Problematizing Child-Led Participatory Research in Refugee Contexts: Reflections From a Photovoice Study in Uganda

Abstract

This article critically examines the methodological and epistemological tensions of conducting child-led participatory research with young refugee and host-community children through a photovoice study in northern Uganda. Although photovoice is widely regarded as a participatory and child-friendly method, findings reveal persistent challenges in operationalizing genuine participation in a context shaped by adult authority, institutional constraints, and socio-cultural norms. Drawing on reflections from the research team and analysis of field interactions, this article exposes key tensions related to adult control over the research process, cross-cultural interpretations of “voice,” and the epistemological assumptions embedded in participatory visual methods—particularly those rooted in white, Minority World ideals of childhood, autonomy, and expression. Analysis showcases how despite the empowering promise of photovoice, it has the potential to reinforce—rather than disrupt—existing power hierarchies unless reimagined through deep reflexivity and cultural responsiveness. This article contributes to qualitative methods literature by interrogating the portability of child-led research models and calling for a shift from universalizing participatory frameworks to more situated, relational, and pluralistic approaches in research with children in displacement contexts and other precarious circumstances.

Introduction

Increasing political instability, violent conflict, and climate disasters have left an estimated 49 million children displaced around the world (UNHCR, 2025a). Education in Emergencies (EiE) practitioners maintain that access to quality education can help mitigate the negative impacts of crisis and displacement (INEE, 2024). However, millions of refugee and crisis-affected children remain excluded from educational systems (UNHCR, 2022a).

As EiE actors seek to improve educational opportunities, they have increasingly adopted humanitarian “best practices” that emphasize community consultation to inform programming (Greaves et al., 2021; UNHCR, 2023). While these efforts have traditionally focused on engaging adults, there is growing awareness on the importance of including children as consultation and research participants (UNICEF, 2020). In both humanitarian practice and academic research, this has led to the expansion of child-led and participatory approaches, particularly in refugee contexts (Oh, 2012; Shah et al., 2022).

Photovoice has emerged as a prominent method within this participatory turn. As a visual and often community-centered method rooted in participatory action research (PAR)—commonly regarded as a qualitative research method that invites participants to examine social issues that affect their lives and take action to address them (Harrietha et al., 2023)—photovoice is used to explore lived experience, facilitate dialogue, and inform policy and practice (Wang & Burris, 1997). Over the last two decades, researchers working with adult and young adult refugee populations globally have experimented with photovoice—particularly in health and psychosocial domains (Green & Kloos, 2009; Karadag Caman, 2021). However, very few photovoice studies have examined issues related to refugee education and even fewer have engaged young children ¹ meaningfully in this work.

This article presents a photovoice study conducted with refugee and host-community children in northern Uganda. The study was part of the regional PlayMatters initiative, which promotes Learning through Play in East African refugee-hosting contexts. The study aimed to: (1) explore children’s perspectives and experiences of play to inform project activities; (2) directly engage young children in participatory research; and (3) examine the affordances and limits of photovoice in this context.

While the study generated useful findings for the PlayMatters project, this article focuses instead on the methodological and epistemological tensions that surfaced throughout the research process. These include difficulties in centering children’s voices, navigating adult-child power dynamics, and questioning the assumed cross-cultural appropriateness of using participatory visual methods with children. Drawing on reflections from the research team and situated within critical debates on voice, power, and participation, analysis of the research process showcases how photovoice—like many participatory approaches—rests on epistemological assumptions that may not align with the socio-cultural norms of the contexts in which they are applied. This article concludes by advocating for more situated, pluralistic, and culturally grounded approaches to child-led research—and participatory research more broadly—with children in displacement and other precarious circumstances.

Literature Review

Photovoice is a participatory visual method that invites individuals—particularly those from marginalized communities—to document, reflect on, and share aspects of their lived experiences through photography (Wang & Burris, 1997). It is often situated within PAR traditions and framed as a means to foster empowerment, critical dialogue, and social change. According to Wang (2006), the goals of photovoice are threefold: (1) to enable participants to record and represent their everyday realities; (2) to stimulate critical discussion and knowledge generation through group dialogue; and (3) to reach policymakers and practitioners with the power to effect social change. Rooted in Freirean principles of conscientização and democratic pedagogy (Anderson, 2017; Freire, 1970), photovoice has been taken up across various disciplines as a tool of empowerment, decolonization (Suprapto et al., 2020), and to “give voice” to individuals and communities historically excluded from dominant knowledge systems (Bredesen & Stevens, 2021; Budig et al., 2018; Harrietha et al., 2023; Higgins, 2016).

Over time, photovoice has evolved from a data collection technique to a pedagogical and emancipatory practice. In both academic and community-based settings, scholars have demonstrated its value in fostering reflection, identity exploration, and skill-building (Haffejee, 2021; Schell et al., 2009). Visual methods like photovoice have also been recognized for their ability to make research more accessible to participants with varied literacy levels and learning preferences (Agner et al., 2023; McKimmy et al., 2021). Increasingly, photovoice has been used not only to generate knowledge, but also to facilitate creative self-expression and relational engagement (Cook & Quigley, 2013; Malka & Lotan, 2022; Trout et al., 2019).

Photovoice in Education Research

While photovoice has been used in a variety of sectors, namely to explore issues related to public health with older youth and adults (Wang, 1999), it has become a popular research method to examine issues related to education. Several photovoice studies have taken place directly in classrooms (Harkness & Stallworth, 2013; Shah, 2014; Warne et al., 2013), and others have examined community-based and after-school programs (Markus, 2012; Strack & McDonagh, 2004; Wilson et al., 2007). While many of these studies have generated findings that serve to inform education administration, pedagogies, and youth engagement, the majority of them involve marginalized older youth with the aim of understanding their experiences and empowering them to effect change (Smith, 2018; Suarez et al., 2021).

Over the last two decades, scholars have highlighted photovoice as both a successful tool for researching issues related to education and a pedagogical mechanism to teach participants to think critically, help them develop skills and competencies, and introduce them to a new way of creating knowledge (Haffejee, 2021; Schell et al., 2009). For example, recent studies have demonstrated photovoice’s capacity to help participants develop and practice social and emotional skills, as well as exercise creativity and self-expression (Agner et al., 2023; McKimmy et al., 2021). Other studies have illustrated how photovoice can help participants engage their communities and the world around them, supporting them to develop both a sense of self and a connection to others and their environments (Cook & Quigley, 2013; Trout et al., 2019). As such, photovoice has evolved to function as both a PAR method and a form of critical pedagogy (Malka & Lotan, 2022; Meyer & Kroeger, 2005).

Photovoice With Refugees

Photovoice is often lauded for its potential to empower participants by paving paths for policy change, resisting stereotypical representations that frame them in society, and allowing space for counter-narratives through “giving voice” (Higgins, 2016; Packard, 2008; Pink, 2007). Correspondingly, it has gained methodological popularity for conducting research with refugees. Though, undertaking research with refugees—and other marginalized groups (e.g., asylum-seekers, internally displaced peoples, economic migrants)—presents a range of ethical and methodological challenges. These include: psychological trauma, language and literacy barriers, gaining informed consent, power imbalances, and concerns around data privacy and protection (Due et al., 2022; Hugman et al., 2011; Jacobsen & Landau, 2003; Lenette & Boddy, 2013; Vaughan, 2016). As such, photovoice has been used primarily with refugee adults and older youth as a way to overcome these challenges, especially by positioning refugees as active participants in—rather than passive objects of—research, and encouraging refugees to explore issues of importance to them, thus restoring their agency and determinacy (Carlson et al., 2006; Humpage et al., 2019).

Additionally, some scholars argue that, due to its visual nature, photovoice has the capacity to transcend age, gender, language, and literacy, and can represent diverse values and viewpoints across cultures and contexts (Kingery et al., 2016; Sutton-Brown, 2014). Indeed, photovoice has become a popular method used with Indigenous groups due to perceptions of its cross-cultural appropriateness and decolonizing potential (Bennett et al., 2019; Higgins, 2014). For these reasons, numerous scholars today maintain that photovoice is a particularly germane research method to use with refugee and displaced participants (Due et al., 2022; Feen-Calligan et al., 2023; Humpage et al., 2019).

Photovoice With Refugee Children

Traditionally, refugee children have been overlooked or essentialized as passive victims in research and policy discourse (Kaukko, 2021; Oh, 2012; Rajaram, 2002; Vigneau et al., 2023). In response, numerous scholars have argued that refugee children are not merely passive recipients of dominant discourses, hegemony, and socialization—or are simple reproducers of culture—but are rather active cultural agents capable of articulating their experiences and contributing to knowledge production (Karr et al., 2020; Moskal, 2019). As a result, over the last twenty years, scholars have framed photovoice as a useful method to understand young refugees’ lived experiences and engage them in a participatory and empowering process (Green & Kloos, 2009; Oh, 2012; Trussler, 2020). However, very few photovoice studies with young refugees have focused on education (Due et al., 2014; Schiltz & van der Aa, 2020) and the majority have been conducted with older refugee youth and adolescents, rather than young refugee children.

While the participation of young children in educational research is a well-established practice, the vast majority of research has been, and continues to be, conducted with children (Franks, 2011; Mason & Watson, 2014). Though, there has been increasing interest in research undertaken by children (Graham et al., 2017; Kellett, 2005). Scholars like Kellett (2010) contend that children have a unique “insider” perspective that is critical to understanding their worlds. As such, child-led research is argued to provide more nuanced insights for adult decision-makers and has the potential to support the well-being of child researchers by: acknowledging their rights, providing an experience of empowerment, supporting them to learn new skills, and allowing them to feel and recognize their personal value (Graham & Fitzgerald, 2011; Kellett, 2011).

Photovoice is just one of many child-led research methods (i.e., photo elicitation, drawing, novelty scales) (Crivello et al., 2009). However, it has been framed as a particularly (young) child-friendly method as it is less verbally oriented than traditional research methods and thereby enhances children’s potential to express their perspectives and participate more fully in research (Amba et al., 2022). Some scholars argue that photovoice is even more suitable for research with children who may have complex experiences of trauma (Clark, 2001; Young & Barrett, 2001). For these reasons, and those outlined above, photovoice is gaining popularity among those working with young refugee children, especially on issues related to education (Due et al., 2014; Langhout, 2014; Moskal, 2019).

Inherent Tensions Within Photovoice and Child-Led Research

The existing scholarship on photovoice and education, and photovoice with refugees, helps to situate this study. Though, this article more specifically focuses on the inherent power-laden and epistemological tensions associated with the photovoice methodology. As such, this article is informed by and extends several intersecting lines of critical reflection and discourse.

First is the inherent tension of power dynamics embedded in the photovoice methodology, and PAR more broadly. Photovoice is largely driven by the goals of empowering the marginalized, giving voice to the voiceless, and uncovering and/or confronting hidden or explicit systems of inequity (Call-Cummings & Martinez, 2016; Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991). However, some scholars have raised ethical and methodological concerns arguing that if photovoice “is not explicitly tied to its epistemological (PAR) roots, [it] runs the risk of unintended consequences that may reproduce traditional, taken-for-granted power structures that are meant to be challenged and disrupted…” (Call-Cummings et al., 2018).

This tension of power dynamics is particularly problematic when conducting photovoice with young children. For example, Amba et al. (2022) and Alderson (2014) highlight the myriad ethical questions related to harm and benefit, privacy and confidentiality, and information and consent. While intensive ethical guidelines have been developed for those who wish to conduct photovoice with children, if these guidelines are not followed, and if adult researchers do not regularly reflect on their actions, relationships, and the complicated issues of power-sharing, voice, co-ownership, and knowledge co-production, they risk reproducing binary relationships of authority (e.g., researcher/subject, teacher/student, knower/learner) (Call-Cummings & Martinez, 2016; Christensen, 2004). These relationships are often explicitly or implicitly built on deficit assumptions of learning and knowing and reinforce taken-for granted structures of power (Freire, 1970). This is problematic as young children are often regarded by adults as deficient in the required skills and competencies needed to drive PAR, which can easily result in adults leading photovoice work with children rather than guiding or facilitating it (Warne et al., 2013).

Second, this discourse is intertwined with similar debates around children’s genuine participation in the photovoice methodology, giving rise to the question of: whose voice is really being heard? Numerous challenges have been documented in child-led photovoice studies related to: (1) having enough time to develop mutual trust and rapport between adult and child researchers; (2) creating space for children to speak up for themselves and be in control; (3) contextual interferences, such as caregivers limiting space for children to experiment or influencing what children “should” be photographing; and (4) determining who decides the research questions, the photo assignments, what makes a “good” photo, and which photos are selected for analysis and public viewing (Amba et al., 2022; Joanou, 2009; Prins, 2010).

Additionally, the way “giving voice” is often framed centers adults and facilitates a process whereby adult researchers grant children the “opportunity” to speak (Woodgate et al., 2020). Scholars like Groot and Amba (2019) contest this framing and maintain that empowerment and voice are not things that can be “given”, but rather must come from within. Additionally, scholars like Lutrell (2010) and Spyrou (2011) illustrate the multi-faceted concept of “voice” and the assumptions and expectations placed on children by conceptually limited adult researchers, which can result in adults “voicing over” children’s perspectives and experiences. These challenges highlight the extreme complexity of empowering children through photovoice and the far easier potential of disempowering children through this method.

A third area of debate centers on the tension of cross-cultural appropriateness and epistemological alignment. As mentioned previously, photovoice is often regarded as a method that is suited for a variety of cultural contexts. Though, despite the fact that photovoice has been widely used around the world, it is rooted in Minority World ² academic and epistemological systems. Scholars have demonstrated how Wang and Burris’s (1997) description of photovoice is presented as a fixed method and is often conducted by white, Minority World researchers in ways that may not be suitable for non-white, Majority World communities and cultures (Castleden & Garvin, 2008; Higgins, 2014).

Correspondingly, numerous cultural challenges have been documented when conducting photovoice research with refugee children, most of whom are from non-white, Majority World groups. These include: the hesitation of refugee children to speak with researchers due to socio-cultural norms around adult-child interactions, and/or negative previous experiences with authority figures; refugee children being emotionally re-traumatized due to the insensitivity of research questions and methods; and the fact that advocacy for children’s participation in photovoice, and other participatory research, is often rooted in international child-rights rhetoric, which sometimes does not resonate with communities who either do not agree with, or are unaware of, the international child-rights agenda (Due et al., 2014; Hammersley, 2015). As such, numerous scholars maintain that there should not be a one-size-fits-all approach to photovoice and that the photovoice procedure should be modified significantly according to culture and context (Castleden & Garvin, 2008; Murray & Nash, 2016).

Similar arguments abound that child-led research in general is not suited for every culture and context. Indeed, child-led research challenges deeply held beliefs and assumptions about children and childhood, particularly in relation to children’s competency and agency (Alderson, 2001; Franks, 2011). Child-led research, and by proxy photovoice, is rooted in the idea that children should be active and not passive, which appeals to a powerful line of Minority World thought that regards autonomy and agency as supreme values (Hammersley, 2017). While much child-led research takes a constructivist approach, recognizing that conceptualizations, characteristics, and experiences of childhood are socio-culturally variable, much of this work centers on Minority World assumptions of children as active agents who both have “voice” and want to use it (Kim, 2016; Spyrou, 2015). These assumptions are in direct contradiction with communities and cultures in which children are rarely put in positions of power and control or given opportunities to express or assert themselves and their “voice”. Indeed, various scholars demonstrate that the “voices” of children, rather than being autonomous expressions of their authentic selves and experiences, or even of their distinctive cultures, very often consist of the recycling and reworking of adult talk (Maybin, 2006).

The remaining sections of this article present the methods and procedures of a photovoice study conducted with refugee and host-community children in northern Uganda. While the study findings were informative for the PlayMatters project, more attention is paid to the methodological challenges and experiences encountered during the study. Finally, the learnings from this study are discussed in relation to the literature presented above and considerations are provided for EiE practitioners and researchers who wish to conduct future photovoice research with young refugee children and other marginalized groups.

Study Background

The study that informs this article was conducted as part of the PlayMatters initiative, an East Africa regional initiative that promotes the integration of Learning through Play (LtP) approaches in pre-primary and primary schools, targeting 800,000+ refugee and host-community children ages 3–12+. The PlayMatters consortium is led by the International Rescue Committee, in collaboration with Plan International, War Child, Innovations for Poverty Action, and the Behavioural Insights Team, in partnership with the LEGO Foundation. While PlayMatters activities in Uganda were taking place in nine districts across the country at the time of this study, the project was specifically targeting refugee settlements and nearby host-communities in six districts in the northern region.

Currently, Uganda is Africa’s largest refugee-hosting country with nearly 2 million refugees residing inside its borders (UNHCR, 2025b). At the time of this study, Uganda hosted approximately 1.48 million refugees; over 50% were from South Sudan, over 30% from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and over 90% living in rural settlements near or integrated into local communities (UNHCR, 2022b). Uganda’s refugee policies are unique, allowing for freedom of movement, provision of land, and access to social services, despite a lack of citizenship (ECHO, 2024). While funding for refugee support in Uganda continues to wane, thinly stretching access to resources across both refugee and host communities and straining social cohesion (ECHO, 2024), at the time of this study the refugee and host communities involved lived peacefully together with limited tensions.

The PlayMatters project includes a robust research agenda ³ to generate evidence on the use of LtP approaches in refugee and crisis contexts. Many of these research activities aim to understand existing forms of play and LtP approaches in project communities to help develop contextualized and informed interventions. However, the extent of participatory research activities involving children is significantly limited. In an effort to understand how young refugee and host-community children experience and perceive play, and engage younger children in a child-led participatory research process, the project initiated a photovoice study.

The study was led and designed by me, the author of this article. I identify as a white woman from the U.S. and was a PlayMatters staff member at the time of the study, employed by Plan International. ⁴ I also served as the study’s Principal Investigator (PI). The research team also included a Ugandan Consultant Project Lead who is an expert in photography and visual storytelling, two Ugandan Plan International staff members, and four adult community facilitators—two South Sudanese refugees and two Ugandan host-community members. Photovoice was selected as the methodology for this study due to the research team’s perceptions of it as a fun, quick, and low-cost child-led research method that would allow for maximum child participation and also generate in-depth data to inform PlayMatters activities.

Methods

Communities and Participants

Study activities took place from August 2022 to November 2022 in the Adjumani District. The study engaged the Elema and Onigo host communities and the Baratuku refugee community, which includes refugees from South Sudan. These communities were selected for the study due to: their close proximity to each other and the Adjumani office where the Plan International staff members were based, their involvement in the PlayMatters project, feasibility of conducting the study there, and easy access to both refugee and host-community children.

Seven children from both the Baratuku refugee community and Elema host community participated in the study, while six children from the Onigo host community participated, bringing the total number of study participants to twenty (9 boys and 11 girls; 7 refugee and 13 host-community participants). ⁵ The criteria for selecting study participants included: gender, age, settlement of origin, and availability. Study participants were between the ages of 7–12 and one study participant had a physical disability. All study participants attended the Elema Primary School, despite residing in three different communities. Finally, the participants from Baratuku spoke the Dinka language and the participants from Elema and Onigo spoke the Madi and Kuku languages, as well as Arabic. The four adult community facilitators supported translation for all study activities as the other research team members were not fluent in these languages.

Procedure

First, the adult community facilitators participated in an intensive preparation workshop—co-designed by me and the Consultant Project Lead and led by the Consultant Project Lead—where they learned about the study goals and objectives, the photovoice methodology and procedures, and the ethics and practices of facilitating child-led research. Second, upon receiving enthusiastic community support and caregiver consent, study participants engaged in three preparation workshops, led by the Consultant Project Lead with the support from the community facilitators, where they learned about the goals of the study, how to use cameras, the basics of photography, and the ethics of photo-taking.

Next, study participants were split into three groups based on their community of residence. Each group then participated in two sessions whereby they were led by the adult community facilitators into their communities to take photos. Each photo-taking session lasted between 40 min and 1 hr. The participants were split into pairs and given one camera to share between them in an effort to facilitate teamwork and to remind each other of the guidance they received during the workshops. Study participants were instructed by the adult facilitators to capture images of what they considered to be play and were encouraged to take a minimum of 5 photos and a maximum of 15 photos each to decrease point-and-click shooting and to motivate them to be more thoughtful and intentional about their photos.

After taking their photos, study participants returned the cameras to the adult facilitators and engaged in audo-recorded reflection and discussion sessions. ⁶ These sessions took place directly after each photo-taking session and lasted for approximately 40 min. Each discussion session was facilitated by the Consultant Project Lead with support from the community facilitators. The Consultant Project Lead led the participants through a general discussion on their experience taking the photos and allowed them to review their photos on a laptop computer and select their top two favorites. The Consultant Project Lead then led the participants in a discussion that allowed them to explain why they took their selected photos, how their photos exhibited their ideas about play, and then develop titles and captions for their photos. Lastly, all twenty study participants met in a final two-hour audio-recorded workshop to select their favorite two photos to display during a community exhibition event.

An important goal of photovoice is to appeal to policymakers and other people of influence in the interest of social change. As such, the goals of the community exhibition event were to allow the study participants to share with their communities and people of influence what they had done during the study, display their selected photos, and share any key messages they collectively decided upon. The event was held at the Elema Primary School grounds and was attended by local chairpersons and government officers, teachers, students, parents, religious leaders, Plan International staff, the District School Inspector, and all research team members. Key activities during the event included: speeches by numerous stakeholders, student performances, cultural dancing, a gallery walk of the displayed photos, and comments from parents of study participants. While the community kept the printed photos from the exhibition, due to budget restraints we were not able to provide individual prints of photos for study participants.

The Consultant Project Lead and I collected observation notes during the event, which were included in the corpus of data analyzed for the study and this article. Analysis to generate findings for PlayMatters purposes included entering the selected photos, observation notes, and audio recordings into NVivo software and coding them to generate key themes that were further sub-coded to generate the study findings.

The data that specifically informs this article was obtained through: (1) observations conducted by the Consultant Project Lead during participant reflection workshops; (2) observations conducted by both me and the Consultant Project Lead during the community exhibition event; (3) remote check-in discussions between me and other research team members during the study activities; (4) and three extensive in-person debrief sessions upon the completion of the study. During the remote check-ins, I asked research team members about their experiences, challenges they encountered, and solutions they devised. Most issues discussed during these calls were of a logistical nature (i.e., activity timelines, availability of study participants, financial spending). It was during the in-person debriefs that I asked the research team members in-depth questions about their experiences and thoughts about the study, including key challenges. The first debrief included all research team members, the second included the Consultant Project Lead and Plan International staff, and the third was between me and the Consultant Project Lead only. I took detailed notes during these check-ins and debriefs and engaged in a process of member checking to ensure the learnings below accurately reflect research team members’ experiences and reflections. While I am the sole author of this article, drafts of this article were shared with the research team and other PlayMatters staff for review and input.

Positionality

Before exploring the methodological learnings from this study, it is important to acknowledge how my positionality informed this research. While the original study aimed to center the voices and experiences of refugee and host-community children, the research process was shaped by my identity and lived experiences—both as an institutional actor embedded in the PlayMatters project and as a product of Minority World academic and epistemological training. These factors influenced decisions about the study’s design, timelines, and methodological framing, particularly the selection of photovoice as a participatory tool deemed “child-friendly” and “culturally adaptable.”

The research team also included Ugandan PlayMatters staff, a Uganda Consultant Project Lead, and refugee and host-community facilitators. Although these individuals brought critical local knowledge to the research process, structural and organizational hierarchies—based on race, gender, education, employment status, and refugee identity—shaped interactions among team members and with participants. The research team’s role in training the community facilitators, approving budgets, and overseeing deliverables further complicated efforts to foster equitable collaboration. While deeper exploration of these factors is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to recognize that positionality is never neutral, and that critical self-reflection is essential when working across lines of power, culture, and privilege in participatory research.

Methodological Tensions and Challenges

This study set out to explore the possibilities of child-led participatory research using photovoice in a refugee setting. As outlined in the literature review above, this study was informed by scholarship advocating for the involvement of refugee children in research and the practice of not regarding refugee children as passive objects to be studied. Yet in practice, the research process revealed persistent tensions that challenge the notion of “child-led” research. Two interrelated themes emerged: (1) adult-led design and control, and (2) cultural and structural constraints on child participation and voice.

Adult-Led Design and Control

Although the study framed children as co-researchers, they were not involved in shaping the research questions, methodology, or data analysis plan. These elements were determined in advance by the adult research team, primarily for time, budget, and logistical reasons. The rationale, as one research team member explained in the second in-person debrief session, was grounded in “a tight timeline to conduct the study activities due to the availability of research team members, the Elema Primary School calendar and exam schedule, and the PlayMatters financial timeline.” In the same debrief session, another research team member noted, “We wanted something quick, fun, and low-cost—we thought photovoice could deliver on that.” Though, the constraints of budget and time led to a condensed version of the photovoice methodology in which children were introduced to photography and ethics in brief workshops and then asked to complete highly structured photo assignments.

Children were given cameras to document what play meant to them, but even these photo-taking moments were shaped by adult-defined parameters. For example, although some children wanted to photograph home spaces or animals, facilitators often redirected them toward more conventional play landscapes like schoolyards or football grounds. One facilitator admitted during the first in-person debrief session, “We didn’t want them just taking random pictures. We told them, ‘Focus on things related to play.’” This interpretation of “valid” data was shaped more by the research objectives than by children’s experiential understandings and interpretations of play.

While children were invited to discuss their photos in reflection workshops, facilitators frequently stepped in to reframe or elaborate their narratives. For instance, as observed during the first participant reflection workshop, a girl who photographed a swing expressed that, “I like to sit here after school.” A community facilitator added to the translation, “This is where she feels peace and relaxation.” The child's original sentiment—brief but meaningful—was reinterpreted through an adult lens. As the Consultant Project Lead later reflected in the third debrief session, “To be honest, I often had to put together their titles and captions for them… based on how they described their photos in the discussion sessions, which was minimal.”

Additionally, children were not involved in analyzing the study data or verifying the findings. Analysis was conducted mostly by me using NVivo to code photographs, transcripts, and observation notes. This process, while rigorous, lacked the participatory verification step often associated with photovoice and child-led research. Again, this was due to time constraints and competing work tasks required of me and the research team members. While these issues do not excuse or justify the lack of involvement of study participants in the analysis process, they represent real and common barriers to executing genuine child-led research, and participatory research more broadly, in such contexts and circumstances.

These examples expose tensions between methodological ideals and institutional realities. They reflect the critiques of scholars like Call-Cummings and Martinez (2016) and Christensen (2004), who argue that photovoice risks reproducing hierarchical structures unless critical reflection on power, facilitation, and ownership is made central to the process.

Cultural and Structural Constraints on Voice and Participation

The second theme emerged from the deep cultural misalignment between the assumptions underpinning photovoice and the socio-cultural norms of the communities involved. While much literature suggests photovoice can transcend language and literacy barriers (Kingery et al., 2016; Sutton-Brown, 2014), analysis of this study reveals that it could not easily overcome socio-cultural norms around adult-child relations, deference, and public speech.

During group discussions, community facilitators frequently found themselves dominating conversations. Although encouraged to support child leadership, they often “cut study participants off mid-sentence” or “expressed their own opinions about what the participants’ photos were displaying” (Observation Notes 2, 2022). This was not necessarily an act of intentional control, but a reflection of their socialized role as adult guides. As one facilitator explained in the first debrief session: “I’m used to being the one teaching—it felt strange to just sit back and wait for the children to talk.”

Children, too, appeared to internalize expectations of silence or deference. Many were described by the facilitators as “shy” or “hesitant.” During the third debrief session, the Consultant Project Lead reflected: “Sometimes it was like pulling teeth to get these kids to say something.” Even when prompted, several children struggled to name or explain their photos. One child, after showing an image of a dirt field, said only, “We go here.” When asked what they do there, the child shrugged. This reticence, while often interpreted as shyness or lack of comprehension, may in fact reflect what Spyrou (2011, 2015) describes as “the limits of children’s voices” in adult-defined research contexts. Similarly, Maybin (2006) and Lutrell (2010) have shown how children’s expressions often mirror adult discourse, rather than offering fully autonomous “authentic” narratives.

The final exhibition planning workshop further illustrated this tension. The children were encouraged to select photos and craft key messages for presentation. Instead, they deferred to the adult facilitators, offering little input. As one research team member noted in the first debrief session, “We ended up working with the Deputy Head Teacher to organize the event… the children didn’t take on leadership roles.”

These patterns raise critical questions about photovoice’s cross-cultural appropriateness. Although widely promoted as “child-friendly,” the method presumes children are willing and able to assume forms of agency that may not align with local norms or expectations. As Due et al. (2014) and Hammersley (2015) argue, participatory research must be interrogated not just for its intentions, but for its assumptions about agency, voice, and empowerment.

Discussion

This study contributes to a growing body of critical scholarship on participatory visual research and child-led inquiry. While photovoice is frequently lauded for its accessibility, adaptability, and transformative potential (Budig et al., 2018; Suprapto et al., 2020), analysis of the research process illuminates the methodological and epistemological tensions that arise when such approaches are applied in cross-cultural settings with marginalized communities.

Analysis findings reinforce critiques that photovoice, without deliberate and sustained power-sharing, may reproduce the very adult–child and researcher–participant hierarchies it seeks to disrupt (Call-Cummings et al., 2018; Christensen, 2004). Despite its participatory framing, this study was shaped by adult-led design, facilitation, and analysis. Institutional constraints such as project timelines, budget, and staffing availability further limited opportunities for genuine child involvement. This mirrors Gubrium and Harper’s (2013) concern that participatory methods, when compressed for logistical convenience, risk becoming extractive tools cloaked in emancipatory rhetoric.

This study also challenges the widely held assumption that participatory methods like photovoice inherently “give voice” to marginalized children. This notion—rooted in liberal humanist ideals of individual autonomy and self-expression—can overlook the deeply situated, mediated, and relational nature of communication, particularly in childhood (Groot & Amba, 2019; Lutrell, 2010; Spyrou, 2011). In practice, children’s perspectives were often translated, interpreted, or rephrased by adults, and their silences were sometimes read as failures to participate, rather than as meaningful refusals or reflections of cultural norms around authority and deference.

More fundamentally, photovoice—and many other participatory methods—rests on epistemological assumptions grounded in Minority World socio-cultural norms: that children should speak out, lead, and represent their own experiences through visual and narrative means; that knowledge is best captured through individual expression; and that participation equates to verbal or visual disclosure. As Franks (2011), Hammersley (2015), and Kim (2016) argue, these values do not universally apply. In many Majority World contexts, including Uganda, children’s agency is relational, shaped by expectations of interdependence, respect for elders, and collective identity. To ignore or disparage these processes is to impose Minority World epistemologies in the misguided aim of empowerment and emancipation.

Moreover, it is important to recognize how the specific realities of refugee status may have shaped children’s comfort levels and participation in this study. For children living with displacement, experiences of trauma, loss, and social disruption can influence not only what they choose to share, but also whether they feel safe or entitled to share at all (Due et al., 2014; Hugman et al., 2011). Many refugee children have been socialized into forms of silence or guardedness as strategies for safety and survival—behaviors that can be misunderstood within participatory frameworks that equate voice with openness and disclosure (Kaukko, 2021; Spyrou, 2015). While Uganda is widely regarded as one of the world’s most welcoming host countries for refugees (ECHO, 2024), the status of refugees nonetheless remains precarious, contingent on political and humanitarian conditions that may shift with little notice. This precarity can produce a persistent awareness of vulnerability and dependency that shapes everyday interactions, including those within research contexts (Humpage et al., 2019). Consequently, participatory methodologies grounded in Minority World epistemologies—emphasizing autonomy, visibility, and individual expression—risk overlooking these embodied forms of caution and the socio-political realities that necessitate them (Franks, 2011; Kim, 2016). Recognizing these dynamics requires an expanded understanding of participation that is attuned to silence, hesitation, and relational modes of engagement as valid and contextually meaningful forms of expression (Spyrou, 2011; Woodgate et al., 2020).

Correspondingly, while photovoice is often framed as cross-culturally flexible (Due et al., 2022), these findings suggest that flexibility is not enough. It is not only the methodological procedures that require adaptation, but also the underlying assumptions about what knowledge looks like, how it is shared, and whose ways of knowing are recognized. In this study, children’s reluctance to speak, their comfort with adult guidance, and the centrality of multilingual interpretation all reveal the limits of standard photovoice models in this context. For researchers and practitioners, this demands a shift—from seeking universal tools to embracing pluralistic, situated practices of engagement. It also calls for a rethinking of “voice” not as a singular expression to be uncovered, but as a layered, co-constructed process shaped by relationships, histories, and power dynamics (Spyrou, 2015; Woodgate et al., 2020).

Conclusion

This study reveals that while photovoice can offer rich insights and open spaces for engagement with young, displaced children, it is not universally empowering, nor methodologically neutral. Participatory methods such as photovoice are often predicated on Minority World assumptions about childhood, autonomy, and expression—assumptions that do not always align with the lived realities, cultural norms, or epistemologies of the Majority World. When applied without reflexivity, these methods risk reinforcing structural inequalities and misrepresenting participants’ experiences in the name of “giving voice”.

Existing adaptations of photovoice with Indigenous communities offer informative models. The Gaataa’aabing visual method developed with Anishinaabek communities (Bennett et al., 2019), along with community-based adaptations in Australia and Canada (Castleden & Garvin, 2008; Maclean et al., 2021; Maclean & WoodWard, 2013), challenge photovoice’s Minority World underpinnings by emphasizing immersion, relational accountability, and participant-driven inquiry. These culturally-grounded approaches offer co-constructed alternatives that better reflect collective epistemologies and the lived realities of marginalized communities.

Drawing on methodological learnings from this study, we offer three key reflections for EiE practitioners and researchers—especially those working cross-culturally with marginalized groups in precarious contexts:

1. Participation must be culturally redefined. It is not a technical feature of a method, but a relational and context-dependent process. Children must be encouraged to express their experiences, thoughts, and agency through a variety of mediums, including silence, deference, or collective negotiation—not only through speech or visual representation.

2. Voice is not something to be “given.” It emerges through co-constructed, iterative interactions and must be treated as inherently mediated, contingent, and partial. Researchers must recognize their own roles in shaping whose perspectives are amplified and how.

3. Methodologies must be interrogated, not just adapted. Photovoice and similar methods should not simply be translated into new contexts—they must be critically examined for the epistemological frameworks and assumptions they carry. Researchers should be willing to disrupt or redesign participatory and child-led approaches when they do not resonate locally.

Future research might explore more culturally-grounded, context-sensitive, and pluralistic approaches to participatory and child-led research methods that align with local epistemologies and socio-cultural norms. Additionally, documenting processes of establishing relationships, building trust, and understanding historical and contemporary socio-cultural-political factors prior to data collection would be incredibly useful. More broadly, this study invites researchers and practitioners to interrogate how power, culture, and method intersect, and to imagine new possibilities for child-led inquiry—especially with children in crisis-affected contexts and other precarious circumstances—that is both rigorously reflexive and genuinely participatory.

Limitations

This article draws solely on reflections from the adult research team to analyze the methodological challenges encountered during the photovoice process. It does not include direct accounts from children about their experiences in the study or their perceptions of power, participation, or voice. As such, the analysis is limited in its ability to capture how children themselves experienced the research process—whether they felt empowered, silenced, or engaged. Such perspectives would be helpful in future research.

This article also does not engage in a critical analysis of the power differentials within the research team itself. While the team included diverse members—refugee and host-community facilitators, Ugandan staff, and a U.S./Tanzania-based principal investigator—this intra-team diversity is not interrogated in relation to race, gender, refugee status, organizational role, or educational background. While beyond the scope of this article, these dynamics inherently shaped how decisions were made, how field activities unfolded, and how challenges were interpreted and navigated during the study.

Finally, while the study involved a relatively small number of children and was shaped by a specific institutional and geographic context, its aim is not to generalize findings across all photovoice research with refugees or marginalized children. Rather, it offers a situated, reflexive account of the challenges that can arise when participatory and child-led methods are implemented in crisis-affected settings under institutional constraints. These reflections are intended to inform, not foreclose, future use of photovoice and similar methods. They add a necessary layer of methodological caution and critical reflection for qualitative researchers working across lines of power, culture, and positionality with displaced and other marginalized populations.