“The Camera Rolls,Everyone,Shhh!!”: Power Dynamics in a Participatory Video Project With Older Adults

“The Camera Rolls, Everyone, Shhh!!”

Participatory video (PV) can be a promising approach in this regard (von Faber et al., 2020). Here members within a community create their own films, thereby enabling them to narrate their stories from their perspectives. By incorporating a range of roles, such as camera operation and interviewing, this method offers pathways for people to engage in various ways and provides a means for sharing diverse positions without relying solely on verbal articulation of perspectives (Lunch & Lunch, 2006). This can increase the inclusiveness of participation. However, based on our study we show that power dynamics also play a role in such projects, which are partly related to these roles. These power dynamics shape which voices are heard and how the filmed narrative is constructed. While PV creates opportunities for inclusion, it also needs work and ongoing reflection on power relations, as these shape decision-making processes and can result in exclusion.

This paper explores the dual role of participatory filmmaking as both an inclusive approach and a space where power relations emerge and shift and voices can be amplified or silenced. Drawing on two PV projects involving older adults in the context of age-friendly cities, we investigate the following research question:

How do different film roles influence power dynamics within participatory video research with older adults?

Theoretical Background

While participation has become a popular paradigm in research and practice, it often masks uneven power relations. Traditional participatory projects are often designed in a way that demand specific competencies, such as articulating opinions in formal meetings, which unintentionally excludes people (van de Bovenkamp et al., 2013; van de Bovenkamp & Trappenburg, 2009). Moreover, power dynamics within these participation processes can exclude certain voices or knowledge that is considered less relevant by dominant actors involved (van de Bovenkamp, 2024). This raises questions about whose voices are prioritised and underscores the necessity of tailoring participation processes to the needs of marginalised groups, including those in vulnerable circumstances (Goedhart et al., 2021). As scholars argue, research design should prioritise inclusion and flexibility to meet the diverse needs of participants (Fischbein et al., 2024) and actively account for diversity, and difference through methodological adaptation as a normative process (Wayland & Watharow, 2025).

Arts-based and visual research methods have gained prominence as promising pathways to enhancing participation as they hold potential to be more inclusive (Phillips et al., 2024; Phoenix & Chamberlain, 2025). Arts-based approaches have demonstrated accessibility for participants while generating rich, evocative data (Coemans & Hannes, 2017) and can mediate relationships in a positive way (Groot, 2021). Through photovoice and photoproduction studies older adults were engaged in research on the age-friendliness of their communities (Barrie et al., 2019; Chan et al., 2016; Mysyuk & Huisman, 2019; Novek et al., 2012; Ronzi et al., 2016). Participatory video as a method for co-producing age-friendly cities offers another interesting example as von Faber et al., (2020) showed. Even though art-based visual methods are experienced as valuable in different studies, the backstage processes are still understudied, presenting an opportunity to explore its potential and challenges further (von Faber et al., 2020).

Participatory video originated within the field of community development in the 1960s, social work, and social action research (Lunch & Lunch, 2006). Forms are diverse, ranging from short video workshops to more extensive processes. A shared objective across these approaches is the use of film as a medium for marginalised or underrepresented groups to represent their lived experiences (White, 2003). Moreover, film is widely regarded as a potent tool for conveying experiential knowledge (MacDougall, 2006). In addition, the process of filmmaking itself is often seen as transformative, facilitating the development of new skills, fostering social interaction, bonding, and promoting critical reflection (White, 2003). Shaw (2012) argues that PV has the potential to open spaces for social dialogue, provide a reflective structure through which participants can examine their lives and negotiate their own norms and actions, support the exercise of agency through collaboratively authored production, and create opportunities for groups to influence wider social agendas by circulating their films in broader public or institutional settings. PV is said to hold potential to disrupt dominant gazes to enable multiple, partial ways of seeing and foster democratic knowledge production (Buire, 2022; Kindon, 2003).

There, however, is a gap between PV’s ideals and actual practice. PV takes place in complex social and situated realities that need to be acknowledged and navigated, as Shaw (2012) argues. A more recent body of work builds on this more critical and reflective stance on PV (Fraser et al., 2022; Gubrium et al., 2014; Holland et al., 2010; Kindon, 2016; Milne, 2016; Rogers, 2014; Shaw, 2012, 2014; Walsh, 2014; Whiting et al., 2018). Power dynamics play a role within these projects. In this study power is recognised, as informed by Elias (1978), as a relational construct that is continuously negotiated within social interactions and structures. Shaw (2012) and Kindon (2016) call for a deeper critical engagement with the complexities of power that structure PV processes, even warning hierarchies and epistemological violence can be reproduced by PV projects if attended uncritically.

This is in line with critique on art-based research. Though holding transformative potential, there is a lack of adequate critical reflection on research processes (Coemans & Hannes, 2017). Similarly, James and Buffel (2022) argue that for participatory research with older adults to reach its full potential, it must be embedded with reflexivity and transparency.

This study contributes to the call for more reflexive accounts in art-based participatory research with older adults by offering insight in backstage processes, highlighting how different roles influence power relations in PV research.

Setting and Procedures

This study is grounded in two participatory video (PV) projects on ageing in place, conducted between 2023 and 2025 in the urban municipality of Delft in the Netherlands in collaboration with the municipality. These projects were a continuation, although with a different approach, of earlier PV projects (van Vliet et al., 2018; von Faber et al., 2020). Within the projects there was substantial freedom in approach, timeframe and output, apart from the expected output: a film or short films created by older adults themselves, exploring their perspectives on ageing-in-place, leading to reflection and small actions of change within the community. Because PV can be organised and performed in different ways, our approach is presented in Table 1. Our approach is informed by methodological guides of Robertson and Shaw (1997) and Lunch and Lunch (2006) and draws on the work of Shaw (2012, 2014), approaching PV as an iteratively unfolding relational process rather than a fixed method.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Our Participatory Video Approach

Within each project, we formed a group with six or seven co-researchers (aged between 70 and 87). We met weekly as a group at a housing initiative for older adults. One project ran from February to October 2023, and the other from July 2024 to April 2025. Each group session lasted approximately three to four hours. The meetings were facilitated by two academic co-researchers (the first and third author), both white females, trained in anthropology and nursing, one of whom also held expertise in visual anthropology and film instruction (the first author). The dual role of co-researcher and film instructor allowed us to support both the creative and reflective dimensions of the project, influenced by our ethnographic, open-ended approach to the filmmaking process. In addition, both academic co-researchers have a personal tendency for flexibility, openness, improvisation and sometimes lack of structure, thus influencing the process

At the beginning of the project, ageing in place was introduced as a broad topic, but its definition and interpretation were left entirely to the group. Co-researchers were introduced to filming using iPads, with basic training. Early workshops encouraged experiential learning, beginning with simple exercises in which co-researchers interviewed one another on camera about their everyday experiences of ageing in place. These videos were then watched and reflected upon collectively, stimulating group dialogue about individual perspectives (Robertson & Shaw, 1997), and serving as a catalyst for identifying key themes and topics of interest. Co-researchers learnt how to conduct interviews and designed their questions based on what they thought was important or wanted to learn from other older adults in their community. Co-researchers developed storyboards together, and they would choose what would be important to film, explore and show. They held interviews with other older adults on video, and they chose to include housing initiatives and a nursing home to visit and film

The film’s narrative and structure were developed through iterative, collective reflection. Together with the academic co-researchers, the group analysed interview footage by watching it on a large screen and discussing emerging themes. They selected the most relevant quotations, images, and moments to include in the final edit as a group. One co-researcher led the technical editing process using Clipchamp. Final edits were completed collaboratively with an academic co-researcher (the first author) in Adobe Premiere Pro

Midway through the project, we decided as a group to initiate a dialogue with a small group of municipal stakeholders, including the alderman for ageing policy. We reviewed selected clips together. However, editorial control remained entirely with the co-researchers, who decided independently whether or how to incorporate this input

Throughout the project, co-researchers took on a wide range of roles including interviewer, camera operator, editor, director, and organiser. Some identified important stories, others coordinated interviews, filmed, recorded voice-overs, or selected background music. In later stages, roles also included organising public screenings, inviting guests, and representing the group in media appearances

The two PV projects resulted in 30-min documentaries created by the older adults. These films were premiered in a local theatre during a festive public screening that included a panel discussion with the alderman, a housing initiative representative, and a co-researcher and the audience. Additional screenings were held in community centres and municipal meetings with local housing, care, and welfare stakeholders and older adults to foster dialogue, reflection and action

By engaging in diverse roles and making decisions across all stages of production, older adults negotiated their place within the research process, as storytellers and co-researchers, shaping discourse on ageing in place

Research Design

This study employed a qualitative research approach using a responsive evaluation approach with a variety of qualitative methods to assess the PV process. Responsive evaluation actively involves stakeholders, in this case older adults in the role of co-researchers, ensuring their perspectives shape the process (Abma, 2005; Abma et al., 2019; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Stake, 1975). By incorporating co-researchers’ experiences, responsive evaluation fosters mutual learning and deeper understanding (Abma, 2005). This approach acknowledges plurality and allows the design to emerge gradually through dialogue with co-researchers (Stake, 1975).

Recruitment

Purposeful sampling was used to identify information-rich cases (Palinkas et al., 2015). The first PV project was introduced at a housing facility for older adults scheduled for renovation, a housing facility between independent and institutional living. All residents aged 65+ were invited via letters, e-mail and a building notice. Additional informational meetings led to the participation of three residents. Additionally, three older adults who had participated in a previous PV project joined the new group, having stayed in contact with the first author. A seventh co-researcher joined spontaneously after attending a session later on in the project. Co-researchers (nine in total) were aged 70 to 87 and had different educational and professional backgrounds, from employee at a bakery, prisoner guard, to entrepreneur, and two made use of a walking stick. They had different cultural backgrounds, including individuals born in the European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and on the ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao). After the first project, several co-researchers remained active and continued to organise screenings. Four expressed interest in starting a new PV cycle, and two new co-researchers, who had been interviewed in the first film, joined the second project.

Data Collection

A variety of qualitative methods was used to include different perspectives. An overview is presented in Table 2. Data were collected during the timeframe of January 2023 to April 2025. The data collection was part of a broader study evaluating the participation process within PV projects on ageing in place. In the analysis of the data, power was identified as one of the central themes, and was explored further in reflections with co-researchers and amongst academic co-researchers.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Used Data Collection Methods and Type of Data

Data collection methods	Type of data
Participative observation during weekly meetings and movie screenings (during 15 months)	Fieldnotes (by the first author)
Two focus groups with co-researchers (approximately 1–1.5 hr each)	Audio recordings where transcribed verbatim
Informal group evaluations or reflections with co-researchers during weekly meetings	Audio recordings, partially transcribed (N = 11) & fieldnotes
Reflective sessions between the first and third author	Fieldnotes (by the first author) and audio recordings (partially transcribed)
Discussing analysis with co-researchers	Audio-recording, transcribed verbatim
Log of meetings	Notes by the first and third author

Data Analysis

The collected data were anonymised and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2013). An inductive, data-driven approach was taken, where coding and theme development were guided by data rather than predefined analytical categories. There were moments where terminology of previous research, such as concepts as relational responsiveness, or insights from previous experiences of the first author in participatory processes, for example regarding playfulness, offered a meaningful fit with the data, and were therefore used. Here the researcher’s role and influence in the creation of themes should be recognised (Braun & Clarke, 2013). The data were part of a broader study on PV projects of the first author, and this paper builds on one analytic strand, power, which was produced as a significant pattern in the wider analysis and was further examined and deepened through additional research. The first and third author familiarised themselves with the dataset through their participation in all meetings, through immediate post-meeting reflections, allowing for ongoing engagement from two perspectives. The first author wrote down preliminary analytic observations, read all transcripts and fieldnotes, and coded the dataset in an iterative and reflexive way, using the comment function in Microsoft Word. Codes were arranged and examined to identify patterns of shared meaning. These patterns were refined into themes, which were reviewed against coded data and the wider dataset, and further developed. Themes were defined and named. Interpretations were discussed with co-researchers, providing opportunities to nuance and deepen the analysis (Harvey, 2014). Here we decided on ‘the story’ of each theme. Final themes were then developed into the narrative presented in this paper. The three themes presented in the results section of this paper represent the final outcome of this process.

Ethical Considerations

We applied the ethical criteria as formulated by The International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research (ICPHR) as guidelines, guided by ethical principles of mutual respect, equity and inclusion, democratic participation, active learning, making a difference, collective action and personal integrity (ICPHR, 2013). Participants provided written informed consent. Ethical considerations were continuously addressed and reflected upon within the research group of co-researchers throughout the project. All participant names are pseudonymised, and in situated vignettes minor elements have been adapted to protect anonymity without altering the core meaning.

“The Camera Rolls, Everyone!”: Inclusive Pathways Through Flexible Filmmaking Roles, Playfulness, and Relational Responsiveness

We first explore how adopting flexible film roles opened up diverse and meaningful ways for older adults to engage as co-researchers within the group. In addition we shed light on the role of playfulness and relational responsiveness in this process.

Vignette 1. Making tea: on how we became a film crew

We developed an exercise to enhance co-researchers’ filmmaking skills to tell their story to convey a message to an audience. Inspired by an exercise from one of the academic co-researchers’ study in visual ethnography, we tasked pairs of co-researchers with creating a storyboard and a two-minute film depicting the process of making tea. The exercise aimed to learn co-researchers to analyse specific situations (what they consider key elements) and use visual language effectively.

Some pairs began with detailed plans, filling out the storyboard forms they received, while others improvised after brief discussions. Joyce and Wilma created a narrative about someone pretending to be sick and asking for tea. They identified the social aspects of drinking tea and making tea for someone and started filming. This quickly turned into a playful, laughter-filled session where the other groups would leave their own plan, or lack of, to join this narrative. A few filmed the situation (departing from the prepared exercise), while others would direct the situation, start collecting props, or act as a figurant in the movie. There was a role for everyone.

As academic co-researchers we flexibly let go of the prepared plan and just had fun as a group. At the next meeting, the group watched the short edited film together, laughing at the humorous acting, the bad dress up and missed attempts to stay off-camera while filming. Even a year later, during a new project, a co-researcher warmly referenced this moment as we all laughed.

Co-researchers noted how they liked working on a shared product (in this case the documentary) as a member of the film crew, learning, developing or expressing skills related to the roles of camera operator, interviewer, director or editor and experiencing new things together as a group. As hinted on in the vignette above: everyone found a role, executed well or not, within the group during the filming of the scene. The diverse pathways that were created through the different film roles, contributed to the inclusive space often experienced. This happened throughout, where small groups of co-researchers would form to go and interview and film other members from the community in small teams. Roles were freely self-selected and co-researchers could freely experiment with them.

Agnes: “My role is always clear to me.”

Importantly, the different roles mediated different ways of being in the group. Some members preferred to remain more in the background, like two of the co-researchers who quietly operated the second camera, capturing things they found interesting or focusing on technical aspects. While others liked taking the lead, through interviewing or organising interviews. This diversity of engagement styles was welcomed.

We carefully set up the project in a way that kept roles open and adaptable. Co-researchers could remain in the same role or switch between them depending on what felt right to them in each moment. This flexibility helped prevent frustration with “difficult interviews”, physical complaints with holding the camera or frustrations with technology and allowed room for trial and error.

Within the process we as academic-coresearcher also took on a new role, for we were not only academic co-researcher, but also “film instructors”. Unlike the authority often associated with academic researchers, the role as film instructor was perceived as practical, collaborative, and focused on skill-building and creativity, thus influencing power dynamics.

The filmmaking exercise of “making tea” (Vignette 1), was initially designed with care and clear pedagogical aims. Yet, what unfolded in practice was an enactment of play, improvisation, and emergent collectivity. This playfulness as a group was characteristic of our filmmaking process, as we would often experience moments like this. As one of the co-researchers would often say during the sessions: “It’s really fun, and if nothing comes of it, it’s still fun.” We adapted our role in practice, not only accommodating what emerged but appreciating it as valuable in its own right. Thus the space that emerged was created not through the potential and flexible design of the film roles alone, but also through playfulness and relational responsiveness in the moment.

“Shhh!”: Navigating Power Dynamics Within the Group

The same film roles that created flexible pathways for participation within our PV research, also introduced new power dynamics, distributing power within the group unevenly.

Vignette 2. Voice-over

Albert had grown into a skilled editor and he would technically edit the themes we selected as a group during our sessions. He wanted to show us something. As we all gathered, he presented his own version of a small clip for the ending of the movie, where he made his own voice-over about loneliness. The group appreciated this version, complimenting his skill and the message. However, one member expressed that it did not fully represent the overarching narrative of the story they created. Albert immediately expressed openness to working towards a shared version.

We scheduled to collaboratively construct the voice-over the following meeting. However, in parallel, behind the scenes without our knowing, one co-researcher privately requested Harold to prepare a version in advance. Harold was a particularly skilled and creative writer.

This talent was greatly valued and celebrated by the group. However the enthusiasm for his abilities by the group sometimes overruled other voices as some of the co-researchers would often push him forward. Harold shared his pre-written version during the following meeting. The voice-over was immediately well received by the group due to its cleverness and professionalism.

As co-researchers with academic background, we felt that this version, though well written and performed, did not necessarily adequately represent the diversity of positions within the group. According to us, it carried a more personal-political perspective, carrying sentences as ‘if we care for each other, that would mean enormous societal cost savings’, and consisted the slogan ‘Grow old, stay young’ - although catchy, reflecting a more normative stance on ageing - that diverged from broader positions and did not resonate with all co-researchers’ views in our experience. This framing, risks marginalising other, less ‘active’ experiences of growing older. Additionally, it overshadowed the earlier version created with such enthusiasm by Albert.

Film roles, and cultural or personal connotations about those roles, and individual talents or skills that shape how they are performed, enable control over key aspects of storytelling. This influences which voices are amplified or excluded, as illustrated in Vignette 2.

The acquired skills of the two co-researchers in Vignette 2, gave them the possibility to construct their own version of the final narrative, they had the means and power to construct a narrative on their own. Examples of this could be seen throughout the process. For example, skilled interviewers subtly gained influence, as their ability to steer conversations affected the narratives that were collected. The roles of filming and directing gives power to capture what catches your eye or what you strategically want to include, both planned or spontaneous. Technical expertise in editing also granted certain individuals the potential of influence, as many co-researchers found editing too complex. This occasionally led to selective inclusion or exclusion of key quotes, requiring group discussions and reviewing of all the material together to ensure balanced representation. Technical skills also gave power in unexpected ways: in one case, a co-researcher made an (for her) unusual filming error partially cutting someone out of the frame at a key moment, this was in favor of an interview she did herself. Intended or not, this raises questions about whether technical errors can be used, to exclude certain voices from the project.

However, just stepping into a role or demonstrating skill is not enough, the role also has to be accepted by others. For example, the individual exercise of narrative authority of Albert, in vignette 2, was contested by one of the group members. Whereas Harold, was pushed forward to write a voice-over, thus granted power in setting the final narratives. Roles can thus also be ascribed by peers, based on attributes or skills they associate with a good performance of a certain role. The role performance of Harold was applauded, which legitimated his power to determine the story. The execution of his text aligned with the group’s established expectations and appreciation of what constitutes a high-quality voice-over in terms of style and delivery. Even though the content did not reflect their full stories, as some later acknowledged.

As academic co-researchers we found these power dynamics challenging. In Vignette 2, conflicted aspects came together in a single situation: we wanted to make sure all voices had impact, wanted to “protect” the richness of the data the group gathered, while at the same time value both co-researchers who created the different voice-overs. We were uncertain how to proceed but had to act in the moment. Additionally: time pressure loomed as we had already scheduled a film premiere at a nearby theatre. We decided to construct a new version of the voice-over, synthesizing elements from both existing drafts while ensuring alignment with the overarching themes the group had documented throughout the project. By reviewing both versions collectively, we identified key elements to retain, crafting a final voice-over that remained close to the co-researchers’ contributions. We individually reached out to all co-researchers via WhatsApp or phone calls to discuss which aspects they considered most crucial to emphasise.

As Harold later explained as we reflected on the situation as a group, he experienced the situation as too messy, with us wanting to give everyone a say, explaining: “if the director of The Godfather had let everyone have a say, that film would never have been that great……You need one painter to hold the brush.” Here he did work in adjusting his individual expectations in favor of the group process and the collectively constructed outcome, or as he explained: “By becoming more flexible and thinking ok, then the movie will be only as great as we as a group can make it”. This shows the work done by all involved during the project in negotiating power dynamics, amongst others negotiating content, and emotional and relational work recognising and validating each other’s contributions as can also be seen in the vignette.

Thus, film roles influence power relations within the group and navigating these dynamics requires work, as illustrated in this section.

“Shhh!”: Navigating Power Dynamics Beyond the Group

Power mediated through film roles extended beyond the group: in the performances of these roles co-researchers gain power to include, exclude, amplify, or obscure voices of others within the community.

Vignette 3. “You must lay everything bare, tell the whole story”

While rewatching interviews together, the topic of neighbourly care is brought up by one of the co-researchers. As we talk about neighbourly support, Joan shares the story of her neighbour, who experienced illness and Joan offered her support. Joan suggests interviewing her neighbour.

In a small team, they spontaneously organise to conduct the interview together during the following week. Harold will lead the interview while Joyce and Joan handle the filming. For Joan it feels too involved to do the interview herself. They arrange to meet at the neighbour’s home.

In the next meeting, we watched back the interview on the large screen in the community room of the senior complex. We fall silent. The woman speaks openly about her experiences and life. “Wow, the story really hits you when you watch it like this,” Joan says. Joyce adds, “It feels a bit uncomfortable.” I (the first author) feel the same: it’s as if we’re witnessing something not meant for us, an intimate story shared in private with a neighbour in a living room, now projected on a big screen.

We discuss whether including this footage in the film is ethically appropriate. Joan finds the interview powerful, “raw emotions are made visible”. Later, Joan casually shares that at the beginning of the interview she had told her neighbour, “You must lay everything bare…..tell the whole story!”

The moment as revealed in Vignette 3, shows how co-researchers, in their roles as filmmakers, were shaping, curating, and authorising which stories were told and how, gaining power over stories of members in their community. Joan’s statement that the neighbour had to “lay everything bare” is emblematic of a subtle yet significant exercise of narrative power, linked to her performance of the role of director and member of the filmcrew. While framed as an encouragement toward honesty, it also reflected a normative ideal of what constituted a “good interview” according to her: “one that is emotionally raw and vulnerable”. That the interview took place in an intimate setting, within a trusting relationship between neighbours, added further complexity: the same conditions that possibly enabled the neighbour to speak openly may have also limited her ability to refuse or moderate the level of disclosure. Our silence during the screening, followed by mixed reactions, signals an unease with the ethics of amplifying such personal narratives through film, watching intimate stories in whole other contexts, especially when those featured are not fully embedded in the filmmaking process as co-researchers themselves. Although we organised to have coffee with the neighbour which led to a nice talk and mutual decisions about what to share, and when looking back the neighbour is happy with the overall experience and the portraying of her story, the ethical tension around exposure through film remained unresolved.

The shared feeling of group ownership over the film and process also held the potential to silence others outside of the group. In informal conversations, a co-researcher casually mentioned that she had dismissed a neighbour who had shown interest in participating because the man did not speak Dutch fluently. “You have to be able to speak Dutch to participate in a film like this,” she explained. These decisions, while seemingly small or logistical in the eyes of co-researchers, reflected how power over access and inclusion was enacted.

Power over the included stories was also enacted after the film was finalised. At the final screening in a theatre, one neighbour, who had previously approved his interview footage after watching back the materials in a private setting, became uncomfortable seeing himself on a large screen during the premiere in the theatre. Initially, the co-researchers resisted taking out shots, citing the signed consent form, their concerns that the story would lose meaning if altered, and their view that it was “their film”. Their response underscored a perceived collective authorship and a sense of narrative integrity that, in their view, outweighed the individual’s discomfort. We, as academic co-researchers, stepped in and stressed that participants must always retain the right to withdraw according to our professional and personal ethical views. Eventually, one of the co-researchers talked with the participant and shots were visually overlaid. This situation is still looked back upon by co-researchers and academic co-researchers as a moment of conflict between both.

Interestingly though, the completion of the films did not close the narrative but instead opened new spaces for negotiation. By screening the film in community centres, and municipal policy meetings on ageing in place, with co-researchers, other older adults and professionals present, it became clear that the film could serve as a catalyst for conversation and reflection. In these settings, viewers engaged with the themes presented in the film, reinforcing them, reflecting on them or questioning omissions.

Throughout the process, we organised moments of reflection as a group. Here we collectively looked back at situations or reflected on decisions that had to be made. We also introduced structured discussion prompts, for example little notes with “I couldn’t look at myself in the mirror if…”, that we would fill in. These prompted us all to consider ethical boundaries and revisit assumptions. Yet consensus was not always reached; ethical discomforts were honestly acknowledged, but not necessarily resolved, as can be seen in the following excerpt of a reflective session, reflecting on taking out shots if interviewees want to withdraw:

Albert: “And I didn't like the way you reacted then.”

These moments became spaces of mutual learning where, as Albert noted for example, he had learnt over the year from Shirley’s more empathic approach towards ethical dilemmas.

As seen in this section, film roles within PV projects can mediate subtle, or not so subtle, forms of inclusion and exclusion and narrative control. While the collaborative nature of the work fostered ownership and solidarity, it also introduced complex power dynamics, particularly when telling stories about or involving those outside the core group.

Strengths and Limitations

This study offers an in-depth look behind the scenes of two PV projects with older adults, with a specific focus on power dynamics. Its focus on filmmaking roles addresses an underexplored area in arts-based research and demonstrates how creative roles can reconfigure power relations within and beyond the group. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, co-researchers did not play an active part in the writing of this paper, reflecting academic structures’ biases toward written outputs, timelines, and researcher dominance (Corrado et al., 2019). Second, macro-level factors, such as broader contextual and stakeholder dynamics were beyond scope, though structural forces shape participatory processes and influence group dynamics (Shaw, 2012, 2014). Third, the impact of PV on broader change is underexamined. While community screenings stimulated dialogue, and reflective and affective qualities of film may negotiate positions, this does not necessarily lead to change, as audiences reinterpret stories through their own frames and “being heard” rarely translates into action (de Maaker, 2022; Frank, 2010; James & Buffel, 2022; MacDougall, 1998; Postma, 2022; Shaw, 2012; van de Bovenkamp, 2024; Walsh, 2014). Moreover, as Walsh (2014) and Rogers (2014) argue, framing PV as empowering can inadvertently individualise responsibility, shifting attention away from the structural conditions that constrain collective action and change. Further research could examine the situated work required to foster impact after a film is completed.