negotiating participatory visual processes towards community emergence Jacqueline Shaw Graham Jeffery and Kerrie Schaefer apols for absence From ground level insight to global policy influence ID: 538736
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Between Potential and Reality:" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Between Potential and Reality: negotiating participatory visual processes towards community emergence
Jacqueline Shaw, Graham Jeffery and Kerrie Schaefer (apols for absence!)Slide2
From ground level insight to global policy influence
UN Post-2015 context -
Participate
research initiative
Visual methods
p
rogramme
- participatory video, DST and Photovoice used to drive community-led action research processes in 10 countriesOverall, insight on relational processes needed to shift power dynamics that prevent sustainable change Slide3
Intro to Remaking Society projectSlide4
Community emergence This conference has identified place-based and identity-based communityCommunity not static object to be servicedDynamic, emergingCreated and negotiated through processes (often tension-filled)
Tensions are generativeSlide5
‘Community’ – problematic conceptIn this study we drew
on a ‘dynamic’ notion of community, articulated by Prof. David Watt after the programme for community arts that Kelly went on to define via the British Socialist critical tradition, and Shelton Trust’s manifesto on cultural democracy (1986). According to Watt:
“Static
notions of community are seen as impositions, usually
categorisations
, by a dominant culture concerned to maintain itself as monolithic by exercising its power to define and subsume subgroups. Dynamic notions of community … allow the creation of purposive communities of interest which, by the process of self-definition, resist being thus subsumed and can retain an oppositional integrity. This autonomy introduces the possibility of internal negotiation as a basic mode
of social interaction, and they are consequently potentially democratic and alterable. The commitment to democracy as a principle is then seen as leading to the possibility of broad alliances between autonomous groups working to undermine the dominant culture through an insistence on common access to the process of creating meaning and value within the culture” (1991: 64).Slide6
The practice realities in contextIdealistic framing
– tendency for optimistic discussion of general perceived potential that can result –rather than how, for whom
and in
what
circumstances
Call for evaluation of social impact – tendency to focus on individual rather than collective gainsContested context between policy and practice intentions, across existing divides and agenciesSlide7
What are the key tensions between possibility and constraint?Slide8
e.g Practice happens on continuum between boundaries
ENABLER
Structured
process-
separating internal and external
Public voice
Speaking up
POSSIBILITY
Being heard
PRACTICE
TENSION
Risk of exposure
Public silence Keeping quiet
HINDRANCE
P
ressure
due to short timeframe
or
external expectationSlide9
Extended participatory processGroup forming and building – safe spaceGroup level (internal)
exploration and reflectionHow change can happen and what prevents it?Horizontal level dialogueFrom
issues to solutions
-
and the barriers?
Across community dialogueVertical dialogue Slide10
FilmsSlide11
Adapted from Shaw 2012:135-6
Process PossibilitiesLinked practice tensions
Establishing collaborative dynamics – shifting power imbalance
Within community dynamics – avoiding take-over by most influential when negotiating between individual/group/wider
needs
Developing voice through group interactionEthics of public exposure – encouraging open expression versus risk of inappropriate exposure and backlash
Towards community-driven developmentWhose agenda? – external commissioning influence versus practitioner’s intentions/group interestsTendency for policy/research agenda to frame thus close down possibilities
Deepening contextual understandingFrom community-identified issues to community-led solutionsSuperficiality versus deeper critical insightLearning through action versus static understanding
Evolving
social influence
Ongoing conversation versus consultation
Opening pathways versus opposing barriers/lack of long-term support
Bridge building versus entrenching differenceSlide12
More infoRemaking Society film https
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrBgT51cz18
Remaking Society
twitter feed
www.twitter.com/remakingsociety
Participate Documentary http://real-time.org.uk/case-study/work-usOnline exhibition
http://www.workwithus2015.org Real Time www.real-time.org.uk
Email - info@real-time.org.uk jackie-shaw@btconnect.com