Los procedimientos de valoración de riesgos en la planeación

106 | P a g e

Photo 1: Main road in District Y

Iviana (participant who took the photo): Kawirikawiri timakonda kupita kumseu ndi malo oti tikakumana ndi amuna.

(We often go to places where we are likely to meet clients...This is a market place along the M1 road).

Photovoice was one of the main tools data collection tools that proved popular among participants. This method involved participants taking photos which were used to discuss involvement in prostitution (Croghan et al., 2008; Pain, 2012). I provided them with digital cameras, and offered technical support in learning to use the cameras and some participants helped their friends to use the cameras effectively.

107 | P a g e

I asked them to take photos of anything that was important to them or that reminded them of something related to their involvement in prostitution. The data collected through this approach gave an insight on how participants made sense of their involvement. Through the photos (e.g. Photo 1; Photo 2) I was able to gain some insight into the areas where participants spent their daily lives including locations I could not access myself for ethical reasons. The photos were then discussed in groups with participants asking questions or commenting on the photos in relation to their own involvement and experience of prostitution.

108 | P a g e

Participants took photographs in pairs to provide each other with moral and technical support in taking photos (Melrose, 2002). Participants chose who they wanted to work with usually picking a friend who they already felt comfortable with. This was important as the participants were able to enhance each other’s skills in using the cameras and were also able to take some photos that may not have been possible had they been working alone. Despite working in pairs, each participant chose which of their own photos to present to the wider group for discussion. In District X where there were more participants, discussions took place on several occasions to ensure that all participants had the opportunity to share their photos. All participants participated in this exercise in both fieldwork areas.

Cameras were left with participants except when batteries needed to be charged. I explained carefully that they must obtain consent before taking photos of people, explaining to them the purpose of the research and assuring them that any identifying features would be concealed if used in the research report. Most of the photos they took were of themselves or places without people. All photos with people’s faces were blurred to conceal their identities as shown in Photo 3 which was taken by Matiana to illustrate where, and how they met clients. All photos were downloaded onto my computer and deleted from the cameras. Group discussions based on photos were held in sight of the computer screen and the only photos that were printed were of individual participants who requested a copy of their own picture for themselves.

109 | P a g e

I found this method effective in facilitating dialogue and participation. The participants not only described the places, but related each image to stories of their and experience of prostitution. Participants were able to talk about themselves confidently. As Pain (2012, p. 308) explains, while “Visual methods do not require participants to be articulate or have high levels of literacy, so these methods are often employed with such groups … it is important that the method is not considered too onerous and that it seems enjoyable to undertake”.

The use of photovoice was not, however, without challenges, each of which has proved a valuable learning point for me. The first challenge lay in the limited number of cameras which limited access for the 16 participants in District X. This was balanced by larger numbers in group discussions where the enthusiasm of the participants resulted in the generation of a large amount of alternative visual data. A second challenge, evident in District Y where there were only four participants, was that participants arguably took ‘too many’ photos. While the number of photos

110 | P a g e

was not, in itself, a problem, I had initially asked participants in this District to pick three photos they had taken, to illustrate their engagement, locations, and experiences of involvement.

However, the participants wanted to view each photo and explain why they had taken it. While this entailed further time, discussion and data generation that would have to be transcribed and analysed, I saw immediately that there were key details arising from the photos which would add richness to the data and discussions. As such, I welcomed with enthusiasm the participants’ request to use more photos than I had anticipated. This also had the advantage of not restricting participants (Wang, 1999), leaving them free to talk about their involvement and experience in a manner they chose, picking particular stories they wanted to tell. Restricting them to three photos could have prevented them from talking about certain stories of their experiences or capturing how they made sense of their engagement and experience of involvement in prostitution. Reflecting on the overall use of photovoice, it enabled participants to remain in control of deciding which pictures they wanted to use, what stories they narrated and how they narrated such stories (Wang, 1999; Croghan et al., 2008).