Abstract
Much has been written about the Photovoice method. With the pervasive uptake of this method, debates about its use and ethical considerations will continue to permeate qualitative researchers’ work. Thus, the timeliness of Teti’s 2019 paper about ethical considerations for Photovoice methods. We concur with Teti’s take on the method. We also further had the discussion on Photovoice ethics by emphasizing that (1) as Photovoice methods evolve, so too should ethical considerations, (2) though processes may vary, there are standard ethical considerations that must be adhered to in Photovoice research, and (3) researcher intentionality is important in considering the digital image as a driver of social change. The potential for Photovoice to contribute to social change remains appealing, especially given the current disparaging economic, political, social, and environmental climate.
Keywords
Teti’s recent editorial (2019) brought forth the importance of self-reflection among researchers on the use of Photovoice as a visual qualitative method to “(1) facilitate expressions across varied levels of literacy, (2) capture experiences difficult to articulate through language alone, and (3) inspire creativity and solutions among participants who have often previously lacked opportunities to discuss their experiences.” She advanced three focal areas for future consideration of visual research ethics: Institutional review board’s approval is not enough in considering community-level effects; the need for congruence between the research question and the need for visual methods; and as technology and the public use of visual images evolve, so should ethical reasoning. In our work on Photovoice, we are honored to have contributed to the discourse about the potential and actual ethical dilemmas surrounding Photovoice research with special respect to the advancement of participants voice, the commitment to social change inside participatory action research, and method-methodology fit (Evans-Agnew & Rosemberg, 2016; Evans-Agnew et al., 2014; Evans-Agnew et al., 2017. We appreciate Teti’s deep self-reflection on the method, its use, and potential. We would like to respond to three key points:
Ethics in Photovoice should always be ongoing and evolving. We too agree that to date, there is ample discussion regarding the representation of participants’ voices and risks of further marginalization and stereotyping. We support Teti’s notion that more work remains to be done when it comes to ethical implications with Photovoice research. We have noted that too often researchers make assumptions about the critical feminist underpinnings of the method but stray from assuring method-methodology fit. As critical methodologies evolve, so too should the ethical considerations in Photovoice designs. For example in our experience, Photovoice and the emerging field of citizen science provides new directions for understanding ethical implications of participatory action research (Evans-Agnew & Eberhardt, 2019)
One size “coat” does not fit all, but all must wear “a coat” in winter. We concur that a one size fits all when it comes to ethical considerations does not work in Photovoice research as the processes, outcomes, and dissemination will vary based on context, the social issue being confronted, and the participants’ experiences. However, as we (Evans-Agnew & Rosemberg, 2016; Evans-Agnew et al., 2014; Sanon et al., 2014) and others (Liebenberg, 2018; Wang & Redwood-Jones, 2001) have already highlighted there are basic ethical benchmarks that remain universal for Photovoice research designs. These foundations include (a) clear verbal and written consents among all parties involved (e.g., researcher, participant, photographer, and person being photographed); (b) clearly defined researched question, processes, protocol, and dissemination plan; (c) ongoing self-reflection among all parties involved, especially the researcher, and (d) overall assurance that “how we engage in research with communities honors their wisdom and expertise” (Liebenberg, 2018, p. 1). Although the processes may vary, those aforementioned basic ethical foundations must not be ignored.
The use of digital image may be a major driver for actual change. Teti noted instances where the use of digital images in contemporary society might lead to poor outcomes. She gave the example of the FaceApp incident along with that of a woman who intended to use digital image as a form of punishment toward her perpetrator. Although we agree that without careful consideration the use of images can be detrimental, we would like to also highlight the importance of being intentional. If we are intentional in all aspects of the participatory research process from design to action planning for change, the use of digital image may be a primary driver for actual change in our often too stagnant and disparaging economic, political, social, and environmental climate. We are reminded that the power of Photovoice as a method of participatory action research is in “the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally the flourishing of individual persons and their communities” (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, p. 1). For example, images can and have been used to highlight the issue of climate change and its effect on our environment and living organisms. Images can and have already made significant movements toward issues of gun violence and police brutality. These few examples have clear policy implications.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Teti’s recent work is very timely in light of the increased use of the Photovoice method. We appreciate Teti’s acknowledgment of our work on Photovoice and agree with her on the importance and ethical considerations of this method. We further the discussion on Photovoice ethics by emphasizing that (1) as Photovoice methods evolve, so too should ethical considerations, (2) though processes may vary, there are standard ethical considerations that must be adhered to in Photovoice research, and (3) researcher intentionality is important in considering the digital image as a driver of social change. The potential for Photovoice to contribute to social change remains appealing, especially given the current disparaging economic, political, social, and environmental climate.
