I think that's a good idea Duncan - Thanks to the lovely folk at IDS we 
should have somewhere to do that soon.

Chris

Duncan Fuller wrote:

>How about everyone keeps sending in their individual responses for now, and then we can set about collectively compiling them into something that makes sense using the Wiki format?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Participatory Video Network Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of T.J.M.P.Power
>Sent: 14 January 2008 09:54
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Network statement on PV in research
>
>Both sound like good ideas to me 
>
>:-)
>
>Tom Power.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Participatory Video Network Discussion List on behalf of Isabelle Lemaire
>Sent: Sat 1/12/2008 01:49 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Network statement on PV in research
> 
>Hello all,
>
>Great conversation!  I'm however struggling a little with the email  
>format since it's hard to keep up with the changes. Here are a few  
>ideas:
>
>1- Use a Wiki (i.e. collaborative online document) to work on these  
>statements together? Google doc is the one I like to use.
>
>For a fun and instructive video on wikis:
>http://dotsub.com/films/wikisinplainenglish/index.php
>
>2- We could also use a blog, so the format lends itself to  
>conversation a bit more... Where we can add comments to several  
>entries and keep up with the changes visually.
>
>3- We could also keep working on the Wikipedia definition, the site  
>says it needs clean up.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Isabelle Lemaire
>+44 (0) 793 190 6996
>MSN: izlemaire
>Skype: izlemaire
>Google chat: isabelle.lemaire
>SL: izza kamachi
>Bookmarks: http://del.icio.us/i_lemaire
>
>On 8 Jan 2008, at 15:15, Chris Seeley wrote:
>
>  
>
>>§    What is 'PV'?  What's your definition?  What is 'PV in  
>>research'?  Is there any difference?  What are the main things to  
>>do with PV, and PV in research that you think are their key  
>>defining features?    What is PV for in research?  What can it add?  
>>What wider issues of importance currently 'surround' PV in  
>>research?  What's the politics of PV in research?
>>
>>PV in research makes explicity all the process issues which are so  
>>often hidden in conventional research - such as - who makes sense?  
>>Who chooses what to research? Who edits the information? Who  
>>presents the information? PV offers the opportunity for research  
>>with rather than on people. It casts the researher as being in  
>>service of the community of interest, rather than the "researched"  
>>being in the service of the researcher. PV, then, acts to adjust  
>>conventional power relations.
>>
>>
>>
>>§    What is 'research'?  What's your definition?  What are the  
>>main things to do with research that you think is its key defining  
>>features?
>>
>>Research is a deliberate process for coming to know. In social  
>>settings, good research is conducted in self-reflective ways, and  
>>is conducted with rather than on other people. Researchers need to  
>>be explicitly aware of how their own interventions inevitably  
>>affect what they are researching with consequences which are both  
>>intended and unintended. research is a political act which seeks,  
>>explicitly or implicitly, to foreground some knowledge whilst  
>>leaving other knowing in the background.
>>
>>
>>
>>§    Where are you/we 'at' with PV?  What is the current status of  
>>PV?  What's the current context surrounding PV?  What does it  
>>offer? What sets it apart from other approaches?
>>
>>I think PV has so much to offer in terms of making power relations  
>>and the nature of research transparent. It requires a thoroughness  
>>and level of engagement which I am currently concerned falls  
>>outside the kinds of expectations of many commissioners of  
>>research. It seems to me that PV is currently most accepatable when  
>>the "haves/uppers" are "researching" the "Other /lowers/have-nots".
>>
>>§    What are the main issues facing the further development of PV  
>>in research? What are the major threats and opportunities facing PV  
>>in research?  Where do we want PV in research to go?  How do we get  
>>to where we want to be with PV? What needs to happen to support the  
>>development of PV in research in the UK and beyond?
>>
>>Thoughts: Issues are timing / engagement / adequate funding / the  
>>requirement for researchers to spend potentially extended periods  
>>with communities of interest. It would be good to get PV  
>>"evidence / data" acceptable in mainstream PhDs and Masters'  
>>theses. There is a great opportunity with YouTube / Facebook etc  
>>for PV to be carried out anyway - but what of the editing and  
>>quality processes? How does PV based research raise the level of  
>>attention and importance given to process issues such that its  
>>egalitarian principles can be recognised and valued?
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Duncan Fuller
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:58 PM
>>Subject: Re: Network statement on PV in research
>>
>>Hi everyone
>>
>>Happy New Year!  At a meeting before xmas held to discuss the  
>>various trainings undertaken so far I 'volunteered' to take on the  
>>development of the network statement on (the development of) 'PV in  
>>research' that we all might feel comfortable signing up to, and  
>>which might stand as a statement of intent etc in years to come.   
>>So please reacquaint yourselves with Chris's plea below, the text  
>>and style of the Cork declaration that might provide an interesting  
>>format to follow in building up such a statement, and have a look  
>>at the responses that came in following Chris's original email (at  
>>the bottom of this one).  Then, let me know (either on this list,  
>>or privately) what you think in response to the following questions:
>>
>>§    What is 'PV'?  What's your definition?  What is 'PV in  
>>research'?  Is there any difference?  What are the main things to  
>>do with PV, and PV in research that you think are their key  
>>defining features?    What is PV for in research?  What can it add?  
>>What wider issues of importance currently 'surround' PV in  
>>research?  What's the politics of PV in research?
>>
>>§    What is 'research'?  What's your definition?  What are the  
>>main things to do with research that you think is its key defining  
>>features?
>>
>>§    Where are you/we 'at' with PV?  What is the current status of  
>>PV?  What's the current context surrounding PV?  What does it  
>>offer? What sets it apart from other approaches?
>>
>>§    What are the main issues facing the further development of PV  
>>in research? What are the major threats and opportunities facing PV  
>>in research?  Where do we want PV in research to go?  How do we get  
>>to where we want to be with PV? What needs to happen to support the  
>>development of PV in research in the UK and beyond?
>>
>>Cheers for now
>>
>>Duncan
>>
>>From: Participatory Video Network Discussion List [mailto:PV-NET- 
>>[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris High
>>Sent: 29 November 2007 13:25
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Network statement on PV in research
>>
>>We'll discuss this at a meeting next month, but I found a copy of  
>>the Cork Declaration on rural development today, and thought I'd  
>>get the ball rolling.
>>
>>One of the main outputs of the network will be a statement on what  
>>PV is and what it's for in research.  The idea is to have something  
>>we can all sign up to, and that will then be there to refer to in  
>>research in project bids, giving some weight to PV as a research  
>>method.  It should also make a good discussion about ethics etc.
>>
>>The attached document was what gave me the idea, and has been an  
>>important thing in rural development policy and practice in Europe  
>>since it was published.  I'm not proposing we copy the style too  
>>closely, because it seems far too Brussels for my taste, but I'm  
>>posting it to give an idea.
>>
>>So the question is:  What would we like to have in our statement in  
>>an ideal world?
>>
>>Chris
>>[Duncan Fuller]
>>
>>In an 'ideal world' all research would be undertaken for the common  
>>good and the enhancement of social justice, emancipation, to make a  
>>difference etc etc - as such, and my starter for ten, is that such  
>>a statement should be clear about the need for PV to be seen in the  
>>wider context of action, not just extraction (of someone elses  
>>information. as 'research').
>>
>>.ideally PV should be the tool used in participatory learning and  
>>action processes to build capacity and confidence and be used to  
>>promote engagement by disadvantaged people in communication,  
>>dialogue and negotiation - horizontally but also vertically with  
>>more powerful groups. It is a useful tool because it overcomes  
>>communication barriers where there are high levels of illiteracy  
>>and is powerful because it shows the visual context to those who  
>>may not be so familiar - and perhaps can open the eyes of those who  
>>are familiar with this context because it shows it to them in a  
>>different light - so it can challenge entrenched beliefs.  I think  
>>that as with any participatory process there are risks and  
>>challenges, and that the quality of facilitation is crucial but can  
>>be variable.   Documentary video making is separate from PV, but  
>>often confused with it.in the latter it is important that ordinary  
>>people have the chance to use this tool in their own research -  
>>they should set the research agenda and should control the  
>>copyright to any video produced during the research process.  Also  
>>such research processes should be inclusive, but also aware of the  
>>differences that exist in any 'community' and so efforts should be  
>>made to support the voices of those who are the least vocal and  
>>have the least power.
>>
>>
>>At the root of participatory approaches in development research is  
>>the idea that your questions are always tentative and partial and  
>>the only chance to make them more complete and meaningful is  
>>through openly and humbly engage with the people concerned. Such a  
>>'participation' is not an ethical addition but a methodological  
>>necessity. In my view, this is a key point.
>>
>>Historically, participatory perspectives have placed a great  
>>emphasis on the ethical dimension. I don't think such emphasis is  
>>necessary nor helpful. It certainly hasn't stopped the spreading of  
>>tokenistic uses of participation in mainstream development. Indeed,  
>>the opposite is true: all tokenistic 'participatory' components in  
>>otherwise centralised or donor-driven programmes are there  
>>precisely to seek (and, in our non-ideal world, usually find)  
>>ethical legitimation.
>>
>>All this emphasis on ethics has (accidentally?) driven the  
>>attention away from the more fundamentally challenging idea that  
>>'participation' (humbling and openly engage with the people  
>>concerned) is in most development contexts a strictly  
>>methodological necessity.
>>
>>When you don't know what you don't know, how can you ask questions?  
>>If you expect most of what is crucial in your research to be beyond  
>>the horizon of your world view and your theoretical models - as you  
>>should when working in development -how can you still grasp what  
>>you can't see and can't understand? How can you build into your  
>>approach the expectation that you are going to be surprised?  
>>Certain methods (e.g. PV) can help to deal with these issues -  
>>although not with all issues -better than others (e.g.  
>>questionnaires).
>>
>>This doesn't mean that the ethical issue should be dismissed.  
>>Simply, ethics is not to be dealt with at the level of methology,  
>>but much earlier on. There might be ethically sensitive researchers  
>>and research programmes but there are no ethical methodologies, and  
>>we certainly should keep away from such a trap.
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
>>content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
>>to be clean.
>>
>>The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
>>Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>