Field Methods 2009 Gotschi 290 308

http://fmx.sagepub.com/Field Methods

http://fmx.sagepub.com/content/21/3/290The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1525822X08325980

2009 21: 290Field MethodsElisabeth Gotschi, Robert Delve and Bernhard Freyer

Insights into Farmer GroupsParticipatory Photography as a Qualitative Approach to Obtain

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Field MethodsAdditional services and information for

http://fmx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://fmx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://fmx.sagepub.com/content/21/3/290.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 21, 2009Version of Record >>

at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013fmx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013fmx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://fmx.sagepub.com/


http://fmx.sagepub.com/content/21/3/290

http://fmx.sagepub.com/content/21/3/290



http://fmx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://fmx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://fmx.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://fmx.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://fmx.sagepub.com/content/21/3/290.refs.html

http://fmx.sagepub.com/content/21/3/290.refs.html

http://fmx.sagepub.com/content/21/3/290.full.pdf

http://fmx.sagepub.com/content/21/3/290.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





290

Participatory Photography as aQualitative Approach to Obtain

Insights into Farmer Groups

ELISABETH GOTSCHIUniversity of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU),

Institute of Organic AgricultureROBERT DELVE

Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropicale (CIAT)BERNHARD FREYER

University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), Institute of Organic Agriculture

Participatory methods and visual tools are increasingly popular as qualitativeapproaches for enriching and complementing quantitative survey tools for understand-ing livelihoods and assessing and documenting impacts of development projects.However, the use of visual tools for analyzing and documenting social processes is stillin its infancy. This article reports on an innovative attempt in adopting existing methodsof using disposable cameras to stimulate interviews and focus group discussions withgroups of smallholder farmers and to obtain new insights into farmer group dynamicsand social capital of groups.

Keywords: participatory photography; smallholder farmer groups; Mozambique;visual research methods; social capital

INTRODUCTION

Participatory methods and visual tools are increasingly being used to (1)develop a rich and deep understanding of individuals and groups and theirbeliefs, cultures, traditions, or social relations (Heisley and Levy 1991);(2) give the researched a voice (Markwell 2000; Wang et al. 2004) and/orobtain insights into how the researched think about the research topic

The authors are grateful to farmer groups in Búzi District for their willingness to participatein the research and share their pictures with us and a broader audience. Many thanks to theDistrict Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Development in Búzi District, PROMEC, andUDAC for their support in the field. The study was funded by the Government of Austria.

Field Methods, Vol. 21, No. 3, August 2009 290–308DOI: 10.1177/1525822X08325980© 2009 SAGE Publications

at Biblioteca on December 9, 2013fmx.sagepub.comDownloaded from



Gotschi et al. / PARTICIPATORY PHOTOGRAPHY 291

(Worth and Adair 1975); (3) provide an additional qualitative approach forenriching and complementing data from other sources (e.g., semistructuredinterviews, quantitative surveys) (Markwell 2000; Clark and Zimmer2001); and (4) share the stories of pictures between group or communitymembers with policy makers, government, and others (Singhal et al. 2004;Wang and Pies 2004; Wang et al. 2004).

Images such as photographs have been used in various ways in research(e.g., for illustration, documentation, or as research tools [methodology]).In early examples from 1890, photographs were used “as an influentialvehicle for social critique” (Stanczak 2004: 1472), although this critiquehas been articulated by the researcher and not by the people concerned.Historically, photos have been used for documentation, illustration, andto confirm verbal text, rather than being “integrated into theoretical argu-ments” (Harper 2003:242). This predated the realization that photos canmake sociology, ethnology, and anthropology more communicable andunderstandable to a broader public (Harper 2003).

Once photography entered empirical social research, pictures have beenused “as a ‘can opener’ for deeper reflection and discussion within the inter-view process” (Collier and Collier 1986, quoted in Stanczak 2004:1473),leading to a deeper understanding by researchers of the different insightsinto the subject from the respondents’ point of view. In recent years, visualdata have become increasingly popular for answering research questionsabout social change or for investigating social and ethnic groups and theirways of “thinking and organizing their world” (Worth and Adair 1975:42).Looking at “traditional” research tools (such as quantitative surveys) asone-way communication that extracts data, the development of “participa-tory” research tools changed these interactions between the researcher andthe researched toward a more “dialogical relationship,” leading to a “‘trans-formed’ or ‘enlightened’ understanding as an outcome of the interaction”(Roulston 2006:11).

In this article, we report on the use of participatory photography withfarmer groups in a case study of rural Mozambique. We discuss how thismethodology helped us obtain new insights into group dynamics and socialcapital that we could not capture with surveys, focus group discussions, orsemistructured interviews.

CONTEXT OF THIS STUDY

A common approach of development aid and government extensionservices in rural Africa is to organize smallholder farmers into groups to




292 FIELD METHODS

increase efficiency of support and facilitate the transition from subsistencefarming toward market orientation. These agencies and extension services,however, focus on technology and/or economic aspects, while socialdimensions, such as group dynamics, development of social networks andsocial capital, and perceptions of the so-called beneficiaries, are rarely con-sidered in the process, monitoring, and evaluation.

Prior to the present research conducted between March and June 2006,we investigated how the introduction of groups in rural Africa changessocial capital and networks of group members and assessed gender differ-ences in access to information, creation of contacts, and supportive networks(Gotschi 2006). However, just as it has been a challenge to assess socialcapital at the group level, it has also been a challenge to move beyond struc-tural aspects of social capital and to capture cognitive or bonding aspects.Our experience with using semistructured interviews and focus group dis-cussions with farmers made it clear that farmers were not used to reflectingon and talking about cognitive aspects of groups, what group membershipmeant to them, whether it changed their social relations, how they thoughtthey benefited, and the broader meaning of groups for themselves or thecommunities in which they live. Besides these practical difficulties, socialcapital cannot be simply aggregated from individuals to groups (Schuller,Baron, and Field 2000).

We conducted a case study in Búzi District, Mozambique, using par-ticipatory photography to stimulate farmers in discussing their groupmembership and to assess what it meant to them as individuals,families, groups, or community. We hoped the combination of apprais-ing photos, analyzing group processes, and having discussions withfarmers would allow us to obtain insights into qualitative dimensions ofsocial capital of groups, including group dynamics, solidarity behavior,collective action, and so forth. We further hoped the methodologyapplied would allow us to grasp the farmers’ point of view—how beinga member in the groups has an impact on their lives—and to obtaininsights into their vision of their world (Malinowski 1922, quoted inWorth and Adair 1975:12).

Specifically, we were interested in how social capital is expressed withina group, moving beyond the assessment of groups to achieve commonobjectives (e.g., increase volume of sales, construct storehouse) as well asindividual perceptions of trust, group cohesion, and networks towardinsights into the collective dimension of bonding social capital. Issues ofgroup dynamics, power, and solidarity among group members were analyzedcollectively in group discussions or individually with farmers when evalu-ating the process as well as the pictures.





LITERATURE REVIEW

Introducing photography into research is known in the literature as photoelicitation (Robertson 2005), autodriven photo elicitation (Samuels 2004),photo-elicitation interviews (Clark-Ibánez 2004), photovoice (Wang et al.1998; Wang and Pies 2004; Wang et al. 2004), photo novella (Wang, Burris,and Ping 1996), photo interviewing, and reflexive photography or autodriv-ing (Hurworth 2003). Participatory photography emphasizes the active role ofparticipants in the generation and interpretation of photos and understands itas a research method that hands over the cameras to people—individuals orgroups—for the purpose of eliciting information to inform a research projectand stimulate self-reflection and interactions with others.

Basically, there are two traditions of working with photography in socialsciences: ethnography, which accredits origins of the methodology to Collier(1957, quoted in Samuels 2004:1529), and applied social research in thetradition of Wang (e.g., Wang, Burris, and Ping 1996). However, these twotraditions do not fully acknowledge each other, and terms are often used indiffused ways. The term voice, auto, or participatory is often used to indi-cate that the cameras have been handed over to the researched; in otherapproaches, the researcher or a third person takes the photos. In addition tolooking at the action of who has control over the camera and taking pictures(researcher or researched), there is a further need to assess the purpose of thepictures: whether they are used to give respondents a “voice” or to providea somewhat “objective” record of participant experience. As Cling et al.(2006) have pointed out, researchers have used visual narratives (e.g., photos,videos) to improve objectivity of responses. Different views can be capturedwhen a respondent’s first reaction is confronted with images of his or herown reality. Creating cognitive differences in respondents to provide theresearcher with deeper insights into respondents’ reasoning is fundamentallydifferent from using photos to give the researched a voice and seeing theworld through their eyes.1 It is evident that the way people take pictures andwhat they choose to take (and not to take), are “related to other patterns oftheir way of life” (Worth and Adair 1975:42) and the way they think about,structure, and organize their realities (Worth and Adair 1975).

Using photos taken by the researcher or a third party (Heisley and Levy1991) is “an excellent way to conduct theory-driven research” (Clark-Ibánez2004:1509), but handing over the camera to the researched is “a moreinductive research approach” (Clark-Ibánez 2004:1509). Asking people totake pictures on a given research topic gives “some degree of power backto the subjects in the sense that they could use photography as a means of‘telling their own stories’ through the photographs” (Markwell 2000:92),




294 FIELD METHODS

and differences in views from the “outside researcher” and the “insiderview” of the researched can be made visible (Stanczak 2004).

Other studies in the tradition of Freire (1972) go beyond answeringquestions. Using photography is a mean to “seek to act upon, the historical,institutional, social, and political conditions that contribute to personal andcommunity problems” (Wang et al. 2004:911). Thus, these studies are actionoriented, and the method becomes a tool “that enables people to define forthemselves and others, including policy makers, what is worth rememberingand what needs to be changed” (Wang 2005).

A number of studies allocate cameras to individuals, determine the frame-work of the research, and direct the participants as to what to take pictures ofto develop grounds for some action/project and answer the research questions(Clark-Ibánez 2004; Samuels 2004). The translation of these instructions intotaking pictures (i.e., the shape and carrying out of the research) is in the handsof the researched. Our study takes the methodology a step further and handscameras to groups of farmers (such as associations or business clubs). Despitethe recent increase in studies using photography, little has been documentedabout how to develop a methodology working with rural communities orgroups such as associations or cooperatives. “Groups” as a concept in thereviewed studies are an element in the methodology when discussing thepictures (i.e., photographers share their pictures with other people duringfocus group discussions, whereas the process of generating data is done byindividuals) (Wang, Burris, and Ping 1996; Verma 2001). To our knowledge,there have not been studies using photo cameras that have allocated camerasto communities or groups, associations, or cooperatives.

DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH METHOD

Three farmer groups (between eleven and thirty-five members each)were purposively chosen from groups we studied earlier in 2004–2005. Theprocess consisted of three cycles of photography with each of these groups,asking them to take pictures with disposable cameras (containing twenty-seven pictures each) to analyze critically and collectively their group mem-bership, required investments, problems they face, coping strategies, andbenefits from being in the group (see Table 1). By handing cameras to farm-ers in a stepwise process over time, the research accounted for a “learningperiod,” because farmers had not taken pictures before and were not used tothinking about themselves and their roles as members in groups. It furtherallowed the groups to include a broader range of topics that they would onlydiscover as the process developed.




295

TABL

E 1

Ove

rvie

w o

f Par

ticip

ator

y Ph

otog

raph

y to

Obt

ain

Insi

ghts

into

Gro

up D

ynam

ics

and

Live

lihoo

ds

Step

1St

ep 2

Step

3

App

roac

hC

olle

ctiv

e ca

mer

a: r

esea

rche

r re

ques

t of

R

esea

rche

r id

entif

icat

ion

of th

ree

pair

s/C

olle

ctiv

e ca

mer

a: g

roup

dec

isio

n to

“g

roup

” to

take

pic

ture

s of

its

activ

ities

indi

vidu

als

(men

and

wom

en)

to ta

ke

take

s pi

ctur

es o

f th

emse

lves

on

topi

cs

pict

ures

on

bene

fits

and

pro

blem

s of

th

ey w

ish

to d

iscu

ss f

urth

er a

mon

g be

ing

mem

bers

them

selv

es a

nd w

ith r

esea

rche

rO

bjec

tive

Insi

ghts

into

gro

up a

nd it

s ac

tiviti

esB

enef

its a

nd p

robl

ems

that

indi

vidu

als

Obj

ectiv

es b

ased

on

grou

p di

scus

sion

: en

coun

ter

by b

eing

mem

ber

of th

e gr

oup

allo

win

g fa

rmer

s to

inte

grat

e id

eas

No.

cam

eras

Two

per

grou

pT

hree

per

gro

upTw

o pe

r gr

oup

1. F

ield

vis

itD

iscu

ssio

n of

eth

ical

issu

es; t

rain

ing

cam

era

use

2. F

ield

vis

it[D

evel

op p

ictu

res]

Sele

ct o

f pa

irs/

indi

vidu

als

and

expl

anat

ion

of g

oal

3. F

ield

vis

itG

roup

dis

cuss

ion

of p

ictu

res

[Dev

elop

pic

ture

s]E

xpla

natio

n of

goa

l4.

Fie

ld v

isit

Indi

vidu

al d

iscu

ssio

n on

pic

ture

s an

d [D

evel

op p

ictu

res]

pres

enta

tion

to g

roup

5. F

ield

vis

itG

roup

dis

cuss

ion

on p

ictu

res

Dis

cuss

ion

of p

roce

ss a

nd o

vera

ll as

sess

men

t of

pict

ures

; pre

para

tion

of p

oste

rs f

or f

inal

pre

sent

atio

nFi

nal

One

-day

mee

ting

of r

epre

sent

ativ

es o

f pr

esen

tatio

n al

l far

mer

gro

ups

to d

iscu

ss a

mon

g th

emse

lves

and

exc

hang

e ex

peri

ence

sw

ith n

ongo

vern

men

tal o

rgan

izat

ions

and

pol

icy

mak

ers




296 FIELD METHODS

To introduce the methodology (Step 1, first field visit, Table 1), therewas a group discussion about photography, power, potential risks, and con-siderations of ethical issues (Wang 2005). As our research project intro-duced an entirely new practice and frame of reference in Búzi District,farmers had little or no prior conceptions on the use of a camera and thesorts of pictures that cameras are usually used for. Consequently, the firstgroup discussion around ethical issues did not bring up issues of the respon-sibility of group members who carry the camera with respect to privacyrights of others. Farmers were not able to describe acceptable ways ofapproaching somebody or a situation to take a picture of it. Nor were theyable to identify possible risks for photographed people so that the farmerscould reduce the risks of people losing privacy, being embarrassed, or beingexposed, as suggested by Wang and Pies (2004). Farmers either kept quietor said they did not know what to consider:

We do not have experience in that. So who knows what to do or not? . . . Ifit was the second time we would have already some experience. And wecould explain better.2 (Farmer, Inhamuchindo)

In retrospect, the process revealed that farmers intuitively took picturesthat were socially acceptable. This is probably because they used the camerasin the public sphere of groups rather than to produce insights into family life.When discussions were repeated (Steps 2 and 3, second field visit onward),farmers expressed some of the dangers and identified responsible ways ofhow to take pictures:

One could not take a picture with the wife of another man, because if thenlater the man would see the picture there would be confusion. He would ask“What is the photo for?” And it would be difficult to explain. If it was anywomen you could take a picture, but a wife if you put your arm around her,the husband would be very angry. (Farmer, Grudja)

During Step 1, in which farmer groups received the first cameras, theywere asked to take pictures that show people, situations, things, and placesthat represent their ideas of the group and its activities, benefits, and prob-lems. A focus group discussion on what it meant for members to be part ofa group, what type of group activities they conducted, how being part of agroup has improved their livelihoods, and what problems remained helpedfarmers contextualize the ideas and ensure that they understood the researchobjectives and what to take pictures of. It also stimulated discussion andreflection among the members themselves.





After 14 days, the cameras were collected; this second field visit wasused for reflections on how the process of taking pictures went, who was incharge of the camera, what went well, and what could be improved in thefuture. Then Step 2 began.

In the third field visit, we brought back pictures (Step 1) to discuss themwith the farmer group. Questions to stimulate group discussions included:Why did you take this picture? What is in the picture? What else could thispicture represent? Are there any other associations concerning this picture?After discussing pictures, the cameras distributed during Step 2 were col-lected, and the final wave of photography started (Step 3).

In the fourth field visit, individuals were asked to select the most impor-tant pictures, present them to the group, and explain why they chose thesepictures and what the pictures meant to them as individuals and as a group.

Having discussed pictures generated in Step 3, the fifth field visit reviewedtopics discussed over the process. The groups were asked to select from about180 pictures the most important ones that they wanted to share with othergroups and policy makers in the final presentation in the district capital.Pictures farmers chose were diverse, but most demonstrated their achieve-ments and activities, encouraging policy makers to further strengthen thegroups. In one group, pictures were selected to communicate problems andrequest assistance from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Data obtained from participatory camera are rich: There are multipleways of analysis (Table 2), and each can be distinguished by whom theanalysis is done: the researcher, the researched, or both. Furthermore, anassessment of differences as to what types of pictures have been taken indifferent farmer groups or gender groups provides valuable insights.

Process

Although initially, the methodology was the same in the three farmergroups, the process varied considerably, and we needed to adapt themethodology in two groups. Farmers in Grudja arranged several meetingsto discuss what types of group activities they do year-round. They decidedthat marketing was their most important activity, and although there wouldbe no marketing activities when they were taking pictures, the farmersarranged simulations of the most important activities. For example, farmerswould sit as a group, discuss how to best document their group activities,and share responsibilities while they did this.




298 FIELD METHODS

In Inhamuchindo, the president kept the camera for himself and acted asphotographer. He took pictures of group members and other people in thecommunity, thus trying to increase his social reputation by promisingpeople to get them their pictures. The number of shots available, however,was not sufficient to take pictures of everybody, and at the next meeting,angry farmers reported that they, too, wanted “their” picture to be taken (seeFigure 1). We decided to repeat Step 1 instead of moving on to the nextphase. In later stages of the research, it was interesting to learn that in thiscommunity, farmers actually saw the group as something to receive bene-fits and resources from and did not understand it as a framework to engagein, define, and achieve collective goals. The group remained an abstractconcept, the project of an NGO, and had very little meaning.

In all groups, it was observed that cameras were predominantly used bymen, and in two cases, cameras allocated explicitly to women (Step 2) wereeven taken away from them by their husbands or (male) group leaders(Figure 2).

TABLE 2Different Levels of Analysis of Participatory Photography

Relevance to Research on Social Focus of Analysis Research Question Capital and Group Dynamics

Process Who takes pictures? Networks, power distribution within Who keeps camera? the group, participation in the Who interprets/talks process, inclusion versus exclusion

about pictures? of members, and possible conflictsContent/context What type of pictures? Visualizing the context: people

What is represented in (family, group, community . . .), the pictures? agriculture (crops, livestock . . .),

infrastructure (house, market, road . . .)

Farmers’ interpretation What is the story of Interpretation of pictures by of pictures/presentation the pictures? group/individuals.to other groups, Impact of group on livelihoods; NGOs activities, benefits, conflicts, and

problems; relations within the group: leaders/members only, men/women, elders/younger . . .

Assessment of differences Is there a difference Differences in perception of by the researcher in taking and importance of group for gender,

interpreting education, wealth category, age, pictures for position within/between different different groups? farmer groups





FIGURE 1Getting My Picture

NOTE: “This is . . . with his wife in his field. He is happy, he also wanted to get his picture”(president of Inhamuchindo, who also took the picture).




300 FIELD METHODS

Content and Context

Agricultural activities and pictures of group members were the two pre-dominant themes in the three groups, but approaches to visualize the groupand group activities differed remarkably. Farmers in Grudja found that theirmost important activity is a market day and its preparations (Figures 3 and 4).However, the time for the research did not correspond with this importantevent, so they arranged equipment and mobilized the community to simulatethese activities.

Unlike in Grudja, Jovens decided not to simulate activities but to takepictures of “real situations,” so they decided to keep the camera (Step 1)

FIGURE 2Training Women

NOTE: Women were trained in how to handle cameras and take pictures. In a number of cases,group discussions revealed that male leaders or husbands used their power and took camerasaway from women (picture taken by authors of the study).





until they could harvest their fields, causing considerable delays in the researchprocess. The pictures demonstrated the importance of mutual assistanceand enforcement of common norms to achieve collective goals:

Farmer: We are checking on the quality of produce supplied by people. At timesfarmers add sand or water to increase the weight of the produce and to getmore, so we need to check carefully. . . . If the trader finds out all of us arein a bad position, . . . we have one person that is responsible to open the bagsand check the quality. To see whether one has put in sand.

Researcher: What do you do if you find sand mixed to the sesame?Farmer: If there is sand, we delete his name from the list. And we do not accept

the delivery.Researcher: Does this happen very often?Farmer: It happens, yes.Researcher: Why would somebody put sand?Farmer: To increase the kilograms. We have somebody to check. We need to be

very careful as we can guarantee a good quality. When we find out there isthis type of problem we take off the name from the list and send him home.If he still wants to sell he can prepare the produce in a better way and bring

FIGURE 3Working for Common Objectives

NOTE: “We are measuring the size of the plot for everybody who wants to contribute to themarket day. So we can sit and calculate how much we will be able to sell as a group. This isnecessary for discussing a price with the traders. We know already that in an average year onehectare will give us 750 kg of sesame” (president of Grudja, who also took the picture).




302 FIELD METHODS

it again . . . . People feel ashamed but still they come back because they needthe money from the business.

Farmers’ Interpretation

Discussing pictures with farmers was an exciting experience, as farmersdiscovered new perspectives and developed a new sense of assessing thevalue of their group and group membership. In the beginning, farmershardly reported more than what was visible in the picture: “This is . . . inhis field of maize” (Figure 1), or “Here we are measuring the size of the plot”(Figure 3). As the research moved on, the focus of taking pictures changed,and more sensitive topics were introduced and discussed, such as livingconditions within the community (Figure 6) or conflicts with NGOs or localauthorities. Farmers in Grudja, for example, discovered their crucial role inlinking community members with local authorities or the extension serviceand vice versa by asking, on one hand, in the name of the community for

FIGURE 4Simulation of Marketing Activities

NOTE: “Here we come together to prepare for the marketing. We have already received bagsfrom the trader and we know already the price. Now we are ready to give bags to the farmerswho want to sell their sesame. They need bags to transport” (member of Grudja, who also tookthe picture).





support in pest control and acting, on the other hand, as multipliers ofextension officers in passing on information or providing services thatextension officers cannot offer due to limited capacities (Figure 5). Thesenewly generated insights into their own role within and value for the com-munity have also been expressed by farmers: “Working with pictures hashelped us a lot. We feel as a group and we have experienced good feel-ings” (farmer in Grudja).

Assessment of Differences by Researcher

Discussions revealed that in some groups, members developed a senseof belonging to the group that became a framework to engage into jointactivities, develop shared norms, and achieve common goals. In thesegroups, cameras were shared among members, and the content of what totake pictures of was discussed as a group. The type and content of pictureswere directly linked with the social capital of the group. For example, thecameras handed to Grudja demonstrated a range of group activities,

FIGURE 5Collective Action

NOTE: “It is our task [as group members] to ensure that all community members receive the spray-ing. If we miss out one, we all suffer” (group member of Jovens, who also took the picture).




304 FIELD METHODS

whereas the pictures of Inhamuchindo represented people in their fields.This demonstrates a different quality of the social capital in these groupsand what they consider important—group activities versus individuals.Analysis of the process further enabled insights into power structures inthese two groups, as in Grudja, people sat and discussed as a group, whereasin Inhamuchindo, a dominant president decided by himself and acted in hisown interest. This is, interestingly, also manifested in the pictures’ format:landscape in Grudja versus portrait in Inhamuchindo.

Despite revealing how farmers as a group would work together to achievecommon objectives (such as quality standards and organization and prepara-tion for market day) and some sort of corporate identity to appear to the out-side world as one coordinated voice, pictures also revealed that the samegroup did not develop a sense of solidarity among its members but hadstrictly separate private and group issues. Pictures taken by a female memberdisplayed her miserable living conditions. Although the group is aware of

FIGURE 6Lack of Internal Solidarity

NOTE: “My husband did not return from civil war, so I live alone. There were windstorms thathave destroyed my house, so I have nowhere to go and there is no money to rebuild the house.This is why I have to put my belongings in this tree. . . . I sleep outside, even if it rains” (femalemember of Grudja; picture taken by her female group colleague).





her problem, her group members are not willing to help her overcome theproblem, and the issue had not been put on the agenda of group meetings todiscuss collectively whether and how to assist their fellow member. Despitethe group’s potential to address common needs, it fails to incorporate thespecific needs of individuals and become a vehicle for social critique andchange.

Farmers found the pictures useful for communicating the value of thegroup to other people. In Grudja, farmers wanted to use the pictures toexplain the value of the groups to others so that more people would creategroups to benefit the members and their communities. NGOs and exten-sionists were interested in using some pictures (with the consent of farmers)to integrate them in their efforts to create groups in new communities andcommunicate more efficiently with farmers.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the growing body of social capital literature, the social capital ofgroups has not received sufficient interest, probably because of method-ological difficulties. Results have demonstrated that social capital definedas ability to work together for shared objectives (Coleman 1990; Schuller,Baron, and Field 2000) and altruistic behavior for the benefit of the com-munity (pest control, estimation of collective production, etc.) does not nec-essarily correspond with high levels of internal solidarity or accommodatethe individual needs of group members. The group is a platform from whichto negotiate common interests and overcome regional problems that need tobe addressed through collective action (Bebbington and Carroll 2000), butit does not necessarily provide a framework to guarantee security and reliefin case of substantial needs of deprived individuals.

The use of participatory photography enabled us to identify and exploreissues within groups that are not possible to assess through an assessmentof social capital at the level of members. The methodology also allowed theresearched to participate and reflect—alone or together as a group or withthe researcher—about issues concerning their group membership and ondeveloping strategies to address (common) problems. Being able to “see”and point at conditions and sections portrayed in pictures turned abstractdiscussions into concrete and comprehensive reality, and the picturescreated a new frame of reference for both the farmers and the researcher.Encouraging farmers to speak out about the pictures and tell why they weretaken and what they represent triggered discussions around activities andtopics that otherwise are difficult to talk about.




Pictures not only stimulated communication within the group or servedas a medium for self-reflection, they also allowed the researcher to see thegroups from the perspective of the farmers themselves and obtain newinsights into the research subject. Linking these findings back to the devel-opment process itself should help development agencies better target theirinterventions for ensuring the transition of subsistence to market-led agri-cultural production.

NOTES

1. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for drawing our attention to this distinction.2. Interviews are translated from Ndau and Portuguese.

REFERENCES

Bebbington, A., and T. Carroll. 2000. Induced social capital and federations of the rural poor.Social Capital Initiative Working Paper 19, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOCIALCAPITAL/Resources/Social-Capital-Initiative-Working-Paper-Series/SCI-WPS-19.pdf (accessed October 15, 2004).

Clark, L., and L. Zimmer. 2001. What we learned from a photographic component in a studyof Latino children’s health. Field Methods 13 (4): 303–28.

Clark-Ibánez, M. 2004. Framing the social world with photo-elicitation interviews. AmericanBehavioral Scientist 47 (12): 1507–27.

Cling, C., X. Wang, M. Shih, and Y. Kedem. 2006. Digital photography and journals in akindergarten–first-grade classroom: Toward meaningful technology integration in earlychildhood education. Early Education and Development 17 (3): 347–71.

Coleman, J. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Collier, J. 1957. Photography in anthropology: A report on two experiments. American

Anthropologist 59:843–59. Quoted in Samuels 2004:1529.Collier, J., Jr., and M. Collier. 1986. Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method.

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Quoted in Stanczak 2004:1473.Freire, P. 1972. Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Sheed and Ward.Gotschi, E. 2006. Farmer groups in Búzi District, Mozambique. Social capital formation in the

smallholder sector. PhD diss., University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences,Institute of Organic Agriculture, Vienna, Austria.

Harper, D. 2003. Framing photographic ethnography. A case study. Ethnography 4 (2): 241–66.Heisley, D., and S. Levy. 1991. Autodriving: A photoelicitation technique. Journal of Consumer

Research 18 (3): 257–72.Hurworth, R. 2003. Photo-interviewing for research. Social Research Update 40. http://sru.soc

.surrey.ac.uk/SRU40.html (accessed August 11, 2007).Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the western Pacific. An account of native enterprise and

adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: George Routledge &Sons. Quoted in Worth and Adair 1975:12.

306 FIELD METHODS





Markwell, K. 2000. Photo-documentation and analyses as research strategies in human geog-raphy. Australian Geographical Studies 38 (1): 91–98.

Robertson, B. 2005. Photo elicitation: A window through which to view youth leisure inisolated communities. Paper presented at the 11th Canadian Congress on Leisure Research,Department of Recreation and Tourism Management, Malaspina University College,Nanaimo, BC, Canada, May 17–20.

Roulston, K. 2006. The reflective interviewer: Key issues in qualitative interviewing for socialsciences research. Paper presented at the International Institute for Qualitative Methodologyconference: Advances in Qualitative Methods, Surfers Paradise, Queensland, Australia,July 14–16.

Samuels, J. 2004. Breaking the ethnographer’s frame. Reflections on the use of photo elici-tation in understanding Sri Lankan monastic culture. American Behavioral Scientist 47(12): 1528–50.

Schuller, T., S. Baron, and J. Field. 2000. Social capital: A review and critique. In Socialcapital: Critical perspectives, ed. S. Baron, J. Field, and T. Schuller, 1–38. Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.

Singhal, A., L. Harter, K. Chitnis, and D. Sharma. 2004. Participatory photography inentertainment-education. Paper presented at the 4th International Entertainment-Educationconference, Cape Town, South Africa, September 26–30. http://www.ee4.org/Papers/EE4_Singhal.pdf (accessed October 15, 2005).

Stanczak, G. 2004. Introduction: Visual representation. American Behavioral Scientist 47(12): 1471–76.

Verma, R. 2001. Gender, land, and livelihoods in East Africa: Through farmers’ eyes. InternationalDevelopment Research Centre. http://www.idrc.ca/es/ev-9431-201-1-DO_TOPIC .html(accessed September 20, 2005).

Wang, C. 2005. Photovoice: Social change through photography. http://www.photovoice.com(accessed October 10, 2006).

Wang, C., M. A. Burris, and X. Y. Ping. 1996. Chinese village women as visual anthropologists:A participatory approach to reaching policymakers. Social Science & Medicine 42 (10):1391–400.

Wang, C., S. Morrel-Samuels, P. Hutchison, L. Bell, and R. Pestronk. 2004. Flint photovoice:Community building among youths, adults, and policymakers. American Journal of PublicHealth 94 (6): 911–13.

Wang, C., and C. Pies. 2004. Family, maternal, and child health through photovoice. Maternaland Child Health Journal 8 (2): 95–102.

Wang, C., W. Yi, Z. Tao, and K. Carovano. 1998. Photovoice as a participatory health promo-tion strategy. Health Promotion International 13 (1): 75–86.

Worth, S., and J. Adair. 1975. Through Navaho eyes. An exploration in film communicationand anthropology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. http://isc.temple.edu/TNE/introduction.htm (accessed May 2, 2008).

ELISABETH GOTSCHI is currently a program officer at the United NationsDevelopment Programme in Managua, Nicaragua. The work reported in this articlewas conducted while she was a research fellow with CIAT/BOKU in Mozambique. Herresearch interests cover social capital, participatory approaches, social innovations,groups, and rural development. Recent publications include Social Capital and theSmallholder Sector. Analysis of Farmer Groups in Búzi District, Mozambique (MargrafPublishers, 2008); with J. Njuki and R. Delve, “Gender Equity and Social Capital in




Small-Holder Farmer Groups in Central Mozambique” (Development in Practice,2008); and with B. Freyer and R. Delve, Participatory Photography in Cross-CulturalResearch: A Case Study of Investigating Farmer Groups in Rural Mozambique. DoingCross-Cultural Research: Ethical and Methodological Considerations (Springer, 2008).

ROBERT DELVE is a senior scientist with the Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Instituteof CIAT, based in Harare, Zimbabwe. His research interests cover participatory researchapproaches, research-to-extension linkages and adaptation of technologies by end users,evaluation of farming systems, and whole-farm trade-off analysis. Recent publicationsinclude, with P. J. A. van Asten et al.,“Challenges and Lessons when Using FarmerKnowledge in Agricultural Research and Development Projects in Africa”(Experimental Agriculture, forthcoming); with E. N. Masvaya et al., “Effect of FarmerManagement Strategies on Spatial Variability of Soil Fertility and Crop Nutrient Uptakein Contrasting Agro-Ecological Zones in Zimbabwe” (Nutrient Cycling inAgroecosystems, forthcoming); and with J. Njuki, M. Mapila, and S. Zingore, “TheDynamics of Social Capital in Influencing Use of Soil Management Options in theChinyanja Triangle of Southern Africa” (Ecology and Society, forthcoming).

BERNHARD FREYER is head of the Division of Organic Farming at the University ofNatural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria. His research focus coversethics, values, and attitudes of different stakeholders in the organic food chain related tosocietal and individual developments (e.g., theories on individualization, modernization,and social capital). Some recent publications are “The Differentiation Process inOrganic Agriculture (OA)—Between Capitalistic Market System and IFOAM Principles(16th IFOAM Organic World Congress; Cultivating the Future Based on Science, 2008);“Traditional and Ecological Farming Systems in (Sub) Tropical Countries—History,Interactions and Future Perspectives” (Journal of Agricultural and Rural Developmentin the Tropics, 2007); and with A. Muhar and U. Vilsmaier, “The Polarity FieldConcept—A New Approach for Integrated Regional Planning and SustainabilityProcesses” (GAIA Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 2006).

308 FIELD METHODS




Documents

Field Methods 2009 Gotschi 290 308