386 RESEARCH BRIEF R E PORT

Photovoice
Participatory research methods for sustainability – toolkit #8
Photovoice is a participatory research method based on participant-led photography and dialogue. It is particularly suited to
engaging vulnerable groups to visually document a specific issue that affects their personal lives. Because photovoice is based on images
and language alike, it encourages participants to reflect on the issue and elevates marginalized voices by facilitating the expression of
local knowledge, opinions, and experiences and allowing participants to identify their concerns and priorities.

Jule Marie Huber , Claudia Bieling , María García-Martín , Tobias Plieninger , Mario Torralba

Photovoice. Participatory research methods for sustainability – toolkit #8

GAIA 32/4 (2023): 386 – 388 | Keywords: knowledge co-production, participant-led research, research methods

P hotovoice is a research method based on participant-led pho­

tography and dialogue (Castleden and Garvin 2008). Partici­
pants use photography to identify and visually document the is-
and promoting community action in the context of public health
(Wang and Burris 1997). Photovoice draws on feminist and crit-
ical consciousness theory and documentary photography (Wang
sues that represent their community’s concerns and priorities. and Burris 1997).
The photos taken are shared to encourage dialogue within the Apart from public health research, photovoice has been used
community. The method elevates unheard voices by facilitating in many other contexts such as immigration, homelessness, dis-
the expression of local knowledge, opinions, and experiences ability, youth, and in recent years also in sustainability science,
(Masterson et al. 2018). The method has three main objectives: where it has been applied also to less marginalized groups. In
1. reflecting upon community issues, strengths, and concerns; the latter area, photovoice has proven to be an effective tool for
2. encouraging critical dialogue on personal and community is- expanding scientific knowledge on environmental management,
sues through discussion; and 3. promoting social change by com- ecosystem benefits, environmental change, landscape relation-
municating issues to society and policy-makers (Wang and Bur- ships, sense of place, conservation practices, and human-wild-
ris 1997). By empowering communities through participant own- life conflicts (Masterson et al. 2018).
ership of the research process, photovoice aims to promote trans-
formative action for social and environmental change (Master-
son et al. 2018). Procedure
Photovoice has been defined as “a process by which people
can identify, represent, and enhance their community through a While the original photovoice approach (Wang and Burris 1997)
specific photographic technique” (Wang and Burris 1997, p. 369). followed a rather fixed course of action, the method has evolved
Originally developed for marginalized groups, the method fo- over the years into different forms and variations. Photovoice
cused on assessing community needs, empowering participants, has proven to be flexible in its structure and can be adapted and
modified according to the specific needs of the community un-
der study. Moreover, photovoice can be combined with other
In this series, we aim to alert GAIA readers to useful toolkits for par-
methods such as focus group discussions, surveys, workshops,
ticipatory research methods for sustainability. If you would like to
contribute a toolkit description, please contact [email protected]. or transect walks (Masterson et al. 2018). We recommend the
following procedure:

Jule Marie Huber, MSc (corresponding author) | Georg-August-Universität Dr. María García-Martín | Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and
Göttingen | Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development | Landscape Research WSL | Land Change Science Unit | Zurich | CH |
Göttingen | DE | [email protected] [email protected]
Prof. Dr. Claudia Bieling | University of Hohenheim | Societal Transition and Prof. Dr. Tobias Plieninger | Georg-August-Universität Göttingen |
Agriculture | Stuttgart | DE | [email protected] Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development | Göttingen |
DE and University of Kassel | Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences |
Witzenhausen | DE | [email protected]
© 2023 by the authors; licensee oekom. This Open Access article is licensed under Dr. Mario Torralba | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam | Institute for Environmental
a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY).
https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.32.4.10 Studies (IVM) | Environmental Geography Group | Amsterdam | NL |
Received September 28, 2023; revised version accepted October 12, 2023 (double-blind peer review). [email protected]

GAIA 32/4 (2023): 386 – 388

Jule Marie Huber et al. PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH METHODS – TOOLKIT #8 | RESEARCH 387

1 Development of a research design: Researchers define the time

frame and spatial dimension of the exercise. They decide
whether the exercise allows for freedom of movement or has a
BOX 1: Perspectives on collaborative agri-environmental
governance at landscape scale
planned itinerary (by the researchers or in collaboration with the The KOOPERATIV project develops a coordinated landscape-scale
participants). Researchers determine whether they accompany approach to agri-environment and climate measures (AECM) in Low-
er Saxony, Germany. In this project, farmers plant flower strips to en-
participants and whether participants take photos alone or in
hance biodiversity in a coordinated way. 39 representatives from ag-
groups. The team of researchers should also develop an inter- riculture, conservation, and local government and politics sectors
view and analytical protocol adjusted to the objectives of the took part in photovoice and semi-structured interviews conducted
study. Participants should be able to engage in the design of the from July to August 2022. The aim was to identify participants’ indi-
research process. vidual perspectives on collaborative agri-environmental governance.
Participants were asked to capture moments or settings that they as-

2
sociated with cooperation and cooperative conservation. The first au-
Selection of participants and informed consent: Researchers thor met each participant individually to accompany the photo exer­
define criteria for selecting potential participants. All mem- cise and discuss the photos. Participants took photographs of places
bers of this group of interest will be invited to a workshop to ex- (e. g., AECM in the study area), situations (e. g., exchange or inter-
plain the purpose of the study. It can be helpful to get support action of multiple people), symbols of cooperation (e. g., a hand-
from local facilitators (e. g., local leaders, local NGOs etc.) that shake, see figure 1) or biodiversity conservation (e. g., bees). The
subsequent interviews revealed that they valued the landscape for
advertise the study and approach potential participants. As pho- aesthetic reasons, used it for recreation, and valued conservation to
tographs are the property of the photographer and may contain protect the landscape. Most participants had positive attitudes to-
sensitive data (e. g., peoples’ faces), it is crucial that participants wards cooperation. Perceived benefits of cooperation were a higher
express informed consent for their participation in the study likelihood to achieve ecological benefits, and improved relationships.
and the use of their photos and quotations. Moreover, people Conflicting interests and more complex decision-making were iden-
tified as challenges to cooperation.
who appear in the photographs must sign informed consent
forms agreeing to the use and publication of images in which
they can be recognized.

3 Photovoice training session: In a training session with the par-

ticipants, the researchers present the guiding questions, com-
municate the objectives of and instructions for the photovoice
exercise (including the number of photos to be taken by each par-
ticipant), and explain how the data will be used. If the participants
© KOOPERATIV project

are not familiar with photography, they obtain technical (but also
ethical) guidance on how to use a camera.

4 Photovoice exercise: Participants are equipped with cameras

if they do not have their own phones or cameras. Participants
decide on the motives that they feel best represent the research
subject and portray their perspectives on the issue. They can re- FIGURE 1: Symbols of cooperation: Collaboration (title chosen by
cord their needs, concerns, and hopes for the future. This can the photographer, a local farmer). An adult and a child are shaking
include activities, places, people, objects, features, views, mo- hands in a flower field.
ments, ideas, or settings.

5 Discussion of the photographs: The photos are printed and

used as a basis for follow-up discussions. The discussion is a
tool for reflection, interpretation, and meaning-making. It pro-
photos in groups of several (or all) participants. Group discus-
sions allow for social learning and the development of a collec-
tive voice that can be mobilized for unified action. The discus-
vides an opportunity to contextualize the photographs, examine sions or interviews typically follow a guideline (see, e. g., Wang
the motivation behind them, and identify emerging themes, is- and Burris 1997 for a more structured approach) and are audio-
sues, and theories. Participants can group the photographs around recorded and transcribed.
these emerging themes, and prioritize them according to per-
sonal relevance. Captions by the participants allow for an enrich­
ment and contextualisation of the images. Participants should
be invited to extend the discussion beyond the photographs to-
6 Data analysis: Qualitative content analysis allows for system-
atic coding of the photos and discussion/interview transcripts
according to key themes that were identified in the discussion.
wards general experiences with the identified issues, perceived Sub-themes can be grouped into overarching themes, and asso­
causes, and associated impacts. The researchers can either con- ciation and causation pathways between different themes can be
duct individual interviews with the participants, or discuss the explored. The frequencies of mentions of themes can be count- >

GAIA 32/4 (2023): 386 – 388

388 RESEARCH | PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH METHODS – TOOLKIT #8 Jule Marie Huber et al.

ed to determine priorities and relevance of themes. Within these views more effectively than spoken language. As a task-centered
categories, researchers can compare and contrast differences and activity that examines the participants’ concerns and interests,
determine similarities. The researchers can provide the partici­ photovoice furthermore allows the photographers to express their
pants with the preliminary analysis results so that they can ver- views and ideas more vividly.
ify or correct any misinterpretations. Depending on the sample
size, statistical tests such as correlation analysis or chi-square Photovoice offers flexibility in its structure. It is adaptable to many
test can be run to determine associations between themes. different uses and contexts and can be modified to suit the re-
search objectives and the target community. Moreover, the ap-

7 Knowledge sharing: Knowledge and insights should be shared

with other community members through discussion fora or
photo exhibitions. In addition, policy-makers may be informed
proach is dynamic as it is co-designed by the participants, and
can be adjusted during the process if necessary. Photovoice can
be considered an inclusive method as it does not require com-
about the problems and desired improvements identified by the plicated skills, but is simple to use and readily understandable.
participants.
Key weaknesses/challenges
Photovoice is time-consuming for both, the researchers and the
Skills and resources needed participants, as it requires engagement over several process
steps. This may discourage community members from partici­
If participants do not own cameras or camera phones, or do not pating. People with limited sight or mobility are excluded from
wish to use their own equipment, they will need to be provided participating. Others may be discouraged to participate because
with single-use or digital cameras. They furthermore require they find the task challenging, difficult, or abstract, or feel inse-
basic photography skills and an understanding of the ethics of cure about taking photographs.
photography (e. g., how to approach a person whose photo they
wish to take). In addition, the researchers must have these skills Photovoice comes along with ethical challenges. Photographs are
and be able to teach them. Photovoice is very time-intensive for sensitive data, because anonymity of the persons portrayed can-
both, the participants as well as the researchers. In addition to not be guaranteed. In some cultures, people are reluctant to be
the time spent brainstorming and photographing, participants photographed, which may limit photographers’ choice of sub-
must be willing to attend several events (information workshop, jects. Photovoice is also particularly sensitive to bias arising from
training session, discussion/interview, forum/exhibition). The participants’ self-censorship, hidden agendas, and personal risk,
researchers have to prepare these events, may accompany groups if the issue being photographed is conflicted.
or individuals to take photographs, and has to code rich data.
Issues that are not photographed (e. g., as they are intangible and
cannot be captured visually, or because a particular site of inter-
Strengths and weaknesses est is inaccessible) may be excluded from the discussion, even if
they are relevant to the community. Furthermore, participants
Key strengths/benefits can only represent the status quo and are unable to photograph
Photovoice balances power between researchers and research sub- what they envision for the future or how past events have shaped
jects. The research process is locally-led, as participants have the present.
shared ownership of the research topic: marginalized voices get
Acknowledgement: The authors would like to thank two reviewers for their
empowered, as participants are able to share their perspectives
helpful comments.
on their community’s concerns and requirements. Through so- Funding: This work received no external funding.
cial exchange, participants co-produce knowledge, develop com- Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
mon understandings, and identify key actions. Participants de- Author contribution: JH, MT: research design; JH: data collection and analysis,
manuscript drafting; JH, CB, MG, TP, MT: writing of final manuscript.
velop a collective voice, which can catalyze social action. In doing
so, participants become agents of community change.
References
Researchers gain a contextual understanding of the topic being
researched and an insight into local knowledge systems. The pho- Castleden, H., T. Garvin. 2008. Modifying photovoice for community-based
participatory Indigenous research. Social Science and Medicine 66/6:
tographs translate local worldviews for the researchers. This ac-
1393 – 1405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.030.
cess to insider realities might be denied by other methods. Pho- Masterson, V. A., S. L. Mahajan, M. Tengö. 2018. Photovoice for mobilizing
tography generates a richer understanding than conventional insights on human well-being in complex social-ecological systems:
interviews as it requires participants to reflect upon the issue Case studies from Kenya and South Africa. Ecology and Society 23/3: 13.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10259-230313.
more deeply, and provides visual evidence for the described sit-
Wang, C., M. A. Burris. 1997. Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for
uation. Visual data can also generate different information, as participatory needs assessment. Health Education and Behavior 24/3:
photographs can evoke emotions, and convey experiences and 369 – 387. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400309.

GAIA 32/4 (2023): 386 – 388

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.