Research Engagement in a Virtual World: Strategies for Maintaining the Power and Impact of Photovoice Research Online

Navigating the Institutional Review Board for Virtual Photovoice

Navigating university and community institutional review boards (IRBs) is a key step in planning any photovoice research, whether the study will be conducted in person or virtually. Some IRBs lack familiarity with photovoice, so we always recommend leaving adequate time to educate reviewers and advocate on behalf of the project you want to conduct. However, pivoting from research imagined for in person implementation to 100% remote implementation required new negotiations of both big and small details.

We found that one of the most important issues to explore and resolve right away with our IRBs was which electronic communication platforms, if any, had been pre-approved for online research. If, for example, the IRB has already vetted online platforms such as Zoom, Cisco Webex^TM, or Google Meets, designing—or redesigning—your proposed methods to align with the specifics of that platform will certainly facilitate IRB review. However, accessibility and appropriateness of the virtual platform for project participants is an important consideration in project (re)design. If the IRB’s pre-approved platform is not right for your photovoice project, preparing and presenting the case for approval of the platform you prefer will require time and attention that needs to be factored into your project plans.

We also found that we needed to rework details of the research procedures once it became clear that project activities would not be happening in person. Consent to record virtual meetings, including the chat, or password or access keys may need to be added or amended in your submitted study protocol. Pre-approved procedures may need to be revised to state that all contact—or all contact going forward—will be only through the approved electronic platform. Consent forms will need to be revised to clearly state the new study processes. Even standard forms, such as those used for photo release or supplies reimbursement, will need to be adapted for electronic signature.

The transition to electronic signatures may be quick and easy or surprisingly complicated, depending on the existing capacity of the particular IRB. For example, we often use gift cards to compensate participants for their time and contributions. Normally, the IRB requires that we gather participant signatures each time the gift cards are distributed, which is relatively easy when we are physically together for project activities. But how to do this when activities are conducted remotely? We found that options differ with institutions, ranging from an official electronic signature (which is simple but may not be accessible to all participants): a photo of a handwritten signature submitted by each participant via their smartphone, or a handwritten signature on a scanned, downloaded, and then uploaded document. It’s entirely possible that the IRB you are working with may not yet have adopted policies for collection of electronic signatures, so be prepared to build time into your project plans to collaborate on developing these critical protocols.

Adapting Project Management

Like everyone involved in photovoice research during the lockdown phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we had to figure out how exactly our projects would work online. Every aspect of our projects was impacted by the new environment, from outreach and recruitment to team organization, file management, and group sessions with participants.

We quickly learned that outreach and recruitment can be done without in person invitations or presentations, but we had to be aware of the ways in which potential participants were now communicating within their own networks. For example, direct email recruitment worked well for a study population of university students who were accustomed to email communication, had the equipment they needed, and were frequently online. In another study, however, the community members we sought to engage likely had limited internet or computer access. In this case, we found it necessary to add text messaging and phone calls to our email outreach, as well as working through existing networks and coalitions. We also found that recruitment to an online project facilitated outreach to participants around the world, which included use of WhatsApp and other free text messaging options.

The administrative aspects of project management were a little easier to translate to the virtual environment, since much of that was already handled electronically (e.g., scheduling meetings using Microsoft Outlook). Project records were stored on a secure hard drive, and budget and personnel were already managed online. Virtual photovoice added new administrative elements, however, such as storing and accessing recorded meeting files (audio, video, and/or transcripts) and establishing secure space for storing participant photos and narratives. Working virtually with Photovoice participants also opened up the possibility of having research team members work entirely from a distance while located in different cities, which was the case for one of our projects. Research team members tended to communicate via email, Zoom meetings, and text messaging.

Building Community Online

The heart of photovoice is often considered the rich group dialogue that occurs when participants gather to share their photos, discuss the meanings of the photos, and link their lived experience to broader context and conditions. Over time and implementation of diverse projects, we had learned how to facilitate these powerful group sessions. We were confident in our ability to establish a warm and inviting tone through deliberate arrangement of furniture, refreshments, planned breaks, and adequate time for socializing. We had a reliable stock of greetings and introductory exercises guaranteed to break the ice. We knew how to work with groups to establish the ground rules that would create a safe, in-person space. But doing that online? We found that this required a new kind of creativity and attention, as well as our own deep commitment to leading a process that would build community, even if the community members never met in person.

One of our first realizations was that online community building takes time. Seeing faces inside zoom squares on a screen is different than sitting next to people around a table, so we had to experiment with icebreakers and group “check-ins” that would create space for everyone. We both had experience teaching college courses and conducting meetings online, but setting the stage for the kind of trust and group norms so essential to photovoice was very different. We found that the check-in was an important anchor for group meetings—a chance for everyone to respond to a question not related to the project, such as “what have you been watching on TV this week?” or “what kind of weather describes your day so far?” (see additional examples in Supplemental Content). Another popular check-in invited everyone to share something of importance in the space they were zooming from (shared examples included painted rocks from a friend, pet bearded dragons, and butterflies they were raising). Rotating responsibility for selecting the check-in question and facilitating the process also helped participants get to know each other in ways that were meaningful for them. These exercises take time, but we found that they were the best way “to bring everyone into the room” and begin the kind of group interaction so crucial to in-person photovoice sessions (additional suggestions can be found in Supplemental Content).

The ground rules for a photovoice discussion in a virtual environment need to be a little different than when people are sharing physical space. Online facilitators have to acknowledge the ease of multi-tasking, distractions, and disengagement that is so commonplace—and compelling—during online sessions. We held to the same principles and expectations—accountability, safety, confidentiality, shared responsibility to hear all voices—but had to introduce and reinforce them slightly differently in this new environment. For example, participants could have camera on or off depending on their comfort level, could participate in the general discussion verbally or using chat, and were asked to unmute and speak verbally when it was their turn to share their photos and accompanying stories. We also found that it is critical to have someone on the research team designated to provide technical assistance when there are issues of internet connectivity, access to the meeting room, or other ways that participants might come to feel left out when they had every intention of fully participating in the group process.

Sharing and discussing photos in the virtual environment turned out to be relatively easy once we pivoted to completely virtual photovoice. Prior to COVID-19 and as cellphone photo technology had evolved, we had moved from sharing physical prints of photos around a table to sharing digital images displayed on a screen. The move to sharing photos on a Cisco Webex^TM or Zoom platform was relatively easy, as participants were already there. The only adaptation needed was a different kind of pre-planning.

What we found worked best was for participants to share the photos they wanted to present with the facilitator prior to the meeting. The facilitator would then organize the collected photos and share them on the screen for all to see at the appropriate time and in the specified sequence. It is important to build enough lead time into the instructions, so that the facilitator has time to organize the photos. It is also important to establish in advance how the photos will be shared with the facilitator—either emailed or sent via text message, uploaded to a shared Dropbox, or even shared from their own computers during the meeting via screenshare. Details about file size, compression, and the number of photos to be shared in a single transmission need to be clearly communicated in advance, based on the capacity of the facilitator to receive and manage the photos, and participants’ comfort with the technology and security of sending photos. Since participants may feel anxious or emotional about the photos they share with the group, it might be a good idea to plan a trial run, in which everyone follows the protocol with a fun photo first before sending in the photos that they take in response to the more serious project prompt. This allows time to identify and solve problems before participants attempt to share photos that are particularly meaningful to them and the facilitator attempts to make the process as smooth and respectful as possible.

A surprise advantage of virtual photovoice is the wealth of supplemental data in the chat function. We found that many participants prefer to share their discussion contributions through the chat in real-time, rather than sharing in the larger group discussion. The chat, not an in-person option, provides another, increasingly comfortable outlet for participants to speak up, react, and share. We did not fully anticipate the breadth and depth of data that would emerge from the chat thread, and so, initially, did not build this into our project management plans. However, we quickly learned the benefit of designating one member of the research team to actively monitor the chat and add those comments to the verbal discussion (e.g., “I see that Leah has commented that. . . . . .”). The contents of the chat can also be very helpful in developing the photo assignment for the next meeting—again, a resource we don’t have when meeting in person.

Sharing Results and Advocacy for Change

Sharing photos, narratives, and recommendations for change beyond the participants is essential in the photovoice method. This is still possible, even when public exhibits or gallery viewings are not an option. In recent years, the power of social media for community activism has become evident: it gets people’s attention and can both suggest and stimulate meaningful action for change. Virtual exhibits have potential to reach a far larger audience at far less cost, if broad public viewing is the goal. With so many policy and decision-making bodies now conducting their meetings online, there is also the option of presenting photos, narratives, and recommendations as part of a pre-scheduled agenda item. As communities begin to rescind their social distancing requirements, both online and in-person presentations become possible, with the decision based on what is available and what best aligns with the project’s strategic change goals.

Our experience affirmed the potential for sharing photovoice results and advocating in a hybrid format with some attendees in person and others joining virtually. For example, in one of our recent projects, the presentation was made (both in person and virtually) to a local advocacy group called Mothers and Others for Justice, who for 30 years has been fighting for racial justice in New Haven, CT. Another project was originally scheduled to be presented via Zoom during a meeting of the local Board of Education, but instead was presented to that city’s superintendent per his request.

Learning from the Pandemic

Three years ago, as we planned our current photovoice projects and completed a book on photovoice methods (Breny & McMorrow, 2021), we had no idea that we would be conducting photovoice projects online in the context of a global pandemic. However, our commitments to the topics of our research and the communities they impact meant that we could not turn away when the context became more challenging. And so, like so many photovoice researchers around the world, we did our best to adapt, to stay true to the principles of this powerful participatory method, and to continue to bring forward new voices to the spaces of power and decision-making.

In the process, we learned that doing this work virtually is not only viable, but liberating. Among the many potential benefits of virtual photovoice are the ability to connect people from across the globe in a single project, the ease of sharing photos during group discussions, the wealth of data that can be culled from the chat function, and the ability to almost immediately curate virtual exhibits and presentations designed for specific decision-making actors. Our experience also taught us that virtual photovoice requires time and attention to community building in new ways, open communication with institutional review boards, and precise project management detail. We are inspired to consider this approach for future projects. In any form—virtual or in-person or hybrid—we believe that photovoice remains a powerful research method in the toolbox of health promotion practice and research.

Supplemental Material