MINISTERIO DE MODERNIZACIÓN

Video-making follows once the participants are trained. The intense process of making a video involves several steps, such as conceptualising, scripting, storyboarding, shooting, and editing. Each of these steps can support participants in building a different set of capabilities, from technical to creative to analytical. Individuals participating in video-making may gain experiences that promote confidence, leadership, active engagement with issues and a feeling of empowerment (Ruiz, 1994; Bery and Stuart; 1996; Underwood and Jabre, 2003).

One of the aspects of video-making is the ability to represent one’s self. Rodriguez (2006, p.763) comments about PV, “it implies having the opportunity to create one’s own images, of self and environment; it implies being able to re-codify one’s own identity, with the signs and codes that one chooses, thereby disrupting the traditional acceptance of those, imposed by outside sources; it implies becoming one’s own story­ teller, regaining one’s own voice; it implies reconstructing the self-portrait o f one’s own community and one’s own culture.” Marginalised communities may be able to challenge the existing mainstream perception built about them by countering the.: negative images (Wheeler, 2009) or challenging the stereotypical ones (Harris, 2009).

It is argued that since PV can encourage less powerful and marginalised groups such as women to challenge hierarchical power relations, it can also affect the way they perceive and represent themselves (Protz, 1994). Khamis, et al. (2009) say that when women make video they are filled with self-confidence, are able to analyse the problems they are facing and see their own potential to bring change. I suggest that like in training (Section 2.4.4), women step out of their traditional role during video­ making too. When they produce a story, they are the ones ‘directing’ rather than men, thus altering gender roles (Rodriguez, 1994). They undo gender by broadening ideas about what women can do (see Kelan 2010). They can present their opinions and perspectives, and recognize their own agency for development (Kawaja, 1994; Protz, 1998; Einsiedal, 1996).

Using drama as the form in the videos can also enable participants to explore intimate issues and express their opinions on them (Brickell 2014). Drama itself has had a history where women have been able to bring up ‘private’ issues, such as domestic violence, to more public spaces and bring up their demand for a change (see for e.g., Nagar 2000). Waite and Conn (2011) draw from their research with young women to suggest that using drama in PV allows for performative exploration of gender power relations, where young women role-play themselves, their parents, young men and men. It can create a space where young women can both express and represent themselves, and ‘perform’ the change that they want.

Cahill (2010) warns though that while representing in dramatised accounts, people may sometimes replicate the status quo, instead of enacting the desired change. Women, for instance, may perform gender the way it exists, reproducing hierarchical gender

norms (see West and Zimmerman 1987). Protz (1998) also cautions that representing reality is not always simple, since sometimes the community might not want to represent the way things are, to audiences outside from their own community. Further, as mentioned in Section 2.5.1, other actors having more power than the participants, such as facilitators, may have their own set of values that they might impose during representation. For instance, the participants may reinforce a certain image of their selves, while the facilitators may perceive it as a stereotype and may want to break that image. However, most literature on PV tends to ignore problematic aspects like these and does not offer much critical analysis.

During video-making, the other aspect is the ability to raise issues that are important for the communities. The kind of issues chosen for the video can provide an insight into what is important for the participants (Moletsane et al., 2009). The discussions with the participants, when done in a participatory manner, can generate topics that are of utmost concern to them (Plush, 2009b).

Some scholars claim that it might also become a medium to discuss highly sensitive issues that are rarely addressed or spoken out in the open otherwise (e.g., Molony et al., 2007; Goodsmith, 2007). At the same time, some scholars (Shaw, 1997; Shaw, 2012; High et al., 2012) caution that it is important to note the dynamics during decision-making to understand if participants are, in fact, able to decide their own issues for the video or the videos are driven by someone else’s agenda, especially in NGO projects.

Yet again, there are indications in the literature about problematic aspects in communities’/participants’ representation or raising of relevant issues due to the

influence of more powerful actors, but not sufficient critical analysis. There is also a possibility that a community's representation may be influenced by the values held by the more powerful actors or the issues raised might need to be approved by them. This may also influence participants’ agency-development through the process, since it is related to their ability to represent and raise issues, which are essential for meeting their own agenda and objectives. To fill this gap, this research has to investigate, ‘in what ways do more powerful actors influence community/participants’ representation and how are the issues raised?’