral Scientist 47 (12): 152850. Schuller, T., S. Baron, and J. Field. 2000. Social capital: A review and critique. In Social capital: Critical perspectives, ed. S. Baron, J. Field, and T. Schuller, 138. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Singhal, A., L. Harter, K. Chitnis, and D. Sharma. 2004. Participatory photography in entertainment-education. Paper presented at the 4th International Entertainment-Education conference, Cape Town, South Africa, September 2630. http://www.ee4.org/Papers/EE4_ Singhal.pdf (accessed October 15, 2005). Stanczak, G. 2004. Introduction: Visual representation. American Behavioral Scientist 47 (12): 147176. Verma, R. 2001. Gender, land, and livelihoods in East Africa: Through farmers eyes. International Development Research Centre. http://www.idrc.ca/es/ev-9431-201-1-DO_TOPIC .html (accessed September 20, 2005). Wang, C. 2005. Photovoice: Social change through photography. http://www.photovoice.com (accessed October 10, 2006). Wang, C., M. A. Burris, and X. Y. Ping. 1996. Chinese village women as visual anthropologists: A participatory approach to reaching policymakers. Social Science & Medicine 42 (10): 1391400. Wang, C., S. Morrel-Samuels, P. Hutchison, L. Bell, and R. Pestronk. 2004. Flint photovoice: Community building among youths, adults, and policymakers. American Journal of Public Health 94 (6): 91113. Wang, C., and C. Pies. 2004. Family, maternal, and child health through photovoice. Maternal and Child Health Journal 8 (2): 95102. Wang, C., W. Yi, Z. Tao, and K. Carovano. 1998. Photovoice as a participatory health promotion strategy. Health Promotion International 13 (1): 7586. Worth, S., and J. Adair. 1975. Through Navaho eyes. An exploration in film communication and anthropology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. http://isc.temple.edu/TNE/ introduction.htm (accessed May 2, 2008).

ELISABETH GOTSCHI is currently a program officer at the United Nations Development Programme in Managua, Nicaragua. The work reported in this article was conducted while she was a research fellow with CIAT/BOKU in Mozambique. Her research interests cover social capital, participatory approaches, social innovations, groups, and rural development. Recent publications include Social Capital and the Smallholder Sector. Analysis of Farmer Groups in Bzi District, Mozambique (Margraf Publishers, 2008); with J. Njuki and R. Delve, Gender Equity and Social Capital in

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013

308

FIELD METHODS

Small-Holder Farmer Groups in Central Mozambique (Development in Practice, 2008); and with B. Freyer and R. Delve, Participatory Photography in Cross-Cultural Research: A Case Study of Investigating Farmer Groups in Rural Mozambique. Doing Cross-Cultural Research: Ethical and Methodological Considerations (Springer, 2008). ROBERT DELVE is a senior scientist with the Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of CIAT, based in Harare, Zimbabwe. His research interests cover participatory research approaches, research-to-extension linkages and adaptation of technologies by end users, evaluation of farming systems, and whole-farm trade-off analysis. Recent publications include, with P. J. A. van Asten et al.,Challenges and Lessons when Using Farmer Knowledge in Agricultural Research and Development Projects in Africa (Experimental Agriculture, forthcoming); with E. N. Masvaya et al., Effect of Farmer Management Strategies on Spatial Variability of Soil Fertility and Crop Nutrient Uptake in Contrasting Agro-Ecological Zones in Zimbabwe (Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, forthcoming); and with J. Njuki, M. Mapila, and S. Zingore, The Dynamics of Social Capital in Influencing Use of Soil Management Options in the Chinyanja Triangle of Southern Africa (Ecology and Society, forthcoming). BERNHARD FREYER is head of the Division of Organic Farming at the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria. His research focus covers ethics, values, and attitudes of different stakeholders in the organic food chain related to societal and individual developments (e.g., theories on individualization, modernization, and social capital). Some recent publications are The Differentiation Process in Organic Agriculture (OA)Between Capitalistic Market System and IFOAM Principles (16th IFOAM Organic World Congress; Cultivating the Future Based on Science, 2008); Traditional and Ecological Farming Systems in (Sub) Tropical CountriesHistory, Interactions and Future Perspectives (Journal of Agricultural and Rural Development in the Tropics, 2007); and with A. Muhar and U. Vilsmaier, The Polarity Field ConceptA New Approach for Integrated Regional Planning and Sustainability Processes (GAIA Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 2006).

Downloaded from fmx.sagepub.com at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013