Participatory Photography in Cross-Cultural Research: A Case Study of Investigating Farmer Groups in Rural Mozambique

  • Elisabeth Gotschi
  • Bernhard Freyer
  • Robert Delve
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 34)


Visual tools are increasingly popular as alternative qualitative approaches for enriching and complementing quantitative studies, but also as a tool in its own right. The methodology “participatory photography” has been used for understanding group formation processes, obtaining insights into group dynamics, social capital distribution, assessing and documenting tangible and visible impacts of development projects. Putting cameras into the hands of people changes power relations between the researcher, the researched and between the researched themselves. From a methodological point of view, many questions arise: how to introduce the tool into the community, what guidelines to follow when training and accompanying a group during the process, how to analyse the multitude of data generated and finally, how to deal with ethical challenges? This chapter discusses the use of participatory photography of a cross-cultural research in Búzi district, Mozambique. The process we adopted consisted of three cycles of photography with eight farmer groups (11–35 members each), where they took pictures to analyse critically and collectively their group membership, required investments, problems they face, coping strategies and benefits/incentives from being in the group. Together as a group and in individual sessions, farmers explained their choice of picture and its interpretation of what it means to them. Handing cameras to people and observing how groups were handling the camera allowed insights into group processes and the ability of working together for a common purpose. It allowed further insights into group hierarchies and power distribution; in weak groups the introduction of participatory photography can cause conflicts and the researcher risks losing control over the process. However, the advantages, such as visualisation (e.g., of group activities and social realities), the incorporation of everyday knowledge and the active integration of various stakeholders in the research outbalances the dangers and disadvantages. We found that observing group processes of handling photo-cameras yields insights into new aspects of social capital (i.e., degree of mutual cooperation, solidarity and altruism, ability to handle the camera as a group). These insights can be used to develop indicators that describe the groups’ maturity.

Participatory photography methodology Farmer group Rural Mozambique Photovoice Ethical challenge Group process Power distribution Activism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brown, L., Collins, V., Shepherd, M., Wituk, S., & Meissen, G. (2004). Photovoice and consumer-run mutual support organizations. I nternational Journal of Self Help and Self Care, 2(4), 339-344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buchanan, D. (2001). The role of photography in organizational research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10(2), 151-164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience. World Development, 22(9), 1253-1268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chambers, R. (1998). Beyond “Whose reality counts?” New methods we now need. In O. Borda (Ed.), People’s participation: Challenges ahead (pp. 105-130). New York: The Apex Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chambers, R. (2005). I deas for development . London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  6. Clark-Ibanez, M. (2004). Framing the social world with photo-elicitation interviews. The American Behavioral Scientist, 47(12), 1507-1527. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed . London: Sheed and Ward.Google Scholar
  8. Gallo, M. (2002). Picture this: Immigrant workers use photography for communication and change. Journal of Workplace Learning, 14(2), 49-57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M. (Eds.) (2000). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary socie-ties . London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Gotschi, E. (2006). Farmer groups in Búzi district, Mozambique. Social capital formation in the smallholder sector . Unpublished doctoral thesis, Universität für Bodenkultur, Institut für Ökologischen Landbau, Vienna.Google Scholar
  11. Gotschi, E., & Zach, M. (2005). Soziale Innovationen innerhalb und außerhalb der Logik von Projekten zur ländlichen Entwicklung. Analyse zweier Initiativen im Distrikt Búzi, Mosambik. Discussion Paper DP-12-2005. Cited 1 Nov 2005.
  12. Harper, D. (2000). On the authority of the image: Visual methods at the crossroads. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edition (pp. 130-149). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Harper, D.(2003). Framing photographic ethnography: A case study. Ethnography,4(2), 241-266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harrison, B. (2002). Seeing health and illness worlds - Using visual methodologies in a sociology of health and illness: A methodological review. Sociology of Health & Illness,24(6), 856-872. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heisley, D., & Levy, S. (1991). Autodriving: A photoelicitation technique. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(3), 257-272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoffmann, V. (2001). Bildgestützte Kommunikation in Afrika. Grundlagen, Beispiele und Empfehlungen zu angepaßen Kommunikationsverfahren in ländlichen Entwicklungsprogrammen südlich der Sahara . Weikersheim: Margraf.Google Scholar
  17. Huber, B. (1999). Communicative aspects of participatory video projects. An exploratory study. Unpublished Masters thesis. Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  18. Hurworth, R. (2003). Photo-Interviewing for Research. Social research update, 40. Cited 15 April 2006.
  19. Kindon, S. (2003). Participatory video in geographic research: A feminist practice of looking? Area, 35(2), 142-153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lauritsen, P., & Mathiasen, S. H. (2003). Drawing development: Analysing local understandings of development in three Andean communities. Development in Practice, 13(1), 27-39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liamptong, P. (2007) Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Markwell, K. (2000). Photo-documentation and analyses as research strategies in human geogra-phy. Australian Geographical Studies, 38(1): 91-98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Okahashi, P. (2000). The fair group: Getting ready for “lights! camera! action!”. Rehabilitation Review , 11(2). . Cited 20 Nov 2004.
  24. Parfitt, T. (2004). The ambiguity of participation: A qualified defence of participatory develop-ment. Third World Quarterly, 25(4), 537-556. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parker, L. (n.d.). Photo-elicitation: An ethno-historical accounting and management research prospect . Adelaide, School of Commerce, The University of Adelaide. Cited 8 Oct 2006.
  26. Pottier, J. (1997). Towards an ethnography of participatory appraisal and research. In R. D. Grillo & R. L. Stirrat (Eds.), Discourses of development: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 203-228). Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  27. Pretty, J. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247-1263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pretty, J., & Ward, H. (2001). Social cpital and the environment. World Development, 29(2), 209-227. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Samuels, J. (2004). Breaking the ethnographer’s frame: Reflections on the use of photo elicitation in understanding Sri Lankan monastic culture. The American Behavioral Scientist, 47(12), 1528-1550. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Satheesh, P.V. (n.d.). Participation and beyond: Handing over the camera . Cited 20 Nov 2004.
  31. Scheyvens, R., Nowak, B., & Scheyvens, H. (2003). Ethical issues. In R. Scheyvens & D. Storey (Eds.), Development fieldwork: A practical guide (pp. 139-166). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Singhal, A., Harter, L., Chitnis, K., & Sharma, D. (2004). Participatory photography in entertain-ment-education. Fourth International Entertainment Conference, Cape Town. Cited 20 June 2006.
  33. Stanczak, G. (2004). I ntroduction. Visual representation . The American Behavioral Scientist, 47(12), 1471-1476. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Verma, R. (2001). Gender, land, and livelihoods in East Africa: Through farmers’ eyes. IDRC. . Cited 15 Dec 2005.
  35. Wang, C., & Pies, C. (2004). Family, maternal, and child health through photovoice. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 8(2), 95-102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang, C., Burris, M. A., & Ping, X. Y. (1996). Chinese village women as visual anthropologists: A participatory approach to reaching policymakers. Social Science & Medicine, 42(10), 1391-1400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang, C., Yi, W., Tao, Z., & Carovano, K. (1998). Photovoice as a participatory health promotion strategy. Health Promotion International, 13(1), 75-86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang, C., Morrel-Samuels, S., Hutchison, P., Bell, L., & Pestronk, R. (2004). Flint Photovoice: Community building among youths, adults, and policymakers. American Journal of Public Health, 94(6), 911-913. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Williams, G. (2004). Evaluating participatory development: Tyranny, power and (re)politicisation. Third World Quarterly, 25(4), 557-578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Willson, K., Green, K., Haworth-Brockman, M., & Beck, R. (2006). Prairie women use pho-tovoice methods to fight poverty. Canadian Woman Studies/Les Cahiers de la Femme, 25(3-4), 160-166. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth Gotschi
    • 1
  • Bernhard Freyer
    • 1
  • Robert Delve
    • 2
  1. 1.WienAustria
  2. 2.CIAT, Mt PleasantHarareZimbabwe

Personalised recommendations