Department of Informatics and Media
Master’s Programme in Social Sciences,
Digital Media and Society Specialisation
Two-year Master’s Thesis
Use of Remote Participatory Video Amidst Coronavirus
Pandemic: Experiences from Uganda’s Rhino Camp
Refugee Settlement
Student: Deniz Idil Altan
ABSTRACT
In the early summer months of the global coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, three community-produced participatory videos were conducted on a remote basis. These projects were made in Uganda, Germany and Turkey with the use of mobile technology to understand the impact of the virus on lives of different refugee communities in distant locations around the world. This study evaluates the potential of using the emerging practice of remote participatory video at times of crisis by presenting a case study on one of the participatory video works undertaken in Rhino Camp which is one of the largest refugee camps in Uganda. Drawing on the common production stages within the traditional participatory video practices this thesis presents a preliminary outline for facilitating a remote participatory video. By deploying an affordance approach, it is aimed to investigate how participatory video was translated into a remote practice. By drawing on the Freirean process of critical consciousness the study investigates the ways in which communicative affordances of remote PV could be utilised to promote advocacy during the pandemic. Another objective of the thesis is to explore what unique local experiences and insights could refugees from Rhino Camp bring to bear on the problems caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Focusing on the analysis of the video messages from the refugees of Rhino Camp, the study explores the following question: What significance and potential could the use of remote practice of civil society produced participatory video have during the COVID-19 outbreak?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract………..……….2
List of Figures and Tables………..……….5
Acknowledgements……….6
1.Introduction………..7
1.1 The Coronavirus Pandemic and Emergence of Remote PV………..………...7
1.2 Rhino Camp Refugee Settlement………...8
2.Aim of the Study and Research Questions.………...………..…10
3. Literature Review………..11
3.1 Three Time Frames for Participatory Video………….……….….……11
The Fogo Process……….……….…...12
Contemporary PV Process………...16
Remote PV Process……….23
3.2 ICT4D and Remote PV………..….26
4. Theoretical Framework………..……….…..30
4.1 Theory of Affordances ……….………..30
4.2 Theory of Critical Consciousness ………..….33
4.3 Positive Deviance Approach………36
5. Methodology……….……..……..39
5.1 Three Approaches to Research……….…………...40
5.2 Sample Selection and Data Collection ………...……….41
5.3 Data Analysis………..………...43
5.4 Ethical Considerations………..…………...44
Q.1 How was social and community-based PV production utilised on a remote basis for
promoting advocacy during the pandemic in Rhino Camp?………....……...45
Communicative Affordances of Remote PV Process………...46
Portability……….46
Availability………...47
Multimediality………..48
Communicative Affordances of Remote PV for Enabling Advocacy………..50
Q.2 What unique local experiences and insights could refugees from Rhino Camp bring to bear on the problems caused by the coronavirus pandemic?……….………....56
7. Concluding Discussion………..………....61
7.1 Limitations………...63
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Stages of Producing PV………..21
Table 2: PV Messages on Hand Hygiene in Rhino Camp and the PD Approach………60
Figure 1: A Community Member from Rhino Camp Using the Tippy Tap……….57
Acknowledgements
I wish to take this opportunity to thank everyone whose assistance and support contributed greatly to the successful completion of this research study. First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Martina Ladendorf for her valuable discussions and prompt feedback throughout this thesis’ development. I would also like to thank Ylva Ekström who has encouraged my work from the very beginning and ignited my interest in participatory video as a research topic with various literature suggestions.
Furthermore, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the ReflACTION network and to the interviewees who have kindly accepted to participate in my research. Magdalene Amujal Ogwang, Ralf Otto and Simon Koolwijk thank you for introducing me to the new practice of remote participatory video and for your valuable input.
Last, but not least, my special gratitude and appreciation are reserved for my parents Ayşe Altan and İbrahim Altan for their continuous, loving support and patience throughout the years of my undergraduate and postgraduate degrees abroad, without which I would have not been able to achieve.
1. Introduction
1.1 The Coronavirus Pandemic and Emergence of Remote PV
World Health Organisation (WHO) defined coronaviruses (CoV) as “a large family of viruses which may cause illness in animals or humans. In humans, several coronaviruses are known to cause respiratory infections ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). (2020, para.1) The novel coronavirus disease was unknown before the outbreak began in Wuhan City, China. (WHO, 2020) Coronavirus disease 2019 was abbreviated as COVID-19 on 11th February 2020 by WHO. The burgeoning of the outbreak led to a global health crisis and was declared a pandemic on 11th March 2020. (WHO, 2020) Some of the main recommended preventive and control measures included performing frequent hand hygiene with soap and alcohol-based hand sanitisers, maintaining social distancing, wearing medical masks and quarantine.
The ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease poses a serious challenge to individuals, communities and governments across the globe not only in the domain of public health but also for other consequent social and economic issues. As the virus keeps spreading more threats and unprecedented challenges arise from the pandemic since it does not only aggravate already existing crises but also put people at danger, especially those who are already in at risk groups.
It has been witnessed on a global scale that COVID-19 has shook the foundations of many aspects of life that were taken for granted in the way that modern world is built. One of the pronounced changes that the pandemic has engendered to many countries has come with the prevention measures of shifting to remote work in order to secure occupational safety. Working from home with virtual meetings has now become commonplace and has led to discussions about the future of the modern workplace and whether online and remote work will also be a long-term approach for many. The impact of the virus on the scientific community was considerably negative with the closure of higher education institutions, laboratories and research centres. (Subramanya and Acharya, 2020) The academic and research activities were affected due to the spread of the virus. For instance, field work has become undesirable for many and suspended in some institutions as COVID-19 responses asserted that international
and national travel and personal contact were risky factors that increased the contamination of the virus.
The research design was finalised a few months into the coronavirus pandemic as it was found that there have been three examples of PV projects that were produced on a remote basis with groups of participants from Uganda, Turkey and Germany during the course of the pandemic. Despite the limited access to the field and a great deal of uncertainty due to the outbreak, remote PV practice has emerged as a way of amplifying community-led crisis response during the times of pandemic.
Hence, the thesis provides an overview of the remote PV process by drawing upon traditional PV process with the collected data on the making of the three remote PVs. Although, taking into account the richness of the qualitative data, the timeframe of the study and the comprehensiveness of each remote PV project, the study presents a single-case study based on the remote PV project titled Refugee COVID-19 Crisis Experience from Rhino Camp, Uganda.
1.2 Rhino Camp Refugee Settlement
Rhino Camp Refugee Settlement in West Nile which is home to 123,240 refugees mainly from South Sudan and Democratic Republic of the Congo Kongo. (UNHCR, 2018) Rhino Camp which was originally opened in 1980 expanded in the wake of the South Sudanese civil war to provide a settlement to host the sudden influxes of the refugees. (UNHCR, 2018) Rhino Camp located in Arua District has seven zones namely Ofua Zone, Omugo Zone, Ocea Zone, Odobu Zone, Siripi Zone, Tika Zone and Eden Zone.
As of January 2018, according to the situation report by The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), some of the gaps and challenges that were experienced within the Rhino Camp Refugee Settlement were as follows:
“Some areas of farming land provided to refugees are infertile and cannot support subsistence agricultural activities, impeding access to food and livelihoods” (UNHCR, 2018, p.1); “long distances to reach health facilities, which puts people with disabilities at a greater disadvantage to accessing health care” (UNHCR, 2018, p.1); shelters (tarpaulins in particular) and household non-food items (NFIs) such as saucepans, jerry cans, blankets, mattresses, and mosquito nets
initially received upon arrival are deteriorated in condition (UNHCR, 2018); and “few water sources and difficult to pump boreholes contribute to long waiting times for refugees to access water.” (UNHCR, 2018, p.1)
According to the telephone surveys with 30 South Sudanese and Congolese community leaders from ten most populous settlements of Uganda (including of Rhino Camp) conducted by Ground Truth Solutions (GTS), an international non-governmental organization, in April 2020, it could be said that these aforementioned difficulties and pre-existing issues in Rhino Camp were magnified during the COVID-19 pandemic. GTS’ (2020) report titled COVID-19 Insight from Refugee Community Leaders Uganda states:
For nearly all refugees in Uganda’s settlements the ability to make ends meet and acquire basic needs has decreased dramatically since March. Much of this is due to the World Food Programme’s 30 percent cutback in food distribution because of a funding shortfall, though the loss of jobs and income, camp leaders told GTS, has hit refugees hardest through COVID-19 preventative measures that restrict movement and require social distancing. (p.3)
It was also stated in the report that most of the refugees in the camps were more concerned about dying from starvation than dying from the coronavirus disease. (GTS, 2020) Apart from the inability of meeting essential needs due to 30% reduction in World Food Programme assistance as well as in jobs and incomes, some of the other statements from the refugee community leaders highlighted issues such as the difficulties in the communities to keep social distances and wearing facemasks, lack of emotional, financial, and food support from friends and family due to social distancing and loss of income. (GTS, 2020)
A team from Kulika Uganda, an independent Ugandan-registered NGO with the ReflACTION network conducted together a remote PV intervention in Rhino Camp in May 2020. The PV was filmed remotely with a volunteer from the refugee settlement to interview the participants on how COVID-19 affected them personally and as a community and record them with a mobile phone. The answers given by the refugees were also in alignment with the GTS’ report on the socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic on their lives and were further elaborated in the PV which will be discussed in the analysis section of the thesis. Before presenting the theoretical framework, the next chapter will firstly, explore the history and
development of PV processes and secondly, will take into consideration the broader context of ICT4D. In doing so it is aimed to provide a fundamental basis in understanding the significance and potential of the use of remote PV during the coronavirus pandemic.
2. Aim of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to attend to academic and practitioner accounts of participatory video (hereinafter PV) to seek under what conditions video can be used during a crisis situation. This is to explore the potential of the use of remote PV as a tool to guide in a desired direction that is deemed beneficial for its participants. The thesis seeks to understand the ways in which the remote practice of creating an audio-visual piece could be useful in the attempts of the participants to reach their goals of resilience during the pandemic. It is of particular interest to investigate the extent to which the deployment of remote PV practices and tools can foster awareness and empowerment of individuals and communities in developing participants’ agency to assert their rights and forge their own path in their respective environments in a development context.
Furthermore, the focus of the study lies on examining the existing patterns of using experiences and insights of the participants as the experts of their own lives which is what PV as a field has fundamentally built upon its practices. It is pursued to contribute further to consolidate the diverse area of practice of PV by situating remote PV within the developmental endeavours and conceptual frameworks through analysing the use of remote PV for understanding the impact of COVID-19 on distant refugee communities. The overarching objective of the study is to investigate the ways in which PV processes could be implemented on a remote basis as an innovative practice to ensure that the voices of those who are affected by emergencies can be enhanced during an already occurring crisis situation. In this regard, the research intends to answer the following research question:
Q. What significance and potential could the use of remote practice of civil society produced PV have during the coronavirus pandemic?
In order to answer this primary research question, secondary questions were formulated as follows:
Q.1 How was social and community-based PV production utilised on a remote basis for promoting advocacy during the pandemic in Rhino Camp?
Q.2 What unique local experiences and insights could refugees from Rhino Camp bring to bear on the problems caused by the coronavirus pandemic?
These questions underlie the work set forth in this thesis. In the following chapters, the questions will also be framed conceptually and theoretically in order to render context and methodological rigor as clearly as possible.
3. Literature Review
3.1 Three Time Frames for Participatory Video
“We live in an age of democratic experimentation—both in our official institutions and in the many informal ways in which the public is consulted. Many methods and technologies can be used to give voice to the public will.” (Fishkin, 2015, p.1)
As a medium, video is a powerful mediation tool for participatory development and social change. Over the decades, this audio-visual practice was used for a wide array of reasons. To name but a few, video was resorted to role model for giving voice to the voiceless, communicate with distant decision-making authorities and policy makers, resolve conflicts, to document realities and experiences for bringing about significant changes, to tell untold stories for preserving cultural roots and saving heritages of indigenous peoples and to find mutual understanding for collective action.
According to Milne (2016) PV, also known as community video, is “the use of filmic practices to engage and coproduce a conversation/research with people according to their interest and potential.” (p.402) Here the use of the word ‘potential’ and its connection to PV practices are especially imperative since PV is a unique process that has empowering connotations by increasing political capabilities of grassroot communities. (Milne, 2016) However, defining PV as a “less nebulous and more tangible” (Milne, 2016, p.402) method or methodology requires further research by exploring whether and how this potential is brought forward by the process of PV. For these purposes a better understanding of PV could be provided by presenting a brief
account of its history, existing or contemporary practices and the new practice of remote PV which is central to this study. Therefore, this section aims to locate PV practices in three different time frames in order to direct attention to PV’s evaluation over the years.
The Fogo Process
Most of the literature on participatory development communication such as White’s collection of essays PV: Images that Transform and Empower (2003) describe the first instance of the employment of video technology as the Fogo Process which was initiated and developed in the late 1960s in Fogo, an island off the northeast coast of Newfoundland. The experimental program in ethical documentary, Challenge for Change launched by The National Film Board of Canada’s (NFB) was a pioneer in the use of interactive film and video to implement social change and empower people in far remote places and in underdeveloped locations. The Board and the Memorial University of Newfoundland of Canada provided the secluded communities with the equipment for filming and video recording to “create a collective image of themselves and their social problems.” (Crocker, 2003, p.59) The Fogo Process is the original inspiration for the techniques that are in use today for PV practices. Therefore, in order to provide a more thorough understanding of PV, it is imperative to dilate on how the Fogo Process had successfully deployed film and video to meet the challenges of ‘information poverty’ and enabled the islanders to ‘cognitively map’ their own personal vision of social reality. (Crocker, 2008)
In the following section, a summary will be presented of a four-part seminar given by Tony Williamson of Memorial University in 1991 and videotaped by Fred Campbell, one of the founders of the grassroots communications company named Ryakuga, in which Williamson presents a narrative of Fogo Process:
The process in using film and video as a people-centred community development method which has become known throughout the world as the Fogo Process was initiated and pioneered by Don Snowden who was the director of the extension service for the late mid 1960s until the mid 1970s. The field service and extension consisted of three people who were not academics, however, were from rural Newfoundland with a great knowledge of the area.
“Doing social development in the 60s was in some ways a piece of cake because the issues were so apparent and there was so little being done.” (Ryakuga Collaborative, 2012, Part 1, 01:49) In its rural places, Newfoundland was still having many difficulties such as not having broadcast television, reliable radio reception. Poor and non-existent roads were a persistent problem in many places. Community councils were fairly new as only few major communities beyond St. John’s Grand Falls in Corner Brook had municipal government. Due to the problems that Rural Newfoundland facing at that time about the lack of having service, the smaller communities were under threat of a federal provincial program, offering enticements for people to move to growth centres as a solution. Therein lied the risk for the locals being left with no other choice but to accept the resettlement grant and move to a growth centre.
In the meantime, the National Film Board of Canada was funded to explore poverty related issues and for this purpose the Challenge for Change program sent their one of their most famous filmmakers to Newfoundland, Colin A. Low, to produce a film on rural poverty. In the island there were 5,000 people within ten communities. Besides of the situation of the locals being under pressure of relocating, the interesting and productive history of the island was promising for improvements and opportunities for development as the islanders already had some experience with the Fisherman’s Union and Cooperatives. Therefore, Fogo Island was chosen as their location for the documentary as it was a microcosm of the rest of Newfoundland.
Fogo Process signified a demarcation of its PV from traditional film documentary in its two stages namely, the production and screening. This departure had begun by Colin Low and his crew spending a substantial amount of time familiarising themselves with the islanders. Their very first video was a 15-minute short film called “The Children of Fogo Island”. During the production children were filmed when they were just playing with their handmade toys. Colin Low’s deliberate decision of not traditionally maintaining absolute control over the film set the tone for the other films produced on the island which were independent of any script and with very little scenery. In the videos people would not just talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the island but also every aspect of their daily lives. They would share their opinions concerning social roles and norms and discuss local issues. Instead of merging all the audio-visual material into a full-length film, Low decided to leave them as 10 to 15-minute modules. At the end of the filming process there were in total twenty-eight of these modules in black and white film that presents the society and the culture of Fogo Island. Furthermore, at the stage of screening in the fall of 1967, the film was first and foremost, shown to the participants that were
in the video and to the rest of the people of Fogo Island rather than a screening primarily organised for the Canadian public by distribution offices as it is usually done with traditional film.
This screening process made a significant contribution to build cohesion and consensus within the community in three respects. Firstly, despite their lack of education and belief that they had some valuable knowledge, they realised that they were keen on various topics and articulate about their issues concerning the island as a whole. In Williamson’s (1991) words:
They said we don't know anything. We have no learning and then they blow you away with their knowledge and obvious intelligence. But they didn’t appreciate this because they had always with cap on hand, as they said on film, bowed to the [church] minister or bowed to the [fish] merchant or bowed to the government. (Ryakuga Collaborative, 2012, Part 1, 09:58)
Hence, people who had watched themselves on the screen for the first time as a collective with other locals started to see themselves in a different light. Thus, the process was a boost of confidence and encouragement for the people to keep sharing their opinions with others. Secondly, in watching themselves people could also see more plainly the internal conflicts within their community where each of them claimed and wanted different solutions. They came to realise that “If we looked at ourselves as an island community, we might get a lot farther than looking at ourselves as ten separate settlements.” (Ryakuga Collaborative, 2012, Part 1, 11:29)
Secondly, as this particular screening process was used as a tool and a conduit for constructive debate, it prompted people to come up with strategies and solutions. For instance, the islanders suggested to have a high school right in the middle of the island instead of in this or that community, then nobody would be jealous of one another. They thought they could repair their roads and get to the high school. In addition, the motel that was located in the centre became the focus of the island’s development activities. Therefore, video in this regard become an effective vehicle for an overall growth process and social change, in the hands of community development social workers.
It is noteworthy to also mention that people who were in the film primarily were consulted to confirm that there was not anything that was damaging in the film to each other or themselves.
Thus, getting their full consent became built in the process and formalized after individuals’ approval of screening certain content and persons elsewhere was acquired. So that, people could increase their reliance in the process and manipulation of personal lives would be prevented completely. According to Williamson (1991):
That is very important for maintaining trust because film or video is very easy to manipulate. And broadcast media does it all the time with very little regard to whether they're hurting what is usually a very delicate social web in a community. You can get somebody saying something pretty bad about somebody else and destroy them very easily, especially when you use it in the mass media, as we have now and today. (Ryakuga Collaborative, 2012, Part 2, 02:33)
The third relatively new aspect of the films were after the screening, they were brought to St. John’s. Newfoundland and Labrador which was the position of power. The films were shown to the cabinet members in the Newfoundland government. Before screening took place however, there was a tension between the president of Memorial University at the time, Joe Smart, versus the vice president, the deans and the director of extension about the consequences of showing the films might result in aggravation and budget cuts or the director being dismissed. However, the videos have made rather a great impression with their strength and striving for the economic development of the island that the provincial cabinet decided to collaborate in a partnership with the people of Fogo. So that they offered their assistance in order to build the high school in the centre of the island to develop a fishing and boatbuilding cooperatives instead of proceeding with the resettlement program. Despite their failing endeavours and bankruptcy in marketing their own products the island continued to have a reasonably economic stability and the cooperatives continued to advance.
In part three of the video seminar by Ryakuga Collaborative (2012), Williamson (1991) continues to explain in the early 1970s, the impact of the Fogo method including their projections at individual screenings on other locations and regions. Snowden and his colleagues began to deploy the participatory community development project outside of the province, at first taking it to places such as Farmersville, California and to an Inuit Village in Alaska—The Sky River Project—respectively. In the late 1970s, the use of film and video as a social change catalyst had begun to be used in the developing world. It was also applied in several countries in Asia and Africa. Snowden particularly spent four years in India. Snowden died in 1984 in
Hyderabad, in south-central India. (Iglauer, 1984, p.65) Don Snowden Centre for Development Support resumed and extended his fieldwork in India, Nepal, Zanzibar and in Thailand. In part four of the video seminar after projecting some of the participatory films, Williamson (1991) describes some of the videos as poetry with an eloquent quality, emphasising the importance in realising that “out there in the hinterland there are wonderful [and] exciting people with ideas of their own and it is true anywhere in the world.” (Ryakuga Collaborative, 2012, 08:16) According to C. Lunch (2006) and N. Lunch (2006) ever since, “there has been no uniform movement to promote and practice PV, but different individuals and groups have set up pockets of participatory video work, usually moulding it to their particular needs and situations.” (p.11)
The historical background narrative of Fogo Process outlines the objectives and foundations that PV processes of today have gradually built upon ever since. The forerunner of PV demonstrates how the practice could bring governmental power into a dialogue and construct a public sphere for social change. Having said that, PV is more than vertical communication with policy makers. It is a catalyst of sociocultural animation (SCA) for all the actors of the video that carries various motivations behind part-taking in the films. In other words, people engage with each other in this collective process to “bring forward their ability to be agents of social and cultural development”. (Montez, 2018, p.355) For instance, as it is understood from the Fogo Process, PV practices can also lead to an awareness stage that enables people to gain assertiveness and political capabilities to speak up for their rights and demands. It could be said that the videos are used with the means of developing social transformation, cultural awareness and life-long education. (Montez, 2018) Thereby, PV is a multi-layered process with an intersubjective diversity that should be further explored under different themes and its stages of production.
Contemporary PV Process
Before remote PV is conceptualised this section will attempt to outline the production stages of the contemporary PV process by drawing from various literature sources and guidelines. The purpose of explaining the five stages of PV processes as pre-production, production, post-production, community screening and publicity is to demonstrate the ways in which the stages of the new form of remote PV production have emerged and adapted from the existing practice of PV which will be further elaborated in the presentation and analysis of results chapter of the thesis.
According to Crocker (2003) participatory media developments such as the Fogo Island project ought to be understood in consideration of sociocultural issues caused by the globalisation of socio-economic life. PV projects to this day still shares the main objective of the Fogo Process, which is bringing people together to find a voice, tell their stories and express their knowledge. As mentioned earlier, when done well PV can become powerful means of enabling people to become agents of change and documenting geographical knowledge. It represents the ‘inside view’ with, if not all, the most important aspects of their lived reality (as agreed amongst group participants) in a community that is accessible to people at all levels. (C. Lunch and N. Lunch, 2006) Therefore, the practices of PV are often adopted to address social issues in community contexts by various organisations for individual and community development. In particular, non-government organizations (NGOs) increasingly utilize participatory films to offer local perspectives on human rights violations, gender inequality and governance issues. (Singh et al., 2017)
Over the last fifty years PV has evolved to have a rich diversity of application and purpose and PV has become one of the most prevalent methods in the milieu of participatory communication. (Bao, 2020) In the past decade, as an innovative participatory visual method, PV has immensely grown in popularity as a social and community-based tool for increasing the agency of participants and inclusion of their joint exploration in topics of shared concern (Luttrell and Chalfen 2010 as cited in Milne, 2016) in the research processes and in particular within development projects.
PV practices have been applied in various disciplines to address site specific concerns such as social, political, economic and ecological issues. The existing practice of PV ranges across a broad spectrum of approaches from political activism and community organising to international development and education in distinct forms and in considerably varied settings. (Walker, 2018) PV practices are apparent in a number of contexts, promoted by various different organizations which have significantly contributed in disseminating what can be achieved with PV. For instance, at an international level UNDP (United Nations Development Program) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) have consistently used PV to promote activities in community-based development and awareness-raising initiatives by reporting findings in evaluation reports in a systematic way that helped to increase the profile of PV in global socio-political context. (Montero Sánchez & Moreno Domínguez, 2015)
A number of reasons behind the wide-spread use of PV could be drawn from the different components of the PV process. Among those, perhaps one of the most prominent incentive was the increasing accessibility of home video equipment. Camcorders have become more affordable, easy to use and smaller to operate with the advancements in technology development. In addition to its convenient use, the flexible quality of the PV process enabled the practitioners to apply PV in many different circumstances without having to follow strict and fixed guidelines. Nonetheless, the unrestricted and open process of PV is carried out without exceeding PV’s fundamental characteristic of involving the authorship of the participant individuals themselves in a truly participatory and democratic manner. (C. Lunch and N. Lunch, 2006) Moreover, the medium of video allows for the message to be easily shared and transferred without any alterations other than some that the participant group may find appropriate to exclude from their video.
There is a myriad of contexts and places in which PV was implemented for over several decades however, the rising tide of the immersion of PV as a model of development communication adequate literature that critically engages with PV projects. As also emphasised by Mitchell et al. (2012) while PV approaches have been used in community development research for many decades, its practices underpinning the methodology remain under-studied. (as cited in Hilario, 2018) According to Montero Sánchez and Moreno Domínguez (2015) “[T]he landscape of PV is sketchy; in spite of very valuable efforts, generally speaking it lacks clear points of reference, systematic approaches and even in-depth observation and assessment of PV experiences.” (p.3)
Drawing on the arguments of Low et al. (2012), Milne also (2016) notes that while there is an attempt of developing a more analytical and investigative tone for understanding the connection between PV and empowerment and transformation, scholarly work is often ‘celebratory’ and ‘descriptive’: “In such accounts, PV is almost unilaterally regarded as an unequivocal means to empowerment and engagement.” (p.401) These common assumptions underlying the approach of PV can be considered a point of departure in academic research however, it should not be taken-for-granted as previous research on this matter is criticised for having a limited approach by habitually attempting to validate PV as “a methodologically sound, scientific practice.” (Montero Sánchez & Moreno Domínguez, 2015, p.4) Therefore, existing research into PV projects indicates that further critical engagement with its practices is warranted within the pragmatic scholarship that takes into consideration the social experiences. Thus, in order to investigate the difficult task of understanding the meaning of PV, one needs to pose the
questions of what works and to what end in the course of making a PV. Thereupon, taking into account Milne’s (2016) advice for those who are engaging with PV in their academic research, the thesis strives for being “critically reflexive, grounded in feminist/emancipatory epistemologies [for investigating PV practices] as a means to advocate for social change.” (p.402) In this regard, the first step in obtaining a better grasp of PV would be to acknowledge the distinction between PV as process and PV as product.
The dichotomy between process of production and final product i.e. the actual video would seem to appear in many scholarly sources on PV (e.g. Kawaja 1994). According to White (2003), however it may seem a simple difference drawing a distinction between these two aspects of PV is in fact a complex proposition. As White (2003) continues to describe, video as a process could be regarded as a tool for enabling interaction and encouraging self-expression and self-involvement. On the other hand, video as a product becomes a historical fact, “an artefact of community and culture” (White, 2003, p.66) for future generations. The distinction should not be regarded as two poles apart since both the process and the product are integral parts of PV projects for more equitable relations and community-led change. For instance, Kawaja (1994) refers to PV as ‘process video’ and states that “As the term implies, this type of production is part of a continuum that does not have an easily defined beginning, middle and end.” (pp.132-133) Therefore, the significance of analysing PV projects on the topic at hand both as process and product as a whole manifest itself in an ongoing relationship between all actors interested and involved in practices of PV. Kawaja (1994) distinctively describes these intertwined relationships and their significance as:
Meaning resides in the social and political context of each individual; the social and political reality that is created or constructed from their coming together; the individual’s and the group’s ongoing relationships with the final product; and finally, the relationship between the viewer, the material product, and the presenters [or] participants. (p.133)
Hence, it could be said that while it is important to acknowledge the differences between PV as process-oriented practice and product produced, strictly viewing PV as one or the other would not necessarily be the most appropriate approach. This is because a project can focalise the process of production, the video itself or both. (Huber, 1999) According to High et al. “With PV as with any practice, scholarship has a role to play in terms of providing a platform for
considered and critical reflection, a space to consider the significance of what is and of what could be.” (2012, p.3) A study as such would require identifying and specifying the aspects of the course of using the audio-visual medium to project a reality with its own set of historical and cultural circumstances and later on investigate how these endeavours are translated into consequent desired outcomes. In this sense PV still remains in need of serious attention since only a few scholarly contributions approached the subject matter from a distinctive analytical perspective. (Montero Sánchez & Moreno Domínguez, 2015) The main focus here, therefore, ought to be to analyse the miscellaneous practices of PV for what they promote and how to apply the knowledge gained through the experiences elsewhere. (High et al., 2012)
While there is not a consensus as to what constitutes PV, (Mitchell et al., 2012, White 2003 as cited in Milne, 2016) in its broad sense, it is “a tool for the individual, group and community development and as an iterative process, whereby community members use video to document innovations and ideas, or to focus on issues that affect their environment.” (Cohen et al., 2008 as cited in Corneil, 2012, p.19)
Even though, the ways of ‘doing’ a PV might differ in practice, it is possible to outline some of the common elements of the process in a form of elaborate “how to” guides or as a toolkit such as produced by Roberts and Lunch (2015) It could be said that the contemporary practice of PV has come to be constituted of six main stages: pre-production, production, post-production and (community) screening and distribution (optional) which are along the lines of the key phases of a film production. The ways in which these stages encapsulate the logistics and process of PV as a whole are retrieved from various literature including the works of C. Lunch and N. Lunch (2006), Benest (n.d.) and Roberts and Lunch (2015). Accordingly, the common stages within different strands of PV are explained in detail and some of the possible methods that are deployed in the PV productions are outlined in the next page as follows:
Table 1 - Stages of Producing PV
Pre-Production
Skill-Leaning
Facilitator/team arrives with the essential camera equipment
Facilitating group conversation with participants about social issues concerning them
Participants learn how to operate the video equipment (camera, tripods, sound, lighting) rapidly with exercises and games (e.g., sitting in a circle and becoming accustomed to the basic functions of the camera)
Consensus building
Discussions with the group take place to determine the topic of the short film
Production-planning
Participants collaborate in creative activities such as producing a storyboard/script to stimulate ideas and outline their story
Production
Learning-by-doing
Shot Type Challenge: Practicing with the camera by experimenting with camera angles and different shot types (e.g., Extreme Long Shots, Long Shots, Medium Shots, Close Ups, and the Extreme Close Up)
Chatting: Two or more people discussing a cause or an event with the presence of camera in an informal and relaxed manner
Mapping Trends Trial Interviews: Participants interview community members on topical issues
Production management
Participants create their film by building up on the filming exercises and techniques
Post-Production
In-camera-editing
Exercises and games encourage planning and preparing between the shots instead of freestyle recording producing lengthy and unnecessary footage Using two cameras and choosing the most relevant and useful footage is also an option for a more direct and shorter screening
Showing rough footage selected by participants and facilitators with forwarding and rewinding to locate particular scenes which is due to the process being time consuming it requires an engaged and patient audience
Computerised editing
Choosing to get a local editor, who is sensitive to the process and objectives of PV, on board is also another option if it is decided that the film could be shown to other kinds of audiences such as policymakers, NGOs and more broadly to international fora
The difference between for instance, a documentary film and a PV, as it will become clearer in the analysis part of the thesis, lies in the course of authoritative decision-making with regard to the production of the film. In other words, documentaries are mostly “authored products of the filmmaker” (C. Lunch and N. Lunch, 2006, p.10) whereas PV is delivered without a predetermined script. In contrast to documentaries, PV is less concerned with aesthetical elements and standards since the content is valued more than its visual appearance. Additionally, documentaries might be planned to be produced with a wide-reaching audience in mind whereas, PV projects are for particular audiences made with certain intentions.
PV facilitators could also go through a quick and easy basic editing training for this stage of production
Table.1 (continued) Collective sense-making
The facilitator could have the editorial control however, participants tell the editor what should and should not be included in the video
Community Screening
Organising screenings
After the film is ready, a community screening is organised with the help of the facilitation team (e.g., setting the date, selecting a venue, assessing any potential risks, contacting and inviting relevant authorities, promoting the screening)
Audiences
Footage or the film is shown to the wider community at daily screenings also if the PVis calling for change and direct action it is important to encourage decision-makers and duty-bearers to join the screenings
Panel discussion with Q&A
Audience engage with and discuss the issues and key questions raised in the videos
Closing statements
Summary of the main points raised in the video is given and discussions are facilitated with the audience
Publicity
Transparency & Local Ownership
Discussing ownership issues and procedures for usage of all documentation taken for further screenings such as for international conferences, local and national policymakers, local NGOs and universities
Informed
consent from all contributors
Communicating with the filmmakers about this stage of the process and asking them for their explicit permission for showing their film to other audiences
Distribution
If the prior and fully informed consent is obtained from all participants, the videos can be used long after the completion of the programme depending on their answer whether the film can be shown locally, globally or not be shown at all
Before PV could follow these stages (see Table 1), there is also a teaching and guiding process that has to be established which could be categorised in the pre-production stage. During the training process, women, men and young participants are thought how to use the filming equipment by incorporating a variety of games and exercises by the PV facilitators or a team of practitioners. It is aimed to invite the participants to learn the basic video-making techniques in a fun, collaborative and harmless manner. (Richardson-Ngwenya et al., 2019)
Remote PV Process
As the name suggests the difference between remote PV and the known practice of PV seems to be self-explanatory and quite clear. However, the difference being that the former is a community development practice of PV conducted on a remote basis does foreground a number of open questions of how and why regarding its modus operandi. Understanding how PVs could be conducted without face-to-face meetings and trainings could open up possibilities for this promising practice of community video to be deployed in other crisis situations. For this purpose, the traditional way of conducting PV will be considered for a thorough understanding of how the PV process were altered to take place on a remote basis during the global pandemic.
As mentioned before due to the flexible quality of the PV process there is not a ‘prescribed’ way of conducting a PV project. Therefore, the description of PV within its contemporary use will be informed by one of the interviewees, Simon Koolwijk who is a planning, monitoring, evaluation and learning expert, facilitator and film coach with over 20 years of experience in international development.
The stages of PV process which can be followed during the course of five to eight days usually commences with an NGO or a project organisation expressing their interest and needs in deploying PV. A project team is initially assembled by deciding who will be involved in the humanitarian intervention process which is desirably a mixed team and could consist of facilitator(s), organisation members, researchers and government officials who play an important role. The project team arrives with camera equipment to the location that the project takes place. After the necessary preparations of signing the contract and getting permissions from the community to film are done the first session begins in order to collect stories to understand the most pressing issue within the community and building ideas for the film. During these sessions the topic is defined, and the actors/participants of the PV identify whom
they would like to interview for the film. In the second stage, participants learn the basic skills and techniques of camera operation and interviewing as well as finding the right locations for the filming.
The third stage is the production stage where filming takes place with usually ten people in groups each interviewing the key actors in the community. The next step is editing which can be done by the NGO after they learn the skills or the facilitator with the help of a local translator. The following meetings are done with the editor and participants regarding the review of the compilation of the footage. The review of the footage is particularly important since during the editing stage it is possible to identify the issues that are the most important and also to discuss the key insights of the film. The last stage of the process is the presentation of the film not only to the participants but also to the community members. In addition, the community screening involves the project organisation as well as local government officials in order to initiate dialogue with the whole community.
In the context of participatory research and monitoring and evaluation processes PV is deployed as a methodology to document issues, ideas, progress and innovations within a community. The community-led practice could hypothetically be applied in any situation that as a means of relaying messages between groups and individuals that might otherwise never meet. In relation to the topic of the thesis it could be said that for crisis situations PV is often used as a tool in the aftermath of a crisis situation or in post-conflict settings for a wide range of purposes such as peace and consensus-building and in the broader sense to collect unique qualitative data for development projects and programmes.
On the other hand, the remote PV was emerged during the online meetings initiated by the independent and collaborative network of ReflACTION with different organisations. One of the interviewees Ralf Otto, the co-initiator of the initiative and one of the facilitators of the threefold project ‘Refugee Stories in Times of COVID-19’ elucidated on the inception of the project and how it was enabled by the new remote PV during the pandemic. The following paragraphs on the matter were composed in light of the information received from both of the facilitators:
On April 15th, 2020 ReflACTION organised an online meeting in order to share and exchange information about the coronavirus crisis and what it signified for community led response. The
main questions posed to the organisations were along the lines of What is happening in the countries where you are working with the crisis-affected communities?, How has COVID-19 impacted the work of the NGOs? and What is the current situation telling you and what should we do about it? It was stated during the interview that in this meeting there were approximately 20 people who came together to discuss the current situation and the difficulties and the uncertainty that accompanied the pandemic in the countries where the participant organisations were located. The project started with the common agreement to deepen these discussions and further explore local responses to the global crisis. The aim was to hear the stories of vulnerable groups about the ways that they were coping with the hardships caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Nonetheless, since the pandemic has disrupted human activities worldwide conducting participatory projects that require proximity and travelling to different places in were not a possibility under the conditions of the pandemic in terms of fieldwork accessibility. The idea was elaborated and initiated as:
It is now difficult to reach our beneficiaries [and] the communities where we work. What is a way that we can still hear their stories and get in touch with them?....We have to stay at home….[but] we can still make phone calls and communicate with our mobiles and ask the refugees to shoot some interviews themselves. (S. Koolwijk, personal communication, July 15, 2020)
The remote PV team consisted of three organizations namely Kulika Uganda, Handicap International (Germany) and Welthungerhilfe (Turkey) which are part of the ReflACTION initiative. The team went into an 9-week intervention process which included Zoom meetings of 2 hours at least once a week. During the meetings the various aspects of the projects were planned such as research and the story developments. Also, a basic training was given by Simon Koolwijk to the organization members from each 3 countries during the Zoom meetings.
The organization members have then established communication with the refugees and found the participants of each PV project. Thereon, the participants were trained by the organization members based on the training they have received during the online sessions. The refugees were asked to record themselves via mobile phones answering a few questions regarding the impact of COVID-19 on their lives. After the groundwork of the project was laid, a trial-and-error process had started in order to provide feedback on the footage in terms of sound, lights and camera techniques via the regular online meetings during this production stage. Firstly, based
on the basic filming training the participants would do the shooting and afterwards they would send the footage over to the local organizations. During the weekly online group meetings organization members then, would be provided feedback and recommendations on the footage they had received. For instance, if there was a need for the background or lighting to be improved, or if the sound needed to be fixed or re-recorded. This feedback would be communicated to the refugees i.e. the local PV makers in order for them to improve their interviews and footage and this process would repeat itself until all interviews were completed and until there were no longer any technical obstacles to view or understand the produced audio-visual clips. Within three weeks all the footage acquired from Uganda, Germany and Turkey was translated and sent with their English sub-titles to Simon Koolwijk who has done the editing of all films. Starting with the compilation of the first draft i.e. rough cut, the PV team continued their feedback sessions regarding the edits of the PVs. The three films were recently shared on the network’s YouTube channel called ReflACTION Voices to Choices along with a short informative video about the making-off of the films where all organization members and facilitators reflected on the process of initiating the PV projects on a remote basis. Furthermore, the films were shared in a festival that took place online via a Zoom video conference.
3.2 ICT4D and Remote PV
Independent Evaluation Service (IES) of the Independent Evaluation and Audit Services of UN Women (IEAS) published a document titled Pocket Tool for Managing Evaluation during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to ensure that data collection and gender-responsive evaluation1 or research are done by the fundamental requirement of ‘do no harm’. (UN Women, 2020) In other words, the pocket tool is a practical guideline to determine the best course of action in the context of COVID-19 for the evaluation by prioritising to protect the aid evaluation team and others who are at risk of infection. (UN Women, 2020)
It is a complicated task to explain the meaning of remote PV and how it works since first and foremost, it is a comparatively new practice in the field and secondly, since it is so much as difficult to define the existing practice of PV which is under-theorised and under-critiqued. (Milne, Mitchell & de Lange 2012) Nonetheless, UN Women (2020) suggests (remote) PV as a COVID-19 adapted data collection method which is the closest description that has been
found to be in line with the context of this research in terms of how the practice could and ought to be used:
You will need adequate resources, including a facilitator to explain the process and, as necessary, train the participants in how to use their phone to take…videos that tell a story. You may need to provide resources to participants such as data to be able to send…videos via mobile phone. Participatory…video submission relies on “storytellers putting their opinions, experiences and feelings into their stories”. For many participants, this may be a challenging exercise as it requires a certain level of vulnerability. Facilitators must ensure that participants feel safe and respected in order to encourage open sharing and discussion. (p.11)
With this brief explanation of remote PV followed by the authors’ advice and caveats on how to implement the practice, the facilitating and filming aspects of the process highlights the significance of ICT4D tools in accessing COVID-19 responses and challenges from crisis-affected individuals and community groups.
The interdisciplinary field of ICT4D combining information systems, science and technology studies and international development (Roberts, 2016) explores the ways in which technologies such as cell phones, computers and the Internet can be productive of global socio-economic development. The importance of ICT4D as a field of study could be traced back to the report of “Many Voices, One World” more commonly known as “The MacBride Report” which was commissioned by UNESCO in 1980. (Joseph, 2013) The report contained the main international problems in communication and their suggested solutions which addressed the long-lasting debate on the need for a New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO). (Calabrese, 2005) The political proposal is deemed to be ground-breaking for addressing ongoing discussions such as the nature of communications media and its integration in society emerging from international debates that had been ongoing since the 1970s. (Mansell and Nordenstreng, 2006; Sarikakis, 2015). It has become a milestone in the history of global debates regarding communication issues (Padovani, 2015) such as the power and control of dominant communication corporations (WACC, n.d.) and thus, its influence on efforts worldwide to create a more fair and equitable system of information flow. (Kuo and Xiaoge, 2005) Satellite technology was seen as an advancement that would promote greater media coverage and affordable and improved access to communication services. (Mansell and Nordenstreng, 2006)
Certainly, ever since the MacBride Report was published there had been significant changes in global politics and global communication (Calabrese, 2005) with the hopes that the Internet, digitisation and technological convergence will enable ICTs to contribute to alleviate the inequalities to reduce the levels of economic inequalities. (Mansell and Nordenstreng, 2006)
At the launch of the United Nations Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Task Force in 2001 UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that:
Information and communications technologies are not a panacea or a magic bullet. But they are without a doubt enormously powerful tools for development. One of the most pressing challenges in the new century is to harness this extraordinary force, spread it throughout the world, and make its benefits accessible and meaningful for all humanity, in particular the poor. (para.4)
The high interest in the potential of ICT enabled development both through its role in economic growth as well as through the empowerment of poverty-stricken people and communities has led to the expansion of ICT4D activities. (2009, Unwin) ICTs for development has evolved over the years comprising of significant amount of work that encompasses the broad spectrum of the rapidly changing fields of international development work and technology that goes into it. Before taking into consideration the technology and development aspects in the ICT4D equation, the first part of the acronym the complex social process of information and communication flow between different stakeholders should be understood in order to determine what kind of technologies would be the most valuable and effective in each context. In contrast to the traditional one-way communication approaches that highlight the lack of agency of marginalised people which are increasingly less favoured in the research for development field, PV can be seen as a channel that opens a two-way communication process between researchers and marginalised communities. (Koningstein and Azadegan, 2018) This two-way communication model that is deployed in PV practices and in participatory development communication in general are explicitly described by Nair and White (1987) as a “dynamic interaction, between ‘grassroots’ receivers and the ‘information’ source, mediated by development communicators, which facilitates participation of the ‘target group’ in the process of development.” (as cited in White, 2003, p.36)
The idea that ICTs can promote development is debated over technological determinism and social shaping with some scholars arguing that it should not be seen as a development solution whereas others being in favour of the link between ICTs and development. Amongst these contested views there are also attempts in identifying the factors that enable ICT4D. According to the World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends, digital divide persists in spite of the fast spread of digital technologies with “more than 800 million people lack mobile access worldwide, and 4.3 billion lack internet access (p.104) Technologies created gaps between developed and developing countries in terms of transitioning to a knowledge-based information society. Hence, the term ‘digital divide’ is coined to refer to these gaps regarding uneven distribution in access and usage of information and communication technologies. Especially, the internet as one of the examples of the diffusion and adoption of technology has diffused unevenly across countries which raises concerns over an increasing digital divide. (Milner, 2006) In order to close the digital divide between the rich world and the poor the WB Development Report (2016) emphasises the importance of working on ‘analog complements’ as one of their main conclusions for obtaining the most out of the development promises of the new digital age. Therefore, it is substantial to understand how technology interacts with other factors that are important for development. A strong analog foundation for digital technologies to benefit everyone and everywhere could be established by for instance, strengthening regulations and by ensuring that institutions are accountable. (WB, 2016) The second main suggested action of the WB Digital Dividends Report (2016) is making the internet universally accessible, affordable, open and safe which is also one of the targets in Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
In developing regions, mobile devices are ubiquitous among individual, government, development agencies and civil society organisations. (Svensson and Larsson, 2015) In so called developing regions, mobile phones are the most common form of ICTs that are used by development initiatives. (Svensson and Larsson, 2015) M4D as a more specific subarea to the field of ICT4D which refers to the use of mobile phones in global development strategies. M4D is considered ‘vehicles for development’ which is based largely on an economic understanding of development and a technological determinism bias. (Svensson and Larsson, 2015) According to Svensson and Larsson (2015), within the multidisciplinary field of ICTs integrating numerous technologies, “the mobile phone has clearly emerged as the front-runner in this conglomeration of technologies, with many perpetuating its explosion due to its affordance.” (p.27)
The affordances of mobile devices today compared to the early cell phones have expanded and shifted from merely being verbal communication tools to multimedia tools such as smartphones and tablets. This shift has occurred with internet capabilities and features such as taking videos and photos viewing, storing, replaying and transmitting information (Heeks & Jagun, 2007 as cited in Svensson and Larsson, 2015) Drawing on Klopfer and Squire (2008), the five affordances of these devices were outlined as “portability, social interactivity (collaboration), context sensitivity (gathering real or simulated data), connectivity (to data collection devices, other handhelds, networks) and individuality.” (Shraim and Crompton, 2015, p.166) These characteristics emerging with the proliferations in technology have presented opportunities in achieving development purposes by using the mobile phone such as mHealth for promoting health-related interventions in developing regions.
The topic of remote PV practice and its implications on crisis or emergency situations is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon. Having situated the research within the wider context of ICT4D, the next section will present the relevant theoretical framework to outline and discuss the emergence and importance of remote PV in the course of COVID-19 pandemic.
4. Theoretical Framework 4.1 Theory of Affordances
First coined and developed by ecological psychologist James J. Gibson (1979), the concept of an affordance is described to be a theory of meaning “related to perceptions of the utility of an object drawn from environmental cues.” (Schrock, 2015, p.1230) An affordance was conceptualised to be triggered by “the particular ways in which an actor, or set of actors, perceives and uses [an] object.” (Gibson, 1986, p. 145) The term affordance was appropriated in the field of technology design in 1988 by Donald A. Norman. Norman emphasises that an affordances perspective could provide “strong clues for the operation of things” (2002, p.9), and used the term to signify technological aspects that invites, allows or enables a user to act in a certain way. (Roberts, 2016) The term has been applied in diverse ways across different fields—cognitive psychology, industrial design, human-computer interaction (HCI) and communication studies to name but a few which has revealed various underlying concepts and divergent meanings. The use of affordances in the context of this thesis, is driven by an interest in exploring the relationship
between affordances and possible action which is often built on the concept of “social affordances”. (Schrock, 2015)
In the framework of communication technology, Boase (2008) states that the approach of social affordance enables researchers to consider the ways in which “the intrinsic properties of communication technologies may factor into their adoption and use without making the technological deterministic assumption that these properties directly impact users.” (p.4) The example provided in relation to this description is particularly relevant to the third sub-research question of the thesis on the social affordances of remote PV, as Boase (2008) states:
The telephone affords individuals the ability to communicate with distant ties that would be difficult to contact otherwise. When individuals have numerous distant ties that they would like to quickly get a hold of, they use the space-transcending affordance of the telephone to meet their communication demands. (p.4)
This description and similar accounts that situate affordances within human communication research and take into account both perception and outcomes of affordances (Gaver, 1996; Hogan, 2009; Boyd, 2010 as cited in Schrock, 2015) highlight the relationship between technologies, its users and its social context. It has been put to use to understand the “mutuality of actor intentions and technology capabilities that provide the potential for a particular action.” (Majchrzak, Faraj, Kane, & Azad, 2013, p.39 as cited in Schrock, 2015, p.1230) Therefore, in order to understand the ways in which PV was translated into a remote practice, it is important to explore which aspects or properties of technology enabled the participants of the video to be invited to act in a particular way and allowed for “particular action possibilities for development.” (Lunch and Roberts, 2016, p.3)
Following this logic, first and foremost this study could benefit from Schrock’s (2015) formulation of an analytical typology associated with communicative affordances of mobile media such as smartphones and tablets that typically integrate a microphone and camera. Schrock (2015) takes an affordances approach to demonstrate the ways in which mobile-media can potentially “alter the form and function of communication.” (p.1230) Whilst taking into account different perspectives deploying affordances, Schrock (2015) focuses on an area of communication and conceptualises communicative affordances as “an interaction between
subjective perceptions of utility and objective qualities of the technology that alter communicative practices or habits.” (p.1232)
Communicative affordances is chosen to be relevant to the thesis inquiry as it is an empirical research-oriented concept which encompasses more than a mere account of technological features and operating systems of mobile devices. According to Schrock (2015), “Communicative affordances likely do not create the goal an individual is trying to achieve. Rather, they enable a new way to accomplish it.” (p.1233) For instance, announcing the birth of a child via mail can be done with the broadcast affordances of social networking sites such as Facebook which is considerably a more efficient way of accomplishing the same goal.
Schrock (2015) elaborates on the specific qualities of mobile devices that affects communication and subsequent patterns of behaviour and outlines four key communicative affordances of mobile media, namely portability, availability, locatability and multimediality. Firstly, portability is the affordance of a mobile device to be used in different places and in different contexts. (Schrock, 2015) This communicative affordance was highlighted by Arnold (2003) as “the very point of the mobile phone’s affordances is that the user is able to move in the world.” (p. 243) Secondly, availability afforded by mobile communication offers the possibility of being online anywhere and all the time with diverse communication alternatives. This communicative affordance is described to be a combination of multiplexity (simultaneously available texting, voice calls, and social media to connect with people), direct contact (directness of communication as opposed to a landline phone) and increased frequency “of communication across different physical locations”). (Schrock, 2015, p.1237) Thirdly, the affordance of locatability was explained in relation to GPS technology inherent in mobile phones. It is stated that this affordance of mobile devices to know exact geographic location trigged curiosity on the possibility of location in delivering “new ways for individuals to form relationships and participate in place-making activities.” (de Souza e Silva & Frith, 2012 as cited in Schrock, 2015, p.1237) Last but not least, multimediality refers to the activity of taking pictures and videos through mobile devices which is defined as commonplace with the introduction of high-quality cameras. (Schrock, 2015) The significance of the increase in the use of digital cameras including the ones integrated in various other technological devices were emphasised by Van Dijck (2008) for being able to “favour the functions of communication.” (p.58) In relation, Schrock (2015) points out that “[t]he integration of cameras with connected devices corresponds with a rise in emotive (Hjorth, 2007) and
