How different approaches to taking pictures influences participation in a photovoice project

Abstract

Photovoice involves participants using cameras to document their thoughts and experiences related to an important theme in their everyday lives. Photovoice places the critical data collection tool, a camera, in the control of the participants themselves. Thus, the knowledge that is generated from a photovoice project is likely to directly reflect the interests and concerns of the participants. This project offers a unique view of how participants’ varying approaches to photography influenced their experiences of participation as well as the photographs they took.

Keywords

Participatory research photovoice qualitative methods

Introduction

Photovoice is a visually based, participatory action research (PAR) project that asks participants to photograph aspects of their lives (McIntyre, 2008; Wang & Burris, 1994; Wang, Cash, & Powers, 2000; Wang, Kun Yi, Wen Tao, & Carovano, 1998; Wang & Redwood-Jones, 2001). It was developed with the assumption that people can communicate their knowledge and perspectives through photography (Wang & Burris, 1994). Photovoice has received much attention in the research literature, documenting outcomes such as participants’ increased self-esteem and sense of empowerment (Catalani & Minkler, 2010; Strack, Magill, & McDonagh, 2004), and the generation of rich data (Hodgetts, Chamberlain, & Radley, 2007; Wang et al., 2000). Many of the reflections on photovoice projects are limited to those of researchers and facilitators (e.g., Chonody, Ferman, Amitrani-Welsh, & Martin, 2013; Lewinson, Robinson-Dooley, & Grant, 2012; Teti, Murray, LaShaune, & Binson, 2012; Wang et al., 1998). Hodgetts and colleagues (2007) have called for greater attention to how participants produce the photos that are so central to these projects. In this study, we report on the experiences of participants in a photovoice study to determine how they go about taking photos and how their experiences of taking photos influence their perceptions of the photovoice project as a whole.

Participation in a photovoice project requires that participants document their experiences related to important themes in their lives using photography. In addition, participants are typically asked to work with facilitators to determine the theme or question for the project, participate in discussions or receive some training on taking photos, take photos on the agreed upon theme, develop captions for selected photos, and show their photos in public (Wang & Burris, 1994). According to Catalani and Minkler (2010), photovoice is consistent with principles of community based participatory action research (CBPAR) in its emphasis on empowerment, participant–researcher collaboration and co-learning, community capacity building and a focus on action. In CBPAR, research and participation are of equal priority, serving to generate both knowledge and the increased ability of community members to solve community problems (Israel, Schurman, & Hugentobler, 1992).

Two reviews of photovoice research suggest that it is a flexible method, and that it is often applied with deviations from some of the assumptions of CBPAR. Catalani and Minkler (2010) and Hergenrather, Rhodes, Cowan, Bardhoshi, and Pula (2009) report that in a majority of published studies, the themes or topics of photovoice studies are developed prior to the recruitment of participants (e.g., Wang et al., 1998). Projects differ considerably in the length of time devoted to the taking of photos, the number of times that participants take photos and come together to discuss them, and the extent to which participants are provided with opportunities to discuss and reflect on their photos (Catalani & Minkler, 2010; Hergenrather et al., 2009).

A near universal element of photovoice studies is an action component, typically in the form of a public showing of photos that is attended by community members and decision-makers alike. Many photovoice studies report impacts on local communities or policies, and a number of applications of photovoice have also built the development of action plans into the projects (Catalani & Minkler, 2010; Hergenrather et al., 2009).

It is more common to find the perspectives of researchers or facilitators on photovoice documented in the research literature (e.g., Chonody et al., 2013; Lewinson et al., 2012; Teti et al., 2012). It is less clear, from the perspectives of participants, what it is like participating in a photovoice project. Guillemin and Drew (2010) examined how youth participants in photo-based studies produced their photos. Although familiar with photography in their everyday lives, many found it difficult deciding what to photograph, fretted about the quality of their images, and were concerned about negative representations of their lives. Guillemin and Drew (2010) suggest that building rapport between participants and researchers and giving participants permission to photograph all aspects of their lives may free them to take more photos.

Photography in a photo-based study is unlike photography in everyday life (Hodgetts et al., 2007). Photography in everyday life may involve photos of life events (Bourdieu, 1990, cited in Hodgetts et al., 2007), but with the ubiquity of portable digital devices, it may also involve more routine, opportunistic, spontaneous, self-focused, or indiscriminate uses. The audiences for everyday photography may also vary widely from oneself, to family and friends, to anonymous others through social media. The norms of everyday photography may not apply to a photovoice project. What counts as a good or meaningful photo can be different in photovoice than it is in everyday life.

In this study, we describe how participants’ varying approaches to photography in a photovoice project influenced both how they experienced their participation as well as the photos they produced. Specifically, we wanted to know how participants decided what to photograph, whether they were able to photograph what they wanted, and how their approach to photography impacted their experiences of participation. Given the centrality of photos in this type of project, we believe that this understanding can inform the work of people facilitating this type of project to ensure their likelihood of success.

The HousingPlus Photovoice Project

This project engaged people living in supportive housing to document their experiences and perspectives on their housing. Supportive housing is a form of social housing that combines support and housing to help people at risk for homelessness to live independently (Parkinson, Nelson, & Horgan, 1999). It can benefit a range of marginalized populations, including people with mental illness, substance abuse, and chronic illness such as HIV/AIDS (Ward & Doherty, 2008). This project was an outgrowth of a larger participatory evaluation that included tenants, front-line staff members and senior staff members focused on understanding good practice in supportive housing in Ottawa, Canada (Sylvestre, Cousins, Sundar, Aubry, & Hinsperger, 2008). The second author led this larger study and the first author participated as a research assistant. This smaller photovoice study was initiated based on a request from agency leaders for more information on tenant experiences of their supportive housing.

In this study, participants invited to participate in the project with a theme and some of the process already determined. At key points throughout the project, the research team discussed and collaborated with the participants as much as possible on each project component (e.g., introductory workshops, interviews with participants, photo-finishing meetings, and informal phone calls to check in between meetings).

Methods

Sample and recruitment

Participants were recruited through a pre-existing collaborative relationship between the researchers and six agencies from the Ottawa Supportive Housing Network (OSHN). The participants were 15 tenants who had been living in supportive housing from three months to 17 years. They ranged in age from 24 to 57 years of age, and were living with a variety of personal challenges, including severe and persistent mental and/or physical illness, drug addiction, transition due to separation and divorce, and risk of homelessness. The tenants were recruited through word-of-mouth, flyers placed at each agency, through the executive directors and staff members and research team visits to housing agencies. One participant who participated in the larger collaborative study described above, also participated in this photovoice project.

Process

Introductory workshops

At one of three identical workshops, the project goals, processes, and timelines were discussed with participants. Informed consent was obtained and a brief introduction to the research team and the project was given. The timeline of the project was discussed and the participants learned that they would have two weeks with a digital camera, followed by an individual meeting with the first author to review their photographs and select their images for the photography exhibit. Facilitators encouraged participants to discuss their impressions of the project, including any concerns and hopes they had about their participation. Researchers then distributed cameras, memory cards, battery chargers, and manuals. The participants were asked to “show us what supportive housing means to you.” They were informed that they could take as many photographs as they wished with a focus on their housing experience.

The second portion of the workshop focused on photography, facilitated by the first author and visual arts graduate students. The graduate students introduced participants to the basic functions of the digital cameras. A slideshow was used to show participants the diversity of photographs they could take. The slideshow included the work of the graduate students as well as other images selected by them and the facilitator.

There were two notable deviations from typical photovoice procedures. First, due to project funding timeline, a longer workshop and photo-taking period was not possible as is found in other photovoice projects. Additionally, at the onset of the project several participants expressed discomfort with sharing their photos with a larger participant group and requested a one-on-one photo-viewing session with the author instead.

Interviews with participants

Following the two-week photo-shoot, participants met with the first author for one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. The interviews lasted for about 1.5 hours, were audio-recorded and later transcribed verbatim. During the first part of the interview, the participants selected up to three photos that were the most meaningful to them and these photos were discussed in depth. Any image of a person, in which consent was not obtained, was not included in the public exhibit. Participants agreed to not include these photos. The second part of the interview focused on how participants went about taking photos for the project and their experiences with different aspects of the photovoice project. This second part of the interview is the focus of this article.

Photo-finishing meetings

Participants met with the researchers and visual arts graduate students to review their photos. Research team members helped participants to title their photographs and write a descriptive paragraph for their chosen exhibit photos. To support the narrative writing, the SHOWeD method was employed: 1) what do you see here? 2) what is really happening here? 3) how does this relate to our lives? 4) why does this problem or strength exist? and 5) what can we do about it?

Photo exhibit

The photos selected by participants were printed and framed, and additional photographs important to the participants were collected in a slideshow. In addition to displaying the photographs, the accompanying text, and the slideshow, some tenants also elected to display their poetry and to speak about their experiences of their housing. The photo exhibit was planned collaboratively between the research team, visual arts students, and the participants. The visual arts students found a local museum to host the exhibit. A meeting was held with the participants, visual arts students, and researchers to discuss the event, and how the photos would be displayed in the museum. The researchers discussed with the participants who should be invited to the exhibit. Participants personally invited whomever they wished to the opening night and were also provided with passes to the museum so they could return with guests after the opening night when the museum charged an admission fee. The opening of this exhibit was attended by approximately 200 community members (including staff members from the housing agencies and local policy makers), and received local media coverage.

Theme-validation

A theme-validation meeting was held during which all the participants discussed their experiences in the project with the research team, including the photography exhibit, the photos and their reactions to the themes generated from an analysis of data from the individual interviews. At this time, participants spoke about their differing perceptions of the photographs, and shared with the group their own experiences living in supportive housing.

Data analysis

Qualitative data consisted of transcribed audio-recordings of interviews with participants, along with field notes made by the first author. The data were analyzed using an inductive analytic approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Throughout the coding, theoretical memos were written and a peer review process was employed, in which other members of the research team commented on the emerging codes, confirming the consistency of codes with the interview data. A theme-validation meeting was held with participants to discuss their experiences in the project, and their reactions to the themes generated from analysis.

Findings

The findings are divided into three sections: 1) approaches to photography, 2) the relationship between photographic approaches and project experiences, and 3) common project experiences. In the first section we identify three unique approaches participants used to take photos in this project. Then we link these approaches to photography to the different experiences participants had of the project. Finally, we describe the project experiences that were common to all participants regardless of how they took their photographs.

Approaches to photography

During the interviews, participants spoke about how they decided which photographs to take. The analysis suggested three approaches to taking photos: a planned approach, a discovery-oriented approach, and a task-oriented approach.

The planned approach

Six participants described taking a planned, deliberate approach to taking photos. They took pictures that were based on an idea that they had formulated in advance. Participants who used this approach depicted themes in their images relating to countering stigma or emphasizing relationships and “humanity” in their housing. For example, one person spoke about conveying positive messages in her photographs: “I could have took a lot of pictures of street people but I tried to keep it more on the positive side … I wouldn’t take the ugliness no more. I said I need some good pictures.” Two participants described planning their photographs to “tell a story” about important personal experiences, including moving to independent housing.

The discovery-oriented approach

Five participants were more spontaneous in how they took pictures: “I kind of went to that approach thinking that if I took spontaneous pictures I will find the one that I like the most as opposed to over-thinking it.” Several of these participants said they took photographs when they saw a scene or object that was “striking” to them. One person thought this approach would lead to “better pictures” and another described taking photographs that “spoke” to her: “so I would snap a picture and then find a meaning for it.” Several identified photos as an “accident” or “mistake” resulting from experimenting with the camera. Two people gave their cameras to friends because it was more “fun” for them to appear in some of their own photos. Three participants also chose to include other forms of expression, including poetry and sketches to complement their photographs.

The task-oriented approach

The four task-oriented members of this group interpreted the project theme literally and took photos of physical features of their housing. Their comments suggested that taking photos was an obligation to the facilitators. One person took photos of the private and shared space in their housing, believing this to be the facilitators’ expectation: “I just picked that picture because that’s what it’s supposed to be about.” Another spoke of being unsure about which photographs to take, and a third took photos of his living room because he was too anxious to leave his home.

The relationship between photographic approaches and project experiences

The analysis also suggested that participants with different photographic approaches also had different experiences of the project.

Planned approach to photography

Motivation to participate

Several participants who used a planned photographic approach had clear motivations for participating in the project, including seeking a new experience, wanting to share their perspectives, and because they enjoyed photography: “… and when I got invited to do this, I mean I’ve always enjoyed photography. I love photography. And yes, photography is an art form. I thought, wow, I’d love to … I was into it more for me than probably for the cause.” Two participants spoke of finding the university affiliation appealing, and for one participant, this was the sole reason he cited joining the project. This participant spoke of feeling more “comfortable” with joining because of the “professionalism” he associated with the university affiliation.

Goals for the project

The members of this group were more likely to identify particular goals they held for the project. In particular, they were clear on the particular messages they wanted their photos to convey such as their hope to address stigma and perceptions about supportive housing:

I don’t know that we can do anything other than maybe make people think about it. Through giving people an insight, through the photos, I’m hoping that’s what we will do. It’s to get them to think about it. Maybe the next time they sit and maybe subconsciously think of something, maybe one of these photos will pop into mind …

Other planned photographers hoped to improve aspects of their housing by bringing increased funding: “… somebody might see this, take an interest in it and then they could coordinate with [housing agency]. I think then maybe some sponsors or somethin’ might help out.” Another person spoke of wanting change the attitude of staff and managers at his housing agency: “I’d like to see [the housing agency] embrace the drug addict … just show love.”

Some who used had a planned approach had the exhibit audience in mind when they took their photos. These participants considered how best to express their messages to the audience: “I believe there’s a great message using humour to make people understand … I wanted to add a little humour, to add a little levity to it. But enough of a message that people will stop and think.”

Impact of participation

Almost all participants who used a planned approach to photography also made statements about how the project affected them personally, including gaining a new perspective on their housing as a result of their participation:

I thought that there would be quite a few negative things that would be portrayed during the shoot and, no, there was not … it made me look just this much closer at everything and it was amazing how it changed my perspective and helped me gain an appreciation of, like, wow, there’s the back gate around our building for security.

This participant described her membership on the tenant board in her building. She spoke of having great appreciation for her housing and credited her “perspective-shift” to her participation in the project. Another suggested that he would like to continue taking photos of his daily life. Three of these participants ended the interview by asking whether they could be involved with a similar project in the future.

Discovery-oriented and task-oriented approaches to photography

Unclear project expectations

Participants who used either a discovery-oriented or task-oriented approaches were more likely to be unsure of their expectations for the project. One said: “I didn’t know whether I should go too far away from the house that I’m living in and just take pictures of random things.” Some participants were unclear about the overall goal of the project: “I don’t think I got … what the project was all about” and others were confused about whether to include other people in their photographs, given a discussion regarding obtaining consent from people before taking their photo: “I just didn’t know for sure if you wanted people in it or it’s up to us.” Two people spoke of their concerns that other participants who lived in their housing might take the same photographs: “having a partner in the project, I didn’t want us to both have the same pictures of the same houses, so that was a little conflicting.”

Half of the participants whose comments were included in this subcategory believed all of their photographs were required to mean something about their housing: “Several places I wanted to take a picture of, but I thought those would be just personal pictures that I would like for myself. I didn’t feel like they had to do with the housing aspect of the project.” Another participant shared this concern: “I just felt like it wasn’t significant, a little bit. It was just like an ordinary home.” Unlike individuals who used a planned approach to photography, those who used a discovery or task-oriented approach tended to have less of a sense of ownership over their photos and the project.

Missed photo opportunities

Participants who used either of these approaches spoke of missing particular photos. Some people who were discovery-oriented said they did not have their camera with them when an opportunity occurred: “sometimes I was out without the camera and I’d see something and I’d say ‘oh I wish I had my camera with me’.” Other participants were unable to take certain photographs because of practical barriers: “I didn’t get as many friends’ places pictures as I had hoped because some people were busy during the week.” Two participants mentioned having difficulty taking the photo they wanted because of focusing or framing problems: “I mean I should have taken a picture more towards the center but it was hard to focus and concentrate on what I was taking at the same time” and “well it would have been nice if I was able to get the whole frame but I didn’t manage to get it.” Although one person wanted to take photos of his neighbourhood, he was unable to do so for fear that he would be perceived as suspicious. He instead chose to take photos of his building while remaining unseen: “I wanted to go around the building when there was no one around and take angle shots, like looking up a stairwell or something.”

Common project experiences

Despite these differences in approaches to photography, the participants also had a number of experiences of the project in common.

Expressions of satisfaction and dissatisfaction

Overall, more statements were made about participants’ satisfaction with their photographs than comments about their dissatisfaction with their photographs. All participants spoke of feeling satisfied with one or more photo(s). One participant said: “I’ve got some amazing shots in there” and another said: “I thought that [photograph] was just nice.” A few people expressed their satisfaction with capturing the photograph they planned: “I got what I was thinking” and “I got what I wanted.” Other participants made statements about their satisfaction with specific aspects of their photographs, such as the colour, lighting, and subjects. Finally a minority of participants made comments about feeling satisfied with how their photograph(s) depicted their intended meaning: “I like that one … just the expressions and you wonder what’s that about, what they’re trying to do, what’s supposed to be happening.”

There were some participants who disclosed personal and difficult experiences during the interview. These individuals also tended to express satisfaction with the photographs that referred to these difficult situations in some way. For example, a participant who disclosed being a survivor of childhood abuse described what she liked about one of her photographs: “just that she looks like she’s really sad and I’m like an authority figure … like I’m running the place … keeping people in order.” Overall, approximately half of the participants seemed to know which photographs they liked the best, described feeling satisfied, and easily selected their exhibit photograph(s). Participants who had more difficulty knowing which photographs to select and seemed less satisfied overall with their photographs tended to use the task-oriented approach to photography.

Thirteen participants expressed their dissatisfaction with one or more of their photographs. Most of these participants spoke of their dissatisfaction with a minority of their photographs without giving specific reasons for their dissatisfaction. Other comments concerned the participants’ dissatisfaction with the perceived lack of intended meaning conveyed through their photographs: “it doesn’t have the impact so we’re going to say no.” Other people spoke of being unhappy with particular aspects of their photographs, including lighting, angle, subject matter, and the visual clarity of the photograph: “Well, I don’t think they’re good pictures … see, the ashtray. It’s too close, it’s too big.” Finally, several people said they wished they had taken more photographs during the project: “I should have taken more photos. I guess I could have gone in there and taken a picture of the computers.”

Obtaining consent

A majority of participants shared their concerns about obtaining the consent of people they wanted to photograph. Half of participants chose not to include other people in their photographs because they were uncomfortable approaching strangers or because they were unclear with the rules for obtaining consent. Two participants chose not to include groups of people in their photos to avoid having to obtain consent from each person: “Now the cafeteria was way, way too busy for me to even take a picture.”

Participants who took photographs of other people most often photographed friends or housing agency staff members. Participants who included people they did not know in their photographs had mixed experiences. One person stated: “people were so happy to be involved and surprisingly to be photographed.” Another person who did not obtain the consent of people he photographed stated that several of his subjects were unhappy: “some people were angry, just they didn’t want to be photographed. I don’t think I got any of those forms.” A few people referred to the consent process as limiting both the number and types of photographs they took: “So I could have had like probably a great big thick thing and tons of pictures, but I wasn’t into, hey, you’ve got to explain it all, sign it.” The participants who did not obtain consent before taking photos of other people tended to use a discovery-oriented approach to photography. They described the consent process as cumbersome and interfering with the spontaneity with which they preferred to take their photos.

Time limited photo-shoot

The majority of participants said they needed more than two weeks with the camera. Participants spoke about needing more time to improve their photographs (e.g., “I wish I’d had a little more time to work on it because I think I could have gotten it better”) or to capture more aspects of their housing experience (e.g., “… it didn’t give me a chance to get different things happening in the building and a couple things got postponed”).

Discussion

The aim of this project was to learn how participants’ varying approaches to photography in a photovoice project influenced both their experiences of participation as well as the photos they produced. In a photovoice project, photography takes on new meanings and has new consequences. Though for some this may be invigorating and spur creativity, for others it may be stressful and suppress participation. The findings from this study provide a unique understanding about how participants produce their photos under the unique circumstances of a photovoice project.

Individuals who used a planned approach to photography tended to join the project because they had a message to communicate and hoped for change. They were already fairly experienced with using cameras and approached photography with confidence. They arrived with expectations for the project, maintained a predetermined focus, and kept the audience in mind while taking their photos. They demonstrated a sense of ownership over the project, including their photos and the messages they chose to portray. They were more invested in the project, expressed satisfaction with their photos and participation, and consequently were positively affected by their participation.

Conversely, participants who used a discovery-oriented approach to photography arrived with fewer expectations, were focused on self-expression, and did not to consider the exhibit audience when taking photos. Many of these participants were comfortable with cameras and expressed their enjoyment of using photography and, in some cases, used other forms of artistic representation, including writing and sketching, to express themselves.

Participants who used a task-oriented approach to photography viewed their participation as a contract with researchers and had less ownership of the project. They were less comfortable with photography, having little or no previous experience with cameras. Participants using this approach photographed concrete aspects of their housing and did not consider the exhibit audience when they took their photos. Participants in both the discovery and task-oriented groups were also more likely to express dissatisfaction with some of their photos because they did not capture what they wanted to express.

The findings suggest that individuals with a task-oriented approach would benefit from more guidance from project facilitators and other group members. These participants may do better in a group that develops its own project goals and processes over time. Participants using a planned approach to photography may also benefit from activities oriented toward working in groups that have more than one photography session and who discuss their photos as they go along. Conversely, participants who use a discovery-oriented approach may thrive in projects that favor individual expression over the formation of a common group voice.

For facilitators of photovoice projects a number of steps can be taken to assess and support participants with different photographic approaches. At the start of a project, facilitators may inquire whether participants have had much experience taking photos and whether they are comfortable with cameras. Facilitators may provide additional support to those who express discomfort or a lack of experience. During training workshops, they may ask participants to list the ideas or issues they want to capture and discuss strategies for taking photos. This may help to reduce the ambiguity for participants who are unsure what to do. Facilitators may arrange for a check-in (in person or by phone) mid-way though the photo-shoot period to ask participants who they are getting along, discuss project goals, and help those in need of help to consider other avenues or options for photos. These steps may help to overcome some of the limitations of this study, including the broad directions provided to the participants concerning what they could photograph. Indeed, it may be that discovery or task-oriented photographic approaches were in part due to the instructions we provided. The support offered to participant photographers may always, though, be in the service of supporting their own vision, and avoiding influencing what they ultimately choose to photograph (Wang & Redwood-Jones, 2001).

Participant feedback further highlighted the unusual demands and expectations placed on participants in a photovoice study, as well as the lack of direction and opportunity to discuss their photos at regular intervals, which some participants found constraining. Participant feedback suggests that two weeks is insufficient for some to capture both the quality and quantity of photographs they desired. They pointed to having to obtain consent of people who they photographed as also constraining (see also Wang & Redwood-Jones, 2001). Taken together with the expressions of dissatisfaction with some of their photos, and their inability at times to photograph what they wanted to capture, these comments suggest that there is a need for a learning process for how to go about taking photos in a photovoice project. As such, making sure participants understand the project theme and their role and relationship with the theme is of particular importance.

Although some participants were clear in their objectives and confident in their skills, others were unsure of their vision and their abilities. Providing opportunity for participants to discuss their photos and their experiences taking pictures throughout the project would provide greater opportunity for participation and more clarity and comfort in their role for participants who were unsure throughout the project. Group discussions may also give participants to discuss and work through strategies for gaining consent for photos or for dealing with other challenging situations that may arise during the taking of photos (Wang et al., 1998). In short, both the unusual context for photography and the lack of direction and opportunity to discuss their photos over several sessions may require more training and support than was provided for in the one workshop in this study. For some participants we may have underestimated the difficulty of the task with which they were charged.

The challenges that were experienced by some participants may also be reflected in some of the compromises in the participatory aspect of this project. As this project was derived from a larger collaborative study, the theme for the project was established before participants decided to participate. It could be that had participants been involved in establishing and discussing the theme more, some of their uncertainty could have been minimized and even their approaches to photography altered. In this project, the SHOWeD formula employed initially by Wang and colleagues (1994) was used to guide the narrative writing and the discussion generated during the interviews. However, using the SHOWeD formula to guide group discussion at regular intervals would have allowed participants to discuss photos taken over several photo-shoots to reflect upon the photos they wanted to take, to capture a variety of housing activities that fall over several weeks, and to allow for unforeseen life circumstances. As it was common for participants to be satisfied with some photos and dissatisfied with others, a longer photo-shoot period, with group meetings guided by SHOWeD discussions, would allow people the chance to view and discuss their photographs and discover what types of images they want to capture, thus increasing participant satisfaction. This may have been particularly helpful for people who appeared less comfortable with photography and took less ownership of the project throughout.

This study has made a number of contributions to the literature on photovoice. First, it has answered Hodgetts and colleagues (2007) call for greater attention to the process through which participants in these projects produce the photos that are so central to them. Secondly, it has confirmed and extended findings from Guillemin and Drew (2010) who showed that some participants may be unsure of themselves and what to present in their photos. It is clear as suggested in the introduction to this paper that photography in a photovoice project is different from photography in everyday life and some participants may need more guidance and support in taking photos.

Future research may wish to consider whether the approaches identified in this study are particular to the group that participated, or whether they are also found in other groups of participants. The photo-elicitation interview technique that we used appears to be particularly well-suited to investigating this issue, though it is also possible that post-project debriefing interviews may also serve this process.

Conclusions

Photovoice is a unique opportunity for participants to represent their experiences individually and collectively and to communicate them to diverse audiences and has the potential to place increased power and control in the hands of participants to reach audiences with their images and messages. This method also increases the likelihood that project findings are grounded in the interests and experiences of participants. At the same time, care must be taken when initiating and designing photovoice projects to ensure the best fit possible with the needs of diverse partnerships, research or intervention interests, and community contexts. Although there is no benchmark as such for making these decisions, it is clear that participants differentially benefit from more or less opportunities for participation. Photovoice may be demanding on participants who are less comfortable with photography or having their photos viewed by others. Findings suggest that individuals who used a task-oriented approach seemed to experience the most difficulty with participation within an investigator initiated and driven project. These participants may do better in a more participatory project with opportunity for the participant group to develop its own project goals and processes over time. Participants using a planned approach to photography may also benefit from activities oriented toward working in groups over several meetings with regular discussion of their photos and accompanying themes. Conversely, participants who use a discovery-oriented approach may thrive in projects with less opportunity for participation that favor individual expression over the formation of a common group voice.

Photovoice appears to be well suited to identifying a broad range of experiences and issues in the lives of members of marginalized communities, including lived experiences of individuals living in supportive housing. However, the flexibility of the photovoice method and opportunities for participation therein broaden the applicability of this approach and call for increased understanding of the consequences of application on knowledge generation and experiences of participation.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the contributions of the participants, research team, participating housing agencies, our partners in the Visual Arts Department, and the Bytown Museum for making this photovoice project possible. The participants contributed their time, energy, and creativity to this project, and bravely shared their personal stories. We thank the dedicated and supportive research team who worked tirelessly throughout this project. We would like to express our gratitude to the supportive housing agencies from the Ottawa Supportive Housing Network for their support for the project. We would also like to thank Dr. Mary Brydon-Miller for leading the review process of this article. Should there be any comments/reactions you wish to share, please bring them to the interactive portion of our blog on the associated AR+| ActionResearchPlus website: .

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation External Research Program [grant number 6585-5186].

Author biographies

Katherine Bendell is a Clinical Psychologist at The Royal's Operational Stress Injury (OSI) Clinic.

John Sylvestre is an Associate Professor in the School of Psychology, and Director of the Centre for Research on Educational and Community Services, at the University of Ottawa.

References

Bourdieu

(1990) Photography: A middle-brow art, Cambridge: Polity.

Catalani

Minkler

(2010) Photovoice: A review of the literature in health and public health. Health Education & Behavior 37(3): 424–451.

Chonody

Ferman

Amitrani-Welsh

Martin

(2013) Violence through the eyes of youth: A photovoice exploration. Journal of Community Psychology 41: 84–101.

Guillemin

Drew

(2010) Questions of process in participant-generated visual methodologies. Visual Studies 25: 175–188.

Hergenrather

K. C.

Rhodes

S. D.

Cowan

C. A.

Bardhoshi

Pula

(2009) Photovoice as community-based participatory research: A qualitative review. American Journal of Behavior 33: 686–698.

Hodgetts

Chamberlain

Radley

(2007) Considering photographs never taken during photo-production projects. Qualitative Research in Psychology 4: 263–280.

Israel

Schurman

Hugentobler

M. K.

(1992) Conducting action research: Relationships between organization members and communities. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 28: 74–101.

Lewinson

Robinson-Dooley

Grant

K. W.

(2012) Exploring “home” through residents’ lenses: Assisted living facility residents identify homelike characteristics using photovoice. Journal of Gerontological Social Work 55: 745–756.

McIntyre

(2008) Participatory action research, USA: Sage Publications.

10.

Parkinson

Nelson

Horgan

(1999) From housing to homes: A review of the literature on housing approaches for psychiatric consumer/survivors. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health 18: 145–164.

11.

Strack

R. W.

Magill

McDonagh

(2004) Engaging youth through photovoice. Society for Public Health Education 5: 49–58.

12.

Strauss

A. L.

Corbin

(1998) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, (2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

13.

Sylvestre, J., Cousins, J. B., Sundar, P., Aubry, T., & Hinsperger, V. (2008). Engaging stakeholders in the planning and evaluation of a collaborative multi-agency evaluation: The HousingPlus Collaborative Communities Project. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 212–217.

14.

Teti

Murray

Johnson

Binson

(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: 34–43.

15.

Wang

Burris

M. A.

(1994) Empowerment through photo novella: Portraits of participation. Health Education Quarterly 21: 171–186.

16.

Wang

Cash

J. L.

Powers

L. S.

(2000) Who knows the streets as well as the homeless? Promoting personal and community action through photovoice. Health Promotion Practice 1: 81–89.

17.

Wang

Kun Yi

Wen Tao

Carovano

(1998) Photovoice as a participatory health strategy. Health Promotion International 13: 75–86.

18.

Wang

Redwood-Jones

Y. A.

(2001) Photovoice ethics: Perspectives from flint photovoice. Health Education & Behavior 28: 560–572.

19.

Ward

Doherty

(2008) Public housing authorities: Helping to end homelessness through permanent supportive housing. Journal of Housing and Community Development 65: 18–21.