Women's voices made visible: Photovoice in visual criminology

Abstract

The voices of women subject to the criminal justice system are often ignored and unheard. This article considers the effectiveness of photovoice, a form of participatory photography research, as a visual method of enabling and communicating marginalised women’s experiences in criminological research. By utilising the potentially empowering technique of photovoice in two research projects, the narratives of women who inject drugs in Hungary and women who have experienced supervision in England are conveyed through their own participant-generated photographs. These images convey the pains and aspirations of the participants' lives and show how photovoice is a useful method for visual criminological research and exposes the shared problems faced by two vulnerable populations across two countries in Europe.

Keywords

marginalised women participatory photography photovoice visual criminology visual methods vulnerable populations

Introduction

Photovoice is an engaging qualitative method that has great promise for visual criminological research. The photovoice method involves providing research participants with cameras to photograph their experiences and understandings of the phenomena of study. Photovoice is a tool for facilitating interactions between everyone involved in the research to produce meaningful and insightful material via participatory photography. The discussions that emerge from the photographs privilege the perspectives of research participants and those most intimately connected to the research topic. This article discusses how photovoice can be used in criminological inquiry. The first section gives an overview of the development of photovoice and the main principles involved in the visual method, including analysis. The second section describes how images and photographs have historically been used in criminology as a tool of social surveillance and control. The third section discusses the results of different research projects with women in the criminal justice system that used photovoice as the main form of data collection, conducted separately by the authors of this article. The final section details a selection of common themes that emerged from both research projects, and is accompanied by the relevant selection of photographic data for each theme. The article concludes with a brief reflection on the potential of photovoice in criminological research.

Photovoice: The photograph as a research tool

Photovoice is a visual method that consists of the researcher providing cameras for participants to take pictures, and then collaboratively discussing and analysing those pictures. Different from conventional research involving photography, the photovoice method advocates that participants rather than researchers document the issues of inquiry by taking photographs. Photovoice is grounded in the larger research tradition known as Action Research or Participatory Action Research, which broadly strives to increase knowledge and facilitate conscious-raising of the topic and outcomes of research issues through democratic processes of involvement (Fals-Borda and Rahman, 1991; Friere, 1979; Kindon et al., 2007; Reason and Bradbury, 2001; Wang, 1999).

Photovoice is a method of research inquiry that ‘uses the immediacy of the visual image to furnish evidence and to promote an effective, participatory means of sharing expertise and knowledge’ (Wang and Burris, 1997: 369). It operates on the belief that images are powerful forms of knowledge that have the potential to communicate information as well as depict individual and community needs and desires in a creative way (Baker and Wang, 2006). Photographs are the main source of data in a photovoice project and these images allow participants to construct their own understandings and answers to the research questions.

While participatory photography and visual methods have existed in various research settings under different names, the specific term ‘photovoice’ first emerged as an identified method of research in health promotion and community development (Wang and Burris, 1997). Photovoice was first used as a methodology to visually investigate women’s health (Wang, 1999). The methodology was developed with the understanding that photographs are valuable sources that hold a plethora of information in a static image (Rose, 2012). Photographs have the ability to provide insights into phenomena specified within a research study that are either unique or add to spoken and written expressions and, crucially, work to position participants as creators and initial interpreters of data in photovoice research (Carlson et al., 2006). The data produced from photographs, as well as semi-structured interviews or focus group discussions about the images, provide an in-depth understanding of participants’ realities. The goal of this process is to create a reality where participants are integrated into the research not as passive providers of information, but as co-creators of the knowledge produced from the research. The photovoice methodology allows for a conscientious process of narrative creation through various interpretations of ‘truth’ based on the framing of images and the accompanying iterative discussions between participants and researchers, as well as between participants themselves (Burles and Thomas, 2014).

While the use of photovoice as a research methodology is context-specific and time-sensitive, it is often initiated with a meeting between potential research participants and/or key stakeholders to explore and identify relevant research questions. Once these areas have been identified and informed consent to take part in the research has been confirmed, participants are usually involved in hands-on workshops that explore how photography can be used as a form of communication, and in which they ‘brainstorm’ ideas about how answers to the research questions can be displayed through images. At this point, participants are given digital or disposable analogue cameras, provided by the researchers. Participants are shown how to use the cameras, given tips on how to take photographs through the use of technical tricks such as lighting and angle, and discuss ethical issues of informed consent and confidentiality related to recognisable photographs of people. Participants then head out into their communities to take pictures. After a set period of time, participants and researchers meet as a group (and/or potentially one-to-one) to share their images and react to other people’s photos, relating back to the research questions. This dialogue is the first stage of coding. The cycle of taking photos and discussing them in a group and/or one-on-one interview setting continues in conjunction with the project budget, timeline, resources and participant availability.

Ethics and consent during a photovoice project is an ongoing process. While participants may agree to take part in the onset of the project, this does not mean they are bound to continue, nor are they required to show all their images to the group. Participants have the power to decide which photographs are part of the research project and which are excluded. This power extends into the dissemination of photographic data. The relationship of participants to photographic images is complex and thus needs to be carefully considered.

Historical significance of photography in criminology: From mug shot to surveillance camera

Central to photovoice in criminological research is the use of photography within the historical context of crime, not least in order to understand some of the issues relating to ethics and sensitivity that arise from the use of photography as a means of making visible the stories of the research participants. Many of the people who come under the gaze of the police or the criminal justice system more widely have a fear of their images or profiles being captured and stored, for justifiable reasons.

For more than a century, the 'criminal' has been represented by the police and other agencies in the criminal justice system through a police photograph or 'mug shot' (Carney, 2010). The police photograph has become a notorious tool of the criminal justice system and of the media in the categorisation and stigmatisation of those who break the law. Early photographic representations have been used in criminal justice not only for documentary and administrative purposes, but also to abstract scientific data and records used for the construction of criminal identification and for purposes of social control. Sekula (1986) in particular viewed photography as a bureaucratic-clerical-statistical system which comprised an 'archive' whereby the visual was used to define the good, heroic and celebrated as well as the deviant and criminal. Lombroso (1876) took visual representation to the extreme by developing the discourse that criminality could be read from the body or facial characteristics (Gibson and Rafter, 2006).

This process has expanded and become more complex with technological and scientific developments, particularly over the last four decades. Now the photographic image is used for investigation and confirming identity of suspects in combination with the DNA profile of the criminal, fingerprints, retinal photographs and forensic crime scene analysis of images and victims. The scope and power of these images is widespread because of digital imagery and technical surveillance such as CCTV cameras commonplace in many countries. These practices can fuel concerns that those with power capture and store images, photographs and prints in order label and incriminate those on the margins of society. For example, the photographic images in the recent UK riots of August 2011 demonstrated the power of the gaze of surveillance to give rise to labelling, detection and conviction. For up to two years after the riots occurred the CCTV data was analysed and used to track down and prosecute those involved in the disturbances (Newburn, 2014).

Bearing this in mind, it is understandable that some of the women approached to participate in the photovoice projects described here reacted with reluctance and suspicion. After the initial hesitancy, most participants quickly developed their ability to use photography to depict, interpret and reinterpret their experience through the production of images. Some even chose to show their images in public settings.

Disseminating photographic data

Showcasing participants’ photographs from photovoice research in a public or semi-public setting has the potential to be creative and empowering (Carr et al., 2015; Robinson, 2013). A key facet of photovoice is for the visual data to gain reach and create impact beyond academia. The action-oriented outcome of photovoice provides a space for visual representation and re-representation that potentially reaches larger audiences beyond those in the research community, or those audiences contacted through conventional research outputs such as peer-reviewed journal articles (O’Neill, 2004). This could manifest as a community forum or public (or semi-public) photography exhibition. Sharing research not only provides a compelling platform to convey the outcome of a research project, but can also act as a way to ‘give back’ to the community initiatives that were involved in photovoice research (McIntyre, 2003). The photovoice method has mainly been used in health research, often with a focus on women’s health (Bukowski and Buetow, 2011; Teti et al., 2012). The research discussed in this article is novel for its focus on criminological aspects of women subject to supervision and injecting drug use amongst women. The following section elaborates on two research projects in which the action-based outcomes promoted participant empowerment and community and policy level awareness and engagement.

Photography as empirical data

The empirical findings discussed in the second half of this article are taken from two separate criminological research studies carried out by the authors independently. Both authors used photovoice as their central method for data generation.

The first author was involved in research exploring experiences of those subject to probation supervision in communities in England. ‘Supervisible’, the title of a photovoice research project, arose out of a paper presented at a meeting of the COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) Offender Supervision in Europe Group in 2014. The views and narratives of those subject to supervision have in the main been unheard. The emergence of ‘mass supervision’ has largely escaped the attention of legal scholars and social scientists more concerned with the ‘mass incarceration’ reflected in prison growth (Phelps, 2013). Despite the fact that, even in the home of mass incarceration, the number of people subject to probation or parole dwarfs the number imprisoned; of the near 7 million people under correctional supervision in 2013 in the USA, 4,751,400 were being supervised in the community (Glaze and Kaeble, 2014). Ministry of Justice (2014) figures from the UK show that in March 2014 in England and Wales, 218,671 people were under probation service supervision; the prison population that month averaged 84,443.

The participants who were involved in this pilot study were volunteers from Alana House Women's Centre in Southern England. The Centre provides support, advice and specialist offender based programmes to both women on supervision and other marginalised women who had often served prison or probation sentences. Ten women were involved and took photographs and then met in focus groups to reflect upon and explore the reasons, emotions and experiences that had guided their chosen images. They were facilitated in this process by an artist experienced in group work. The photographers wrote accompanying captions that described the meaning behind their images.

The second author’s research explored how ‘harm’ and ‘harm reduction’ was defined and understood by both women who injected drugs in Hungary and people who worked in social work positions that delivered harm reduction interventions to these women. Harm reduction is a concept that encompasses a response to illegal and legal drugs which aims to reduce the harms related to drug use, rather than advocating the medicalisation or criminalisation of those using drugs (Marlatt, 1996). Such responses include interventions, policies and specific programmes. A needle exchange programme is a type of harm reduction service where people can exchange used syringes for new ones. International evidence shows that syringe exchange programmes result in a public health benefit by discouraging people from sharing needles when injecting, and therefore lessening their chances of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C (Strathdee and Vlahov, 2001; Wodak and Cooney, 2005). Existing research shows both a lack of gender-responsive harm reduction services worldwide and a need for such services for women who inject drugs (Pinkham et al., 2012).

In Hungary, a harm reduction centre in Budapest hosted a women-only syringe exchange programme. This programme was referred to as ‘Chicks Day’ by the research participants. In addition to the services offered by the harm reduction centre (which included a syringe exchange programme for people of all genders), the women’s programme Chicks Day provided a gendered safe space for women and people who identified as women (including transgendered women). For the Hungarian photovoice project described in this article, women who injected drugs and harm reduction employees of Chicks Day were given a mixture of digital and disposable cameras¹ to document their experiences and understandings of harm and harm reduction in 2013 and 2014. This research took place in the context of the only gender-responsive harm reduction service for women who inject drugs in Hungary (Chicks Day).

Both authors worked with research participants in the projects to create photo exhibitions that showcased a selection of the photographic data. The Budapest-based research event was a public photo exhibition that raised money for the Chicks Day programme and also celebrated the fourth anniversary of the programme’s existence. This event included public comments by the coordinator of Chicks Day, the communications manager of the harm reduction centre and the researcher, and a public viewing of an independent video made about Chicks Day from 2013.

The Supervisible project images were exhibited in three exhibitions. The first exhibition was held at the Women’s Centre in Southern England, and the second exhibition was in Brussels and a third was hosted in Glasgow. The first exhibition was attended by participants, their families, practitioners and local policy makers, and politicians. The second exhibition was held to celebrate and showcase the achievements of the COST research network and the Supervisible project not just in England but also in Scotland and Germany. One of the research participants and the Women’s Centre manager were also invited and flown out to Brussels where they gave a presentation discussing their experiences of the research study and their own narratives. The exhibition was visited by the general public, politicians and commission staff as well as participants of the COST network and their colleagues. The Glasgow exhibition involved participants and their families as well as professionals and the general public.

Both research projects were approved by the relevant academic institutions’ ethical review boards at London Metropolitan University and the University of Kent prior to the start of data collection. The first author also received ethical approval from the Howard League for Penal Reform. To protect anonymity, all participant names used in this article are pseudonyms.

Common themes of the visual data

Independent analysis of the visual data and qualitative interviews from the two research projects yielded some overlapping themes. The images shown and described below were part of the larger portfolio of images showcased in the public photograph exhibitions outlined in the previous section. The eight images in this article were specifically selected by the two authors based on four themes that emerged from a series of discussions about the Supervisible and Chicks Day photovoice projects. These discussions included viewing and commenting on each other’s visual data, the participants’ social contexts, and the analytic implications of the projects. The common themes from both projects are: surveillance and control, judgment and representation, rubbish and waste, and help and support.

Surveillance and control: Supervisible project

Figure 1, a close up of a human eye titled ‘Sobriety’, conveys a strong sense of the pains of community punishment, not just during the moments of active supervision but the pervasive nature of the all-seeing eye of punishment in the community. However, for Jenny, who had a history of alcohol problems but was sober during the project, the photograph of a healthy clear eye free of jaundice and bloodshot veins symbolised her successful new healthy lifestyle. At the same time, Figure 1 is a metaphor of how the lives of participants of supervision are exposed to others who have power over them in the form of the courts, probation, social workers or the police. Figure 1 and a number of other photographs created during the Supervisible project had a similar theme of participants under supervision experienced their lives being halted – their ‘real life’ felt suspended during and sometimes after supervision. The quote by another research participant, Emily, illustrates this point:

… going to probation and talking about the way you ought to react as a woman isn’t real life. You’d like it to be and at some point hopefully subconsciously it will be but realistically you don’t walk down the street and go oh I mustn’t react in this way or …

Figure 1.

‘Sobriety’. Figure taken by Jenny, a participant on supervision.

The sense of a panoptical all-seeing gaze wherever participants sought refuge was never far away (Cohen, 1985; Foucault, 1977). Both Emily and Jenny were continually conscious of needing to present their behaviour in a certain way, of being exposed and monitored while their very gendered existence was being assessed as 'deviant' or failing to conform to the norm for women.

While Figure 1 draws on popular motifs in the context of the penal system, the image contrasts with common descriptions of what supervision or social work means within the community. Many of the women's photographs and discussions during the Supervisible project, revealed that their interaction was depicted as exposing, as the stark eye of Figure 1 suggests. Participants explained how even when the relationship with the supervisor or formal support worker was positive, the association merely served to mitigate the pains of being compelled or constrained to obey authority. Figure 1, however, as Jenny reflected during the focus group, showed the constraint and monitoring of supervision had enabled her to access the support she required to stop drinking alcohol which had improved her health.

One of the most common themes to emerge from both the Supervision and Chicks day projects was ‘constraint’ and ‘control’. This emerged in images and discussions centred on limited freedom, on living under surveillance and regimes of control, on the constant perception of being watched or supervised and on the barriers that this sense of surveillance imposed on living a full and 'normal' life. Indeed, for some of the women in both the English and Hungarian research projects, the fear of being incarcerated or involved with the police was ever present.

Surveillance and control: Chicks Day project

Figure 2 is one of a series of images with the same title that were taken by research participants. This series features the police presence in the Hungarian neighbourhood where the harm reduction centre was located. The ‘don’t inject dope’ photographs showcase the visible presence of police surveillance in the lives of the employees and clients of the women’s programme and the harm reduction centre. Figure 2 shows the inside of the harm reduction centre looking out through the barred windows to the top of a police van parked across the street. The title of Figure 2, ‘don’t inject dope, because you’ll be taken by the police’, is a warning message that reflects the drug laws in Hungary that criminalise the act of consuming illegal drugs. While many countries have punitive responses to individuals possessing or selling illegal drugs, penalising drug use in and of itself is a particularly strict Hungarian law aimed at controlling ‘deviant’ citizens. In Figure 2, the police car symbolises the threat of this penalisation for clients of the women’s programme.

Figure 2.

‘Don’t inject dope, because you’ll be taken by the police’. Figure taken by Chicks Day employee Bora.

Figure 2 is a common sight outside of the harm reduction centre, with police parked outside or across the street from the centre typically at least once a week. The harm reduction centre had a written agreement with the police that stated officers would not stop and search the harm reduction centre’s clients within a one-block radius of the harm reduction centre, but after a few years the agreement was ignored by the police and their presence in the area increased. In Hungary, anyone can be stopped and searched without the police needing to give any ‘reasonable cause’. Furthermore, an individual can be fined if the act of stop and search reveals drug paraphernalia, including syringes and needles. If someone has unpaid fines from multiple offences that add up to more than a certain monetary amount, then the individual can be arrested. As one of the main purposes of the harm reduction centre and the women’s programme were to provide a facility for the exchange of used syringes and needles for new ones, clients of the centre were almost always in possession of drug paraphernalia, and therefore vulnerable to police punitive action. The employees of the women’s programme found that the police’s general unwillingness to cooperate with the centre made the harm reduction service delivery more stressful and challenging. Chicks Day client Flora responded to Figure 2 by stating that the police ‘would like to show: “we are here, and we are the man here”’ through their imposing and intimidating presence in the neighbourhood. The police presence was connected to clients’ fear of judgment, which is also the next theme from both research projects.

Judgment and representation: Supervisible project

Judgment, labelling and stigmatisation were particular and common themes in the images taken by participants in both the Supervisible and Chicks Day projects. Betty, one of the women from England involved in the Supervisible project, reflected on her criminal justice journey in reference to Figure 3, a painting featuring four different types of women’s shoes. The shoes are almost eccentrically individual with respect to various styles and designed for different purposes. Betty commented on Figure 3 being ‘about the whole judgment – you shouldn’t – you don’t know a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes’. Thus she pointed to the stereotypical nature of any criminalising judgment which assigned characteristics and traits based on one aspect of a person’s life or appearance. She referred to 'man' and 'his' shoes although obviously she was considering her experience which mirrors attitudes regarding gendered experiences of criminal justice being predominately male. This process has become standardised via technologies which deconstruct offenders into characteristics which are then scored for risk assessment and resource allocation purposes (Fitzgibbon, 2007, 2008). This in itself was viewed as unjust, ultimately a failure to represent the whole person accurately. As Aas (2004: 386) argues, the criminalised individual is deconstructed into a series of data or observable traits which serve to make a ‘dividual’ which then operates to displace the context of the person's life. Ideas of representation and judgment were seen by the women to reinforce this lack of contextual understanding.

Figure 3.

'You never know a person until you walk a mile in their shoes'. Figure taken by Betty, a participant on supervision.

Figure 3 is one of a collection of images in the Supervisible project that presented the themes of representation and judgment. Sally, another research participant, claimed that being on probation means ‘you are being someone you are not’ or ‘being seen as someone you are not’. However, other participants stated that probation also involves taking their masks off – a process which can ease a burden of misrepresentation. As participant Mandy stated, ‘it was quite a relief when someone actually said “It’s all right, we know what’s going on and you don’t have to pretend anymore, [who] you are”’. Desistance studies and the resultant literature which focused on strength-based approaches have repeatedly illustrated the importance of genuine communication and acceptance (Burnett and McNeill, 2005; Fitzgibbon, 2007; Maruna et al., 2004). Figure 3 and other visual data on judgment highlight the importance of the research participants’ personal relationships with their probation officer. The probation officer’s ability to see the real person and their complex life – the exact opposite of deconstruction and stereotyping – was spoken about as key for participants to overcome the negative aspects of monitoring while under supervision.

Judgment and representation: Chicks Day project

Figure 4 captures a client at the Hungarian women’s programme playing a tambourine. The tambourine was donated to Chicks Day, which accepted clothing, shoe and toy donations for both their clients and their clients’ children. Figure 4 is one in a series of photographs called ‘trinkets’. This series of images are compiled mainly from the jewelry worn by clients of the women’s programme at the harm reduction centre. A client said that Figure 4 captures the essence ‘to dance freely and without worry’. This lighthearted reading of Figure 4 was not however shared by the photographer, who worked at the harm reduction centre. The photographer and other Chicks Day employees feared that Figure 4 could potentially be framed and interpreted within archetypal sexist and racist constructions of Roma women.

Figure 4.

‘Trinkets’. Figure taken by Chicks Day employee Milla.

Figure 5.

Untitled. Figure taken by Rebecca, a participant of the women's centre.

The vast majority of the client population who accessed the women’s programme identified as Roma. Roma people are far from a homogenous group, even within Roma communities living in Hungary. However, the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe are often romanticised in popular media in much of the world as either ‘noble savages’ who are characterised as fantastical and mysterious, or (and often as well) Roma the ‘bogeyman’ who should be feared and criminalised (Tremblett, 2013). The tambourine-playing Roma woman fits into the former category. In many parts of Europe, people who are ethnically Roma have suffered from a long and painful history of prejudice, marginalisation, and racially motivated violence (Hancock, 2002). Physical and economic harms disproportionately affect Roma people, in part because they face ethnic discrimination and cultural risks by virtue of being Roma, and such harms are exacerbated for people who inject drugs (Grund et al., 2000; Rácz et al., 2012). The Chicks Day employees feared that Figure 4 reproduced stereotypical imagery of Roma women and misrepresented their client population. This fear led to a debate amongst the employees as to whether Figure 4 should be selected for the public photo exhibition. After lengthy discussion, Figure 4 is included as part of the public photo exhibition as a poignant visual commentary on the representation of Roma women. Furthermore, Figure 4 provokes a critical discussion and reflection by the employees on the judgment and representation of their client base.

Rubbish and waste: Supervisible project

Many of the photographs taken by women in both the English and Hungarian research projects depicted images of litter, rubbish, bins, discarded newspapers, ashtrays with cigarette butts, empty alcohol cans and bottles, and discarded syringes. Participants discussed how the idea of debris either represented their lives, or a situation or an aspect of their lives. Photographers of this theme of images commonly spoke of feeling like rubbish or shit, feeling all used up and having a sense their lives were rubbish and they were worthless. Rebecca, one of the women from the Women's Centre in the Supervisible project, took a photo of a blue bag of rubbish that was tiny and hidden under a stairway (Figure 5 cited in Fitzgibbon et al. 2017). She explained

I was trying to get the rubbish of my life, like the bag, here, this. Everything else is clean and I’m the rubbish and I was trying to get that in this one […] There’s clean and there’s that rubbish, and I’m that […] Before probation, yeah, really did [feel like that]!

Societal judgments on ‘deviant’ woman as abnormal can result in self-stigmatisation, where the individual internalises these judgments and results in a deterioration of self-esteem and self-worth (Heidensohn et al., 1985; Measham, 2002). Rebecca for example had suffered long-term mental health problems which exacerbated her complex material problems, making her focus on her own failings rather than being able to build on her strengths. Rebecca’s participation in the Supervisible photovoice project enhanced her self-confidence to become more engaged in other support groups.

Rubbish and waste: Chicks Day project

In the right half of Figure 6, an arrangement of syringes and a cylindrical safe syringe deposit container (known as a badella in Hungarian) lay on a hardwood floor. The photographer’s knee protrudes in the bottom left side of the image. Anikó, the photographer of Figure 6 and a client of Chicks Day, took the image in response to feeling upset that some people discarded their used syringes onto public streets. Anikó wanted to show what ‘correct using looked like’, meaning the ‘right’ way to dispose of used syringes after injecting was to place them in the badella rather than throw them on the ground. Distributing personal badellas is one of a number of strategies used in harm reduction interventions to collect and safely dispose of used needles and syringes. Another client commented how ‘it’s disgusting people just throw their needles on the ground, don’t they care?’.

Figure 6.

‘Watch out for others, use the badella!’ Figure taken by Chicks Day client Anikó.

Taboos surrounding hygiene, uncleanliness and disease transfer have long been associated with people who use drugs, especially people who inject (Fitzgerald and Threadgold, 2004; Simmonds and Coomber, 2009). By extension, the image of a syringe represents these fears, and specifically the anxiety around an accidental needle prick of a publically discarded syringe. Such fears were exacerbated when a syringe was found discarded in a park in the neighbourhood surrounding the harm reduction centre where the women’s programme was located. The discarded syringe fuelled outrage within a citizen’s group who argued for the harm reduction centre to be shut down. This panic ran counter to the fact that there were no recorded events of accidental needle prick injuries in this neighbourhood, and that research conducted on the likelihood of needle prick injuries shows that the frequency of actual injury is extremely low, and that the transferences of blood-borne viruses are even more rare (Parkin, 2014). However, the outrage at the discarded syringe was a material manifestation of the public fear and rejection of people who injected drugs. The message of ‘watch out for others, use the badella!’ in Figure 6 was therefore a call for people who inject drugs to contain their rubbish and, in turn, to temper the public’s fear around injecting drug use through the management of this rubbish.

Help and support: Supervisible project

While participants in both the Supervisible and Chicks Day research projects were women overall in vulnerable life situations, a selection of photographs highlighted positive experiences of receiving support and advice and accessing a safe space. Connected to the help and support was the strong sense that the women were resilient, they were moving forward, and making positive changes to their lives with support and encouragement from their probation officers or the workers in the women centres.

Describing Figure 7, Sophie said ‘I quite like the way that it sort of just peeks out, rather than being there and whatever else. It’s sort of quite muddling through, it seems quite far away there, which is actually how it felt’. Sophie, who was on supervision, demonstrated her awareness of the challenges ahead. Yet despite this, Sophie recognised that positive changes in her life were possible with adequate support. Her conceptual perspective, evident in Figure 7, indicates her hopes for the future.

Figure 7.

‘Light at the end of the tunnel’. Figure taken by Sophie, a participant on supervision.

One of the most engaging elements of the Supervisible project was how the photovoice method facilitated a space for participants to tap into their latent creativity not just through the visual research, but also to link their experiences to their future goals and life directions. Jenny encapsulated the desired achievements of many women who participated in this research project. She explained how the services offered at the women’s centre encouraged her to try ‘to be more creative, you know, actually doing something as opposed to just talking about it … It just really cheers me up’. Since participating in the Supervisible project, Jenny presented her photographs at the Brussels exhibition and spoke to an audience of over ninety people. Later she was accepted on a fine arts degree course based on her portfolio of creative work. Other participants in the Supervisible project engaged in art classes locally, prompted by the encouragement and support of the women’s centre targeting women in supervision.

Help and support: Chicks Day project

Figure 8, taken by Chicks Day client Csilla, shows her own hand spread out on a table. Csilla took this photo to show the abscess in the middle of her hand. She explained how when she first came into the harm reduction centre with the sore, multiple employees asked her what happened, and offered to help make the wound sterile. She saw this as an example of ‘team work’ and ‘paying attention’ on the part of the women’s programme employees. Csilla was one of a chorus of clients who praised the help and support they received from employees. This support was typical harm reduction delivery, such as working on the public syringe collection outreach team, and linking clients up with other services (dentistry, hospital, housing shelters, etc.). In addition to this, the clients spoke of how the Chicks Day employees went ‘above and beyond’ their roles. Csilla specifically noted the women’s programme employees as ‘show[ing] me my potential’. Csilla was a regular visitor at the women’s programme, and dealt with various issues in her life including unstable housing and violence. With the help of the women’s programme employees, Csilla was able to find legal employment. While linking clients with services was one of the roles of the Chicks Day employees, the weekly contact which facilitated attention to the details of clients’ lives meant the employees developed empathetic relationships beyond their role.

Figure 8.

‘Teamwork, paying attention’. Figure taken by Chicks Day client Csilla.

The employees’ effort ‘above and beyond’ was crucial for fostering a safe space during Chicks Day. This space allowed clients to feel comfortable not only in accessing the services on offer at the women’s programme, but also to return to the services on a regular basis. The weekly programme had a dedicated client base of between 40 and 50 women. People who inject may be deterred from accessing health and social services, in part due to past experiences or fear of discrimination and stigmatisation (Ahern et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 2014). Barriers to accessing services are often compounded for women who inject drugs due to lack of gender-specific harm reduction services (Pinkham et al., 2012). By ‘paying attention’ to clients ‘through team work’, the women’s programme employees gained valuable contexts in which they delivered harm reduction services and created a supportive environment for (mainly) women who injected drugs, within the harm reduction centre’s financial constraints. The discussion with Csilla and title of Figure 8 with the photographer is a product of Chicks Day as a safe space.

These various images and themes are a selection of the photographic data that was produced from the Supervisible and Chicks Day research projects. These images show that although the process of support and advice provided to women could be helpful and promote recovery or desistance, this engagement was often also experienced as painful and intrusive. Through the themes of judgment, surveillance and control, the photographic data and discussions revealed the pervasive and invasive nature of women's experiences of the criminal justice system and the women centres’ they attended.

Concluding thoughts

The two research projects discussed in this article have shown that photovoice is an effective and forceful means of enlightening the public, relevant practitioners and policy makers on the complex realities of people involved in rehabilitation supervision and harm reduction.

Since research participants are the photographers in photovoice projects, they ultimately have ownership of the images they produced. However, the authors of this article have reproduced their images in various media, including public presentations, exhibitions and journal articles. Ethical and legal safeguarding was ensured by both authors in order to protect research participants’ image ownership. For the first author’s Supervisible project, all the research participants signed consent forms about the use of their photographs for exhibitions, articles and other outputs, but they retained their ownership if the image was to be used for other purposes or was commercially used or successful. The women were keen for their pictures to be viewed and discussed by a wider audience and fully understood the safeguards in terms of identity and ownership. The photographs associated with the second author’s Chicks Day research in Hungary are copyright under a Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. This Creative Commons license means that the images can be shared, copied or redistributed if appropriate credit is given to the authors of the images (as cited in the publications). Figures cannot be used for commercial purposes nor can the images be altered and distributed. Both the researcher and the research participants have reused the photographs since the Hungarian research was completed.

The methodological strength of photovoice is that participants hold the power to take photographs of whatever they choose, and these images ultimately guide the generation of materials and analysis of the photovoice research. The first and second authors both found that their respective research projects facilitated space for participants to be empowered as co-producers through the data generation and knowledge creation processes, as well as through the public photo exhibitions. While the authors enthusiastically endorse the potential of photovoice for criminological research, this endorsement comes with a warning that this is not an utopian methodology that removes all inherent power inequalities in research and can promise social change. As with other forms of qualitative and participatory research, photovoice should be used with ethical care and active researcher reflexivity (Pink, 2007). Furthermore, the concept of participant empowerment through photovoice should be realistically framed within the structural and material conditions that might disempower participants in their lives. However positive the immediacy of photovoice may be, the overarching sense of distress, powerlessness and destruction revealed through the participants’ pictures heralds the need for structural and political change which can sustain permanent transformation in their lives. For example, the seemingly innocuous photograph of a tambourine in Figure 4 symbolises both a celebration of culture while also reproducing a sexually imbedded racist stereotype. The interpretation of Figure 4 depends on the contextual positioning and awareness of the audience viewing the photograph. Photovoice research facilitates space for contradictory interpretations to co-exist within one image, and through this process can reveal and challenge inherent power inequalities.

These two research projects demonstrate how photovoice is a promising methodology for undertaking criminological research with women. In this article, we have shown how two separate photovoice projects on key areas of criminological research (drug use and rehabilitation supervision) produced rich visual data with thoughtful insights. Crucially, the evidence was generated by the women themselves. The photographic data challenge stereotypical views about the lack of agency for many of the women involved in these studies, and highlights how a critical approach to visual criminology has emancipatory potential.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Carolyne Kardia and Laura McDavitt for their contribution to the Supervisible project, the women who participated in the Chicks Day project and the Supervisible Project and Janet Ransom for her assistance with this article.

Funding

The Chicks on the Corner project was funded by the Educational, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of the European Union through an Erasmus Mundus Fellowship. The Supervisible project was supported by funding from the Howard League for Penal Reform.

Note

Dr. Wendy Fitzgibbon is a Reader in Criminology at the University of Leicester. She has published widely on probation, risk, violent offenders, mentally disordered offenders and child abuse. Latterly she has been involved in the European network exploring new methods of understanding probation supervision. She is also currently writing a book on the privatisation of the criminal justice system.

Dr. Camille Stengel is a research fellow at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the department of Social and Environmental Health Research, and an assistant lecturer in criminology at the University of Kent. She has published on the interplay between drug policy, harm reduction, and gender in both academic and advocacy contexts.

References

Aas

(2004) From narrative to database: Technological change and penal culture. Punishment and Society 6: 379–393.

Ahern

Stuber

Galea

(2007) Stigma, discrimination and the health of illicit drug users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 88(2–3): 188–196.

Baker

Wang

(2006) Photovoice: Use of a participatory action research method to explore the chronic pain experience in older adults. Qualitative Health Research 16(10): 1405–1413.

Bukowski

Buetow

(2011) Making the invisible visible: A photovoice exploration of homeless women’s health and lives in central Auckland. Social Science and Medicine 5(72): 739–746.

Burles

Thomas

(2014) “I just don’t think there's any other image that tells the story like [this] picture does”: Researcher and participant reflections on the use of participant-employed photography in social research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 13(1): 185–205.

Burnett

McNeill

(2005) The place of the officer–offender relationship in assisting offenders to desist from crime. Probation Journal 52(3): 221–242.

Carlson

Engebretson

Chamberlain

(2006) Photovoice as a social process of critical consciousness. Qualitative Health Research 16(6): 836–852.

Carney

(2010) Crime, punishment and the force of photographic spectacle. In: Hayward

Presdee

(eds) Framing Crime: Cultural Criminology and the Image, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 17–35.

Carr

Bauwens

Bosker

et al. (2015) Picturing probation: Exploring the utility of visual methods in comparative research. European Journal of Probation 7(3): 179–200.

10.

Cohen

(1985) Visions of Social Control, Cambridge: Polity Press.

11.

Fals-Borda O and Rahman MA (eds) (1991) Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action Research. New York: Apex Press.

12.

Fitzgerald

Threadgold

(2004) Fear of sense in the street heroin market. International Journal of Drug Policy 15(5–6): 407–417.

13.

Fitzgibbon

(2007) Risk analysis and the new practitioner: Myth or reality? Punishment and Society 9(1): 87–97.

14.

Fitzgibbon

(2008) Fit for purpose? OASys assessments and parole decisions. Probation Journal 55(1): 55–69.

15.

Fitzgibbon W, Graebsch C and McNeill F (2017) Pervasive Punishment: The Shadow of Penal Supervision. In: Brown M and Carrabine E (Eds.) The Routledge International Handbook of Visual Criminology. Abingdon: Routledge.

16.

Foucault

(1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London: Allen Lane.

17.

Freire P (1979) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Ramos MB, transl.). London: Penguin Books.

18.

Gibson

Rafter

(2006) Criminal Man: Cesare Lombroso, Durham and London: Duke University Press.

19.

Glaze

Kaeble

(2014) Correctional Populations in the USA, 2013, Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs: Department of JusticeAvailable at: www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf.

20.

Grund

Öfner

Verbraeck

(2000) Marel o Del, Kas Kamel, le Romes Duvar (God Hits Whom he Chooses; the Roma Get Hit Twice). An Exploration of Drug User and HIV Risks Among the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe, New York: Open Society Institute.

21.

Hancock I (2002) We are the Romani People. Herfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press.

22.

Heidensohn

Silvestri

Campling

(1985) Women and Crime, London: Macmillan.

23.

Kindon S, Pain R and Kesby M (eds) (2007) Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place. London: Routledge.

24.

Lombroso C (1876) Criminal Man. Italy: Fabio di Benedetto.

25.

McIntyre

(2003) Through the eyes of women: Photovoice and participatory research as tools for reimagining place. Gender, Place and Culture 10(1): 47–66.

26.

Marlatt

(1996) Harm reduction: Come as you are. Addictive Behaviors 2(6): 779–788.

27.

Maruna

Porter

Carvalho

(2004) The Liverpool desistance study and probation practice: Opening the dialogue. Probation Journal 51(3): 221–232.

28.

Measham

(2002) “Doing Gender” – “Doing drugs”: Conceptualising the gendering of drugs cultures. Contemporary Drug Problems 29(2): 335–373.

29.

Ministry of Justice (2014) Offender Management Statistics Bulletin, England and Wales. London: Ministry of Justice. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/ le/33902 /offender-management-jan-mar-2014.pdf (accessed 1 August 2015).

30.

Newburn

(2014) The 2011 England riots in recent historical perspective. British Journal of Criminology 55(1): 39–64.

31.

O'Neill M (2004) Crime, culture and visual methodologies: Ethno-mimesis as performative praxis. In: Ferrell J, Hayward K, Morrison W, et al. (eds) Cultural Criminology Unleashed. London: Glasshouse Press, pp. 219–230.

32.

Parkin

(2014) An Applied Visual Sociology: Picturing Harm Reduction, London: Ashgate.

33.

Phelps

(2013) The paradox of probation: Community supervision in the age of mass incarceration. Law and Policy 35(1–2): 55–80.

34.

Pink

(2007) Doing Visual Ethnography: Images, Media and Representation in Research, 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

35.

Pinkham S, Stoicescu C and Myers B (2012) Developing effective health interventions for women who inject drugs: Key areas and recommendations for program development and policy. Advances in Preventive Medicine 2012(2012). doi:10.1155/2012/269123.

36.

Rácz

Márványkövi

Petke

et al. (2012) The barriers to obtaining treatment for Roma and non-Roma intravenous drug users in Budapest, Hungary: A group comparison. New Medicine 16(2): 52–62.

37.

Reason I and Bradbury H (eds) (2001) Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry and Practice. London: SAGE Publications.

38.

Robinson

(2013) Picturing social inclusion: Photography and identity in downtown eastside Vancouver. Graduate Journal of Social Science 10(2): 20–42.

39.

Rose

(2012) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials, 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

40.

Sekula A (1986) The Body and the Archive Vol. 39(Winter). Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 3–64.

41.

Simmonds

Coomber

(2009) Injecting drug users: A stigmatised and stigmatising population. International Journal of Drug Policy 20(2): 121–130.

42.

Strathdee

Vlahov

(2001) The effectiveness of needle exchange programs: A review of the science and policy. AIDScience 1(16). Available at: http://aidscience.org/Articles/aidscience013.asp (accessed 5 June 2012).

43.

Tremlett A (2013) ‘Here are the Gypsies!' The importance of self-representations and how to question prominent images of Gypsy minorities. Ethnic and Racial Studies 36(11): 1706–1725.

44.

Teti

Murray

Johnson

et al. (2012) Photovoice as a community-based participatory research method among women living with HIV/AIDS: Ethical opportunities and challenges. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 7(4): 34–43.

45.

Wang

(1999) Photovoice: A participatory action research strategy applied to women’s health. Journal of Women’s Health 8(2): 185–192.

46.

Wang

Burris

(1997) Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior 24(3): 369–387.

47.

Wilson

Brener

Mao

et al. (2014) Perceived discrimination and injecting risk among people who inject drugs attending needle and syringe programmes in Sydney, Australia. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 144(1): 274–278.

48.

Wodak

Cooney

(2005) Effectiveness of sterile needle and syringe programmes. International Journal of Drug Policy 16(1): 31–44.