But whose harm? Towards the ethics of participatory advocacy journalism with unhoused populations

Abstract

Maximalist forms of media participation bring about innovative ways to empower people who experience homelessness while also holding the potential to challenge common stereotypes and media narratives related to homelessness. This paper is part of a broader research focused on developing media participation opportunities for unhoused populations. Its objective is to examine and discuss the compatibility of critical theories with media participation, drawing on the example of a participatory newspaper project conducted with unhoused people. The discussion is illustrated by several ethical issues that emerged from the process of co-creation. It concludes that critical theories provide a solid foundation for maximalist forms of media participation with unhoused people. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the potential risks associated with such participation endeavors. Therefore, it is recommended that the principles and practices of critical pedagogy be integrated into these projects. Furthermore, individuals involved in these efforts should be encouraged to draw on professional journalists’ ethical codes and values. Failure to do so may increase the risk of harm to the vulnerable population and undermines the potential for individual empowerment, ultimately hindering community empowerment.

We oppress whom we fear

Unhoused people belong to some of the most vulnerable populations, enduring stigma, marginalization, and social exclusion (Carpentier et al., 2021; Clapham, 2007; Cronley, 2022; Edgar, 2009; Ravenhill, 2016; Shinn, 2010; Watson et al., 2016). The experience of relentless oppression results in rendering them silent invisible (Edgar, 2009; Fopp, 2004; Kyle, 2013; Taylor, 2013; Yost, 2012). Additionally, they often encounter stereotypes, disadvantages, and a pervasive sense of powerlessness in their daily lives (Buck et al., 2004; Hodwitz et al., 2022; Lafuente, 2003; Lee and Schreck, 2005; Quine et al., 2004; Ravenhill, 2016; Schneider, 2012).

These adversities and deprivations alone should constitute a compelling argument for directing more attention, understanding, and efforts toward finding pathways out of homelessness. Also, it is essential to go beyond simplistic or limited definitions (e.g., Busch-Geertsema, 2010; Hwang, 2001) and acknowledge their true identities independent of the homeless status (see Parsell, 2018). By transcending these definitions, we can leave behind the common stereotypes associated with homelessness and recognize the inherent value of human beings. Although some have been silenced for so long that reclaiming the power of their voices may seem unachievable, there are people among the unhoused populations willing or even desiring to become active voices of their communities (Dvořák, 2022).

Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize that involuntary homelessness has no rightful place in modern society. Its existence and the resulting consequences inflict immense harm upon both those who experience it and society, creating more fear. Homelessness and extreme poverty share striking similarities with the ravages of wars and the daily struggle for basic survival. In the words of Walter Cronkite, “Nothing brings as quickly to mind the horror of natural upheaval, civil strife or war as the picture of the ‘homeless.’ The deprivation of the security of home is the worst of the mass tragedies” (in Morse, 1992: 3).

The very possibility of becoming homeless, coupled with prevalent prejudices and stereotypes associated with unhoused people dirty, smelly, obnoxious, aggressive, and drunk tramps (Ravenhill, 2016) instills fear in law-abiding citizens who may worry about potentially meeting a similar fate. Fear has the potential to breed hatred (Shapiro, 2016), and hatred, in turn, fosters violence, crime, and oppression (Ahmed, 2001). This triad of fear, hatred, and oppression deteriorates any given society, distorting its self-perception and adversely affecting all people within it. Any effort to break this cycle represents a desirable endeavor, restoring dignity and virtue to the fabric of society.

Moreover, society deserves to understand its flaws, as it is crucial to addressing and overcoming its shortcomings. One way to foster such understanding is by promoting and implementing genuine forms of media participation ¹ (Arnstein, 1969; Carpentier, 2011; Pateman, 1970) co-created with marginalized populations such as people experiencing homelessness. Such media practices have the power to challenge preconceived stereotypes by amplifying the voices of the marginalized, additionally, nurturing peace and reconciliation in society (Jukes et al., 2021).

We have already begun to see how and with what motivations unhoused people may be willing to enter media participation processes (Dvořák, 2022). However, it is imperative to thoroughly explore and discuss how we co-create such empowerment initiatives without causing harm to anyone directly or indirectly involved. This entails examining the ethical considerations surrounding such co-creation. Also, it raises the question of whether we should apply professional codes of ethics to the participatory journalism practices of the unhoused people engaged in such projects. Consequently, we must critically assess the continued compatibility of critical theories with full media participation as long as we wish to use it as a foundation for our efforts.

In this article, we will begin by defining what we mean by maximalist forms of media participation, critical theories, and the role of media in shaping the status quo. Further, we will present several ethical dilemmas we faced while striving to co-create opportunities for media participation for unhoused populations. Finally, we will discuss the balance between the application of the codes of ethics of professional journalists and critical theories within maximalist forms of media participation.

Subsequently, to illustrate potential conflicts between critical and media participation theories, we will present several ethical dilemmas that arose throughout the co-creation process. Finally, we will delve into the discussion surrounding the balance between applying codes of ethics of professional journalists while embracing critical theories within the context of full media participation. This exploration aims to identify effective means for empowering the participants and their community while upholding ethical standards and fostering meaningful change.

Media participation, power, and voice

Given that the primary objective of the project was to create avenues for people experiencing homelessness to become active voices of their community through participatory community newsmaking, it is essential to establish clear definitions for media participation and associated terms. Becoming an active voice of one’s community stands for engagement in maximalist forms of media participation.

Participation in the public sphere provides avenues for advancing social justice, challenging stereotypes—particularly those related to power distribution—and addressing the marginalization and exclusion of vulnerable populations (Adams, 2017; Dvořák, 2022). These practices act as catalysts for promoting human and democratic rights, equity, public accountability, and the nurturing of empowerment, allowing silenced voices to resound. It’s crucial to recognize that participation, empowerment, and power are interconnected elements. Participation is intended to be synonymous with empowerment, as empowerment signifies a transformative process within the sphere of authority (Cavalieri and Almeida, 2018; Wilkins, 2000). It actively advocates for and reinforces the representation of individuals traditionally perceived as powerless (Borodkina et al., 2013). The empowering process bestows upon individuals increased personal, interpersonal, and political power (Cavalieri and Almeida, 2018).

Maximalist forms of participation stand for what Sherry Arnstein (1969) first defined as citizen power. It encompasses three levels: partnership, delegated power, and citizen control. Partnership involves unhoused individuals being on equal footing with other stakeholders in decision-making. With delegated power, the unhoused gain superiority, capable of outvoting others. Lastly, citizen control grants complete authority over decision-making, planning, and management. Pateman (1970) refers to this type of participation as full participation: a process where all stakeholders possess equal power in decision-making, planning, and management. One can also describe these perspectives as enhanced or full media participation (Dvořák, 2022) or maximalist forms of participation (Carpentier, 2011).

Entering the media field, Carpentier (2011) recognizes two domains for participation: structural media participation and content-related media participation. Our viewpoint aligns with the belief that full media participation occurs when both domains are engaged at the citizen control level, as outlined by Arnstein (1969). On the other hand, enhanced media participation can transpire at any level of citizen power in at least one of the two media domains. Furthermore, it is possible to differentiate between enhanced and full media participation concerning a single domain at a given time (Carpentier, 2011).

Like other forms of maximalist participation, media participation may bring opportunities for empowerment (Arnstein, 1969; Carpentier, 2011, 2016). Empowerment stands for the shifts in power relations perceived from the Foucauldian perspective (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1983; Gallagher, 2008) as a form of action. Power is exercised, not possessed, and it acts upon other actions, inciting on the one hand or constraining on the other one. Empowerment comes with multiple direct benefits for individuals. It allows for more control over one’s life and decision-making capabilities (Rappaport, 1987; Zimmerman and Rappaport, 1988) and enhances self-esteem, self-acceptance, self-awareness, or self-confidence (Cavalieri and Almeida, 2018). Furthermore, media participation may allow individuals to compensate for their lack of voice. Through its exercise, people may also gain even more power as power and voice may lead to mutual amplification of one another’s effects (Fivush et al., 2014). But it is not only the positive effects of participation that those involved experience. Fivush and others (2014) argue that engagement in telling one’s own narrative is moral in itself as it enhances understanding of one’s lived experiences and aids in reconstructing them into more manageable forms.

The partnership between participation, media, and homelessness becomes symbolic once we consider that (mainstream) media play a substantial role in constructing unfavorable and disempowering narratives (Borum Chattoo et al., 2021; Bowen and Capozziello, 2022; Buck et al., 2004; Conrad-Perez et al., 2021; Cowal et al., 2023; Ravenhill, 2016; Schneider, 2012). This drifts the media further from their social responsibility to fearlessly portray the diverse and profound human experience and amplify the voices of the silenced (SPJ, 2014). It makes them miss out on journalism’s constructive roles—its focus on advocacy, solidarity, peace, and reconciliation (Aitamurto and Varma, 2018; Charles, 2019; Jukes et al., 2021; Varma, 2020, 2022; Youngblood, 2016). Pursuits that seek to humanize, personalize, and ignite understanding and empathy for those pushed to society’s margins.

Critical theories an alibi or not?

Going back a little, Arnstein (1969: 216) states that participation “is a categorical term for citizen power.” It involves redistributing power, allowing the inclusion of those lacking it in future political and economic processes. Thus, participation aims to equalize power relations between privileged and non-privileged actors in formal and informal decision-making (Carpentier, 2016: 72; also see Carpentier, 2011; Carpentier et al., 2013). Given participation’s inherent connection to power, its link to critical theories becomes apparent. Kellner (1989: 1) suggests that critical theories are driven by “a critique of domination and theory of liberation.” Additionally, Carpentier and Dahlgren (2013: 304) assert that the term “critical” signifies an engagement with challenging unjust and unnecessary constraints on human equality, community, and freedom. In essence, the adjective “critical” signals a concern for normative discrepancies in power relations.

Horkheimer (1972) states that critical theories aim to liberate individuals from enslavement. Steinberg and Kincheloe (2010) define critical theories as moral constructs that seek to alleviate human suffering in the world. It places importance on moral action, connecting phenomena to their numerous contexts and intertwining meaning-making with human experiences. Critical theories demand active engagement with the suffering of people in their lived realities, confronting the moral dilemmas encountered in the complexities of everyday life. Its purpose is to disrupt, challenge, and inspire moral action (Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2010). It aims to identify and describe social pathologies (Finlayson, 2009) and transform them towards a society that is more equitable and just (Boje, 2008). The overarching ethical objective is to promote emancipation by fostering inclusive and undistorted dialogue (Eckersley, 2008). Linklater (1998) suggests that such dialogue can be facilitated or co-created by amplifying the voices of marginalized groups. Moreover, he argues that liberal democracies are responsible for engaging in unconstrained dialogue with those harmed by their actions or disadvantaged by their practices (Linklater, 2005).

Given the above, it appears practical to anchor maximalist media involvement among marginalized people in critical theories. Yet, delving deeper, as we reflect on ethical issues we encountered, it becomes evident that while it may suit general participation theories, it may also prove somewhat troublesome when applied to the media domain.

Two key reasons emerge. Firstly, adhering to critical theories means refraining from asserting opinions on the ideal way of life or offering extensive advice as that would infringe upon the responsibility of relevant and affected individuals to engage in practical discourses within specific contexts (Eckersley, 2008). Secondly, the participants are suddenly bestowed with opportunities to report on matters that may ultimately impact others’ lives. The lack of experience or supervision, particularly in the initial stages, can bring about risks that distort their community or peers’ perceptions.

These two pillars of argument may appear at odds, for the first extols non-interference as a moral imperative, while the second calls for intervention. Thus, the co-creation of full media participation requires seeking an inherent balance between the promotion of the empowerment of individuals and the prevention of disempowerment of their communities of other populations.

Furthermore, our previous research (Dvořák, 2022) showed that some people experiencing homelessness might want to engage in maximalist media participation, typically at the partnership and delegated power levels defined by Arnstein (1969). The previous findings also indicated that their lived experiences might provide valuable perspectives that may challenge the oversimplified portrayals of homelessness often perpetuated by mainstream media (see Borum Chattoo et al., 2021; Bowen and Capozziello, 2022; Buck et al., 2004; Conrad-Perez et al., 2021; Cowal et al., 2023; Ravenhill, 2016; Schneider, 2012). Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge that while communicating topics, opinions, issues, and dimensions of homelessness that they deem relevant, there is a risk of unintentionally propagating negative biases against their own community or other marginalized groups (Dvořák, 2022)).

Moreover, assuming the similarities between voice and power (Fivush et al., 2014), it becomes crucial to view unhoused people who emerge as active voices within their community as journalists, with all their social responsibility. Focusing solely on their empowerment without acknowledging this journalistic dimension could paradoxically lead to disempowerment and ethical concerns, reducing them to mere tools for empowerment.

Hence, adopting the role of journalists necessitates a code of conduct and ethics, enabling them to critically grasp the nature and consequences of the news they generate, recognizing its impact on others and themselves. While the ideal path may lead them toward assuming professional roles with established values and societal responsibilities (see Allern, 2002; Beam et al., 2009; SPJ, 2014), they are not obligated to rigidly adhere to these norms. Nevertheless, the absence of official obligations should not absolve them of the moral duty they must embrace, especially as they begin to wield power over individuals who may be even more marginalized and socially excluded.

Although, at this point, no normative obligation exists, striving for it from the very outset is essential, as it aligns with a critical awareness of their social reality. The urgency to find a balance between empowerment through full media participation and avoiding harm to oneself and others grows even stronger when considering another potentiality. Freire (2005) discusses how the oppressed can themselves become oppressors. They may consciously or unconsciously believe that adopting the values and practices of their oppressors is the only path to liberation. This perception, however, could not be further from the truth, as true freedom is only possible through conscientização—critical consciousness or awareness—that allows the oppressed to see and understand the root causes of their oppression. It also leads them to question their internalized values and beliefs, rejecting oppressive behaviors in pursuit of a more just society. Simultaneously, they come to recognize that true liberation is unattainable if others remain unfree or are bound by different forms of oppression (de Beauvoir, 2010).

Given that, co-creating or facilitating ² participation opportunities entails profound involvement in a collaborative and dialogical process, enabling the conditions wherein one, as a powerholder, becomes able to empower others. Furthermore, as long as the ultimate objective of critical inquiry is not to govern social dynamics or even assert definitive influence over the choices made by individuals but rather to initiate communal processes of self-reflection (Habermas, 2005), we perceive the delineation of such incentives as vital in the transformation of mere media engagement to full media participation that embraces its societal obligations, assumes an advocatory stance, ultimately fostering the space for social dialogue.

Lastly, the incentives toward critical consciousness must come naturally and through dialogue. They cannot be coerced, for such a course would defy the very essence of empowerment, morphing into a different manifestation of subjugation or tyranny (see Cooke and Kothari, 2001). The question remains, though, how can the co-creators, if at all conceivable, foster an environment where these incentives blossom spontaneously?

Engaging in maximalist forms of media participation with people experiencing homelessness while drawing upon critical theories comes with inherent risks and ethical dilemmas that must be considered before entering the co-creation processes. Here, the prime example is that the empowerment of an individual or a part of his community may inadvertently disempower the remaining community members or other individuals within or beyond the given community. Similarly, achieving one’s empowerment through exercising one’s voice and assuming the role of self-advocate must be undertaken without silencing the voices of others. This brings us to Melucci’s (1989) understanding of participation, where an individual’s interests align with the community’s interests. It entails active engagement to further one’s needs and aspirations while embracing a sense of belonging within the broader framework of the community’s common interests.

Therefore, we suggest that a potential way forward entails applying professional journalists’ codes of ethics aligned with critical theories’ objectives through critical pedagogy principles.

The methods

This paper is part of a larger critical ethnographic and action research project aiming to explore the co-creation of maximalist media participation opportunities for people experiencing homelessness. Particularly, it draws on the stages of the project, which took place in Brno, the Czech Republic, between 2020 and 2023, entailing the organization of writing groups and basic journalism training for unhoused people with the goal of creating stories and news articles for their potential (fully) participatory community newspaper. The main research questions revolved around several domains. First, how participants experience participation in such projects, focusing on their empowerment. Second, whether the narratives they use have the potential to challenge the mainstream and traditional media discourses of homelessness. Thirdly, how can such projects with marginalized populations be co-created successfully.

In the exploration of the project’s potential to empower unhoused people, we relied mainly on data gathered using ethnographic methods, namely, such as participant and non-participant observation, field notes and memos, non-structured interviews, semi-structured in-depth interviews, focus groups, and artifact (mostly the written text) analysis (Gobo and Marciniak, 2011; Jones and Smith, 2017)

However, due to the extensive corpus of collected data, we made the decision to employ additional analysis methods beyond continuous standard ethnographic data analysis (Madison, 2012). We conducted a second round of analysis using the three levels of grounded theory coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1994). This approach enabled us to identify, explore, and analyze underlying meanings that might have otherwise remained obscured. It also allowed us to validate or challenge our initial findings from the early stages of the research. Furthermore, this process facilitated the development of grounded theories pertaining to the ethical aspects of our research, allowing us to continue in the co-creation of the project.

We began the process by building it on the aims and values of critical theories, believing that:

all human beings have an equal right to belong to communication communities where they can protest against actions which may harm them, that all participants in ideal speech should enter dialogue with the conviction that no-one knows who will learn from whom, and that all should strive to reach agreements which rely as far as possible on the force of the better argument (Linklater, 2005: 147).

However, soon enough, we began to question whether media participation with such a vulnerable population can wholly rely on critical perspectives as the promotion of individuals’ empowerment may come at the cost of the disempowerment of others or their community, which may result in disempowering backlash toward the individual. Therefore, we realized that answering this question while not avoiding emerging ethical dilemmas, keeping the alibi of the critical and justifying the partial voluntary blindness by the consequentialist claim that anything goes if it is for the greater good of the oppressed.

Our initial approach to the co-creation process was grounded in the aims and values of critical theories, recognizing the equal right of all individuals to participate in communication communities where they can voice their concerns about potentially harmful actions. We embraced the belief that ideal speech involves engaging in dialogue with the understanding that everyone involved can learn from one another and that reaching agreements should be based on the strength of compelling arguments (Linklater, 2005).

However, as we delved deeper into the process, we began to question whether relying solely on critical perspectives for media participation with such a vulnerable population was sufficient. We became aware of the potential dilemma that promoting individual empowerment might inadvertently lead to the disempowerment of others or their community, potentially resulting in a backlash of disempowerment against the individuals involved. It became clear that we needed to address this question while acknowledging other emerging ethical dilemmas and avoiding the temptation to justify blind adherence to the critical theories under the pretext of consequentialist claims for the greater good of the oppressed.

Findings

Over the course of the project we confronted several ethical dilemmas, developing opportunities for unhoused people to become self-advocates and active voices of their community. This entailed striking a balance between truth and effective avoidance of oppression, fostering independent empowerment while safeguarding against harm to oneself and others, and maintaining transparency without exposing oneself to external and internal dangers. Notably, although we could have easily sidestepped these dilemmas by reducing participation levels, our process was rooted in facilitating media involvement at the highest feasible levels. This approach was crucial for maximizing potential outcomes of empowerment and establishing mutual trust, respect, and recognition of participants’ value, dignity, and individuality. Also, by not pursuing maximalist forms of participation, we, as co-creators, would have faced additional, more severe ethical dilemmas stemming from reinforcing the existing power imbalances.

In this article, we will present several recurring ethical dilemmas to illustrate the tensions emerging between critical theories and maximalist forms of media participation when engaging with people who experience homelessness.

Between breaking free and social responsibility

One of the most common dilemmas that we encountered revolved around presenting an honest account of the current state of social services for unhoused people. This became apparent when observing certain participants who showed tendencies to excessively critique the present condition and values of these services and their personnel. They frequently resorted to sweeping generalizations, asserting that all social services were disinterested in their clients and that social workers were solely driven by personal gain. Additionally, these participants seemed reluctant to acknowledge other factors that might have contributed to their experiences.

According to the other community members, both unhoused people and social workers, it may be true that some local social services occasionally fall short of meeting the quality standards to the full extent. Although some of these shortcomings may be due to human errors, others come about from the prioritization of policies and regulations aimed at safeguarding the well-being of other clients and staff. In some cases, organizations may have become influenced by other motives, such as economic considerations or religious beliefs, which overshadowed the real needs of their target population. While there may be some truth to these claims in certain cases, it does not imply that all services fail to address the needs of their clients or treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve.

Nevertheless, the potential consequences of excessive criticism—without even resorting to generalizations—become troublesome, especially when considering the somewhat negative perception of non-profit organizations in the Czech Republic. They are often regarded as parasites draining resources from the state without making any tangible impact on the well-being of society. Every negative portrayal further reinforces these misconceptions and misconstrued understanding, potentially leading to financial cuts. Consequently, the quality of services may become further compromised. This may harm the community and, most importantly, the unhoused people within it.

However, the problem lay in their unwillingness to recognize that drawing broad conclusions about charitable organizations is inappropriate. This realization compelled us to confront an ethical dilemma that required careful consideration: Should their freedom to express themselves be curtailed when biases remain unrecognized or social responsibility goes unacknowledged?

Between the truth and status quo

The second ethical dilemma arose with quite the opposite situation. Some participants showed a reluctance to criticize the social services despite openly sharing very similar experiences, opinions, and attitudes with the first group. While it was evident that they held clear disagreement with the existing state of the organizations’ internal policies, work ethics, and values, they refrained from offering their own criticisms. Not doing so would inadvertently reinforce the current state of affairs, at times even actively advocating for the organizations, knowingly overlooking workers’ misconduct or overall shortcomings in maintaining quality standards.

Their motives became clearer as we investigated their concerns, revealing a single prevailing reason that heightened the urgency and complexity of the issue: fear. They were afraid of either being denied access to the services they relied upon or facing mistreatment from the staff as a form of retribution for speaking out. Unfortunately, their fear was not completely unfounded, as it is possible for social workers in the Czech Republic to withhold services from nonconforming clients, making their working shifts more manageable or using the alibi of protecting other clients. This abuse of power in decision-making, often based on fabricated justifications, overall reflects the lack of supervision and adequate leadership in the field of social work. Moreover, it highlights the need for more transparency at the micro-level of decision-making. In this context, the significance of people experiencing homelessness, who possess the potential to emerge as influential voices within their community, becomes evident. However, it is essential to acknowledge the risks they face in challenging the prevailing status quo, as such actions can directly impact their well-being and everyday lives.

And again, since one’s liberation cannot be achieved without the liberation of others (de Beauvoir, 2010), reporting the truth becomes integral to their social responsibility. They have a duty not only to themselves, as they strive to disrupt the oppressive status quo, but also to other individuals experiencing homelessness who may face similar mistreatment. By reporting the truth, they may shed light on the injustices that outsiders cannot and protect the well-being of other unhoused individuals.

However, the ethical dilemma lies in whether the co-creators should accentuate their moral responsibility and the reporting of such dangerous truth, even in the face of their fear. On the one hand, emphasizing their moral duty to speak out and expose the realities they have witnessed may be necessary to challenge the status quo and bring about meaningful change, serving as a powerful catalyst for dismantling oppressive systems. However, it raises the question of whether they should be encouraged to voice their concerns even if doing so may have adverse consequences for their personal lives.

On transparency and anonymity, accountability and safety

Another dilemma emerged regarding the issue of transparency versus anonymity. The participants, for the most part, preferred to associate their real names with their writings, taking pride in their work. However, some hesitated, aware that public identification as homeless could come with its own challenges. Yet, the matter of anonymity became more intricate when two additional factors were taken into consideration.

Firstly, once they opted to use their real names, there would be no turning back. This realization grew increasingly significant, recognizing that in the future, they might overcome homelessness, move forward, and desire to distance themselves from their past as homeless.

Secondly, certain writings lacked notable quality or aesthetic value. While this might not be a concern if left unpublished, the project ultimately aimed to reach audiences (at least the closest community) who, unlike the co-creators, tend to pass judgment. Subsequently, confrontation with such criticism poses a certain risk for homeless people who may struggle with low self-esteem (Cederbaum et al., 2013; Pollio et al., 2006).

And thirdly, transparency intertwines with accountability and empowerment, raising the question of whether one can truly achieve empowerment without being accountable. It is crucial to clarify that we are not referring to accountability pro ipso, but rather an accountability that encompasses all its consequences and responsibilities towards the communities they may write about and potentially harm. Recognizing the vulnerability of individuals experiencing homelessness, we came to understand that while promoting a sense of responsibility is an inherent aspect of the empowerment process, it can be a precarious path that leads to disempowerment if they fail to be accountable for their actions and contribute, though perhaps unconsciously, to the oppression of others (see de Beauvoir, 2010).

In the face of this situation, we, therefore, pose the following question: Should accountability as a prerequisite of empowerment override the concerns about the future well-being of the participants?

Independence and no harm through critical awareness

Acting independently may at first appear as an inherent aspect of the process of becoming an active voice of their community. Empowerment, as an act of liberation, seems connected to independence, much like the voice is intertwined with power. However, individual empowerment can paradoxically result in the disempowerment of an entire community (Dvořák, 2022)). Considering this perspective, individuals experiencing homelessness who take on the role of self-representation should not become detached from the unhoused community. They remain an integral part of their community, and therefore, they carry its vulnerabilities. Consequently, their personal empowerment can inadvertently lead to their own disempowerment by way of community disempowerment.

Certain participants showed a tendency to portray individuals from various marginalized groups, including those experiencing homelessness, foreigners, sexual minorities, and Roma people, in a negative manner. This inclination stemmed primarily from their personal experiences, which they would then generalize without fully understanding the complexity of the situations. However, they did not recognize that while they may have encountered instances of assault or theft involving Roma people, it could be attributed to other factors, such as the specific location where they spent most of their time, rather than a defining characteristic of the entire minority group.

Taking up the stance of critical theories, our primary objective in co-creating full media participation opportunities was to contribute to the empowerment of the participants. Therefore, ensuring participants’ independence was crucial. However, despite the co-creators’ best efforts, they inevitably interfere with and affect the participants’ autonomy. Could such interference, however, be only temporary in nature? And if so, what form would it assume?

Moreover, considering that people experiencing homelessness are unlikely to become agents of self-representation spontaneously due to the ever-changing nature of their everyday lives and lack of fundamental stability (Dvořák, 2022), the natural setting of co-creation will always pose a question. Recognizing the inevitability of co-creators’ interference in the process, it became essential to determine the form and extent of such interference that aligns with both independence and empowerment while avoiding harm to oneself and others. The solution lies in adopting the principles of critical pedagogy and fostering critical awareness among the participants. As they developed more awareness, the need for interference in raising critical consciousness diminished. Hence, it seemed to be a form of interference that would only be temporary. Moreover, critical awareness works towards empowerment and independence, as well as it might be its precondition. Again, through it, one realizes that liberation from oppression is impossible if others remain oppressed (de Beauvoir, 2010).

Discussion toward a code of ethics of participatory journalism with the unhoused

In addressing the ethical dilemmas encountered, our attention turns to the convergence of professional journalists’ code of ethics and critical theories within the realm of maximalist media participation. The main argument is that embracing professional journalists’ values and code of ethics becomes an unavoidable aspect of developing critical awareness, which is a crucial prerequisite for empowerment through media engagement. This acknowledgment arises from the understanding that liberation for individuals remains unattainable unless the community is liberated as a whole (de Beauvoir, 2010).

“Seek truth and report it. Minimize harm. Act independently. Be accountable and transparent.” The Society of Professional Journalists ³ declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use by all people in all media (SPJ, 2014). Moreover, they hold significant relevance in the context of our research, as the exploration of maximalist media participation with the unhoused has revealed specific ethical dilemmas deeply intertwined with the values upheld by professional journalists.

These dilemmas emerge as we construct co-creation processes grounded in critical theories, with the ultimate goal of emancipation (Horkheimer, 1972) and liberation (Carpentier and Dahlgren, 2013) from oppression and suffering (Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2010). Our focus lies in effecting transformative change toward a more equitable and just society (Boje, 2008) by engaging marginalized individuals (Linklater, 2005) in more inclusive and less distorted dialogue (Eckersley, 2008).

The first dilemma arose when considering whether to restrict the freedom of voice for individuals engaged in self-representation, especially when they may be unaware of their biases or fail to acknowledge their social responsibility. This dilemma is closely linked to the balance between independence and the principle of doing no harm. Should co-creators choose to diminish the level of participation below the threshold of partnership as defined by Arnstein (1969), it would undermine the principles of participation, disempower the participants, and disregard their dignity, consequently contradicting the goals of empowerment and the underlying critical perspective (Boje, 2008; Carpentier and Dahlgren, 2013; Eckersley, 2008; Horkheimer, 1972; Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2010). Therefore, the answer should lean towards preserving their freedom to express themselves without restraint.

However, examining the balance between independence and the principle of doing no harm, it becomes clear that true liberation cannot be attained through the oppression of others, as this perpetuates a cycle of injustice and further inequality (de Beauvoir, 2010; Freire, 2005). To address this, the promotion of critical awareness through critical pedagogy emerges as a viable solution. The development of critical awareness may deepen over time, allowing co-creators to intervene at minimal levels and potentially only temporarily to ensure adherence to the principle of doing no harm.

Moreover, this approach also aligns with the main goals of the code of ethics of professional journalists and should therefore be considered as an integral factor in the process of conscientização preventing the oppressed from becoming the oppressors (Freire, 2005). Consequently, this challenges the belief of some media experts that traditional ethical codes are inadequate for citizen journalists (Dugan, 2008). However, moving beyond the somewhat vague boundaries of citizen journalism (Wall, 2015) becomes essential, particularly when reporting on issues concerning vulnerable populations. Advocating for their rights becomes paramount in such cases, as they deserve more than the traditional notion of objectivity.

Nevertheless, the last two dilemmas tackle accountability, safety, and responsibility demand considerations beyond critical consciousness promotion. Critical awareness fosters the development of accountability (Freire, 2005; Hernández et al., 2005). However, it should not be assumed that unhoused people, acting as voices of their community, should be pushed or coerced into assuming accountability at the expense of their safety. Instead, in certain cases, it may be more appropriate to encourage them to seek shared accountability with other community members.

This becomes particularly evident in the cases of reporting on the qualities of social services they may use. Exploring alternative avenues to hold these services accountable, such as filing legal complaints or collaborating with other media outlets, can help safeguard the well-being of the participants. In other words, it may be advisable for unhoused individuals engaged in participatory journalism to refrain from reporting on deficiencies in service quality or staff misconduct within the social services they actively depend on because it could leave them unprotected, exposed to further mistreatment without access to resources that may be vital for their everyday survival, and subsequentially leading to deepening of their vulnerability.

We began our exploration with a simple question of whether critical theories retain their compatibility with maximalist media participation with people experiencing homelessness. While critical perspectives may prioritize individual liberation from oppression, we soon realized that such liberation cannot be achieved in isolation. We argued that potential solutions to the ethical dilemmas that emerge in co-creating full media participation may lie in embracing the principles of critical pedagogy and fostering participants’ critical awareness. However, it is advisable to integrate the code of ethics followed by professional journalists into the process of conscientização. It can help us navigate these dilemmas and reunite two seemingly contradictory concerns related to degrees of intervention. As long as such codes of ethics are developed mainly by the participants, it allows the co-creators not to intervene while introducing a supervising mechanism preventing further harm. It also allows us to remain firmly rooted in critical theories as we move on toward what we forecall as participatory advocacy journalism, where even the last objection related to unbalancing the value of objectivity becomes less pronounced.

Lastly, the future development of the code of ethics for participatory (advocacy) journalism with marginalized populations is both desirable and inevitable, given the ever-changing cultural dynamics that may bring forth new ethical challenges. However, we wish not to attempt to outline such a code of ethics. Mainly because any attempt to create a universal code for participatory advocacy journalism would be determined to fail in the vast variety of cultural contexts and special needs of every community. Instead, we suggest that marginalized people who wish to become voices of their communities seek to create their own codes of ethics drawing on the existing codes used by professional journalists. However, professionals might need to consider revisiting their codes as well. Although they may propose to “seek the sources who we seldom hear,” or “give the voice to the voiceless,” (SPJ, 2014) is it not exactly such attitude that contributes to the status quo, oppression, and silencing of the marginalized?