Product Details

Author Information

Corresponding Author
Caricia Catalani
University of California, Berkeley
620 Guerrero Street, #5
San Francisco, CA
United States
p: 917.533.7008
catalani@berkeley.edu

Authors (listed in order of authorship):
Anthony Veneziale
VideoVoice Collective

Larry Campbell
Israelite Baptist Church

Shawna Herbst
Tulane Community Health Center at Covenant House

Anthony Wilson

Craig McCullough

Darrel Barnes

Jackie Alexander

Jeremiah Sherman

Michele Burton-Oatis

Michael Oatis
New Orleans VideoVoice Project

Rev. Samson "Skip" Alexander

Benjamin Springgate
REACH NOLA Robert Wood Johnson Community Scholars

Brittany Butler
REACH NOLA

Meredith Minkler
University of California, Berkeley

Product Description and Application Narrative Submitted by Corresponding Author

What general topics does your product address?

Public Health

What specific topics does your product address?

Built environment, Community assessment, Community health , Education, Employment, Environmental health, Health disparities, Housing, Social determinants of health

Does your product focus on a specific population(s)?

What methodological approaches were used in the development of your product, or are discussed in your product?

Videovoice

What resource type(s) best describe(s) your product?

Documentary

Application Narrative

1. Please provide a 1600 character abstract describing your product, its intended use and the audiences for which it would be appropriate.*

In Harmony is a community-based participatory film produced using videovoice methodology, a health advocacy, education, and research methodology through which people get behind video cameras to research issues of concern, communicate knowledge, and advocate for change. This video was produced by the New Orleans VideoVoice Project, a community-academic-filmmaker partnership for health. Together, our partnership participated in an 18-week training and community assessment. We gathered community assessment evidence in the form of video interviews, environmental footage, and footage of community events. The community assessment identified concerns about the health impacts of the built environment in post-Katrina New Orleans, including housing, education, and employment. Partners engaged in a participatory editing process to produce this 22-minute documentary describing assessment findings. The film premiered before more than 200 city leaders and residents in New Orleans and was viewed, in thematic sections, by over 4000 people from around the world on YouTube during their first two months online. Videovoice methodology, as demonstrated by this film, may provide communities hit hard by the shock of natural disaster or by the corrosive effects of long-term social inequities with the opportunity to build the capacity to produce independent media, equitably engage in research, and advocate for change.

2. What are the goals of the product?

In Harmony, the community-based participatory video produced by our New Orleans partnership, provides a model to CBPR partnerships. Our partnership's goal for this video is that it be used to mobilize for action and advocacy around the structural and social causes of disease, including education, housing, and economy.

Videovoice is an innovative methodology for engaging communities in research and action and for communicating research findings with diverse communities and policymakers (Catalani et al., under review).

3. Who are the intended audiences or expected users of the product?

In Harmony may interest several potential audiences, including:
1. Practitioners of community-based participatory research;
2. Public health, medical, and social service professionals working in New Orleans and other disaster prone areas;
3. Those interested in research translation, communication and dissemination;
4. Media advocates and others who use media to mobilize community, communicate public health concerns, and influence knowledge/attitudes/behaviors;
5. Filmmakers interested in engaging in new partnerships; and,
6. Public health leaders concerned with health disparities.

4. Please provide any special instructions for successful use of the product, if necessary. If your product has been previously published, please provide the appropriate citation below.

NA

5. Please describe how your product or the project that resulted in the product builds on a relevant field, discipline or prior work. You may cite the literature and provide a bibliography in the next question if appropriate.

Since the mid-1990’s, over 1500 articles and books have been published on community-based participatory approaches in public health research and intervention (Israel, 2005; Minkler and Wallerstein, 2008; Viswanathan et al., 2004). CBPR has been defined as “Systematic inquiry, with the collaboration of those affected by the issue being studied, for purposes of education and taking action for effecting change” (Green et al., 1995). CBPR emphasizes equitable community participation at all research stages (Israel et al., 1998). One strength is that it is not a method, but rather an orientation to research. As such, methodological approaches to CBPR are diverse, including qualitative, quantitative and multimedia methods (Chavez et al., 2004; Israel, 2005; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2008; Wang & Burris, 1997).

Although public health research projects have previously utilized participatory video (Chandra & Batada, 2006; Chavez et al., 2004; Freudenthal et al., 2006), our literature review suggests this may be the first academic publication using a specific participatory video methodology: videovoice. Our conceptualization of videovoice is rooted in CBPR practice (Israel, 2005; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2008)—especially photovoice (Wang & Burris, 1997; Catalani & Minkler, in press), participatory media production (Lunch & Lunch, 2006; White, 2003) and new media theory, critical theory, and Paulo Freire’s (1970, 1973) critical pedagogy.

Videovoice builds on the photovoice literature. Since its development in the mid-1990’s (Wang & Burris, 1994, 1997; Wang, 1999; Wang et al., 1998), photovoice has received growing attention in health promotion-related fields. Consistent with CBPR principles, photovoice is a collaborative photography approach involving community members in taking and discussing photographs to catalyze personal and community change (Wang et al., 1998). Photovoice facilitates use of photographs as “an advocacy tool to reach policy makers, health planners, community leaders, and other people who can be mobilized to make change” (Wang & Pies, 2004, p. 96).

6. Please provide a bibliography for work cited above or in other parts of this application. Provide full references, in the order sited in the text (i.e. according to number order). .

References

Catalani, C., & Minkler, M. (in press). Photovoice: A Review of the Literature in Health and Public Health. Health Education and Behavior.

Catalani, C., Veneziale, A., Campbell, L., Herbst, S., Springgate, B., & Minkler, M. (under review). Videovoice: Community Assessment in Post-Katrina New Orleans. Health Promotion Practice.

Census. (2000). Census 2000 Sample Characteristics (SF3). From a compilation by the GNO Community Data Center. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.

Chandra, A., & Batada, A. (2006). Exploring stress and coping among urban African American adolescents: the Shifting the Lens study. Prevention of Chronic Disease, 3(2), A40.

Chavez, V., Israel, B., Allen, A. J., 3rd, DeCarlo, M. F., Lichtenstein, R., Schulz, A., et al. (2004). A Bridge Between Communities: Video-making using principles of community-based participatory research. Health Promot Pract, 5(4), 395-403.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary Addition, 2000 ed.). New York: The Seabury Press.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.

Freudenthal, S., Ahlberg, B. M., Mtweve, S., Nyindo, P., Poggensee, G., & Krantz, I. (2006). School-based prevention of schistosomiasis: initiating a participatory action research project in northern Tanzania. Acta Trop, 100(1-2), 79-87.

Green, L. W., George, M. A., Daniel, M., Frankish, C. J., Herbert, C. P., Bowie, W. R., et al. (1995). Study of participatory research in health promotion: Review and recommendations for the development of participatory research inhealth promotion in Canada. Vancouver, British Columbia: Royal Society of Canada.

Gross, L., Katz, J. S., & Ruby, J. (Eds.). (1988). The Moral Rights of Subjects in Photographs, Film, and Television. New York: Oxford University Press.

Israel, B., Schultz, A., Parker, E., & Becker, A. (1998). Review of Community-Based Research: Assessing Partnership Approaches to Improve Public Health. Annual Review of Public Health(19), 173-202.

Israel, B. A. (Ed.). (2005). Methods in community-based participatory research for health (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Israel, B., Schultz, A., Parker, E., Becker, A., Allen, A., & Guzman, J. (2008). Critical issues in developing and following CBPR principles. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes (2nd ed.). San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.

Lunch, N., & Lunch, C. (2006). Insights Into Participatory Video: A Handbook for the Field (1st ed.). Oxford: Insight.
Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2008). Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.

Minkler, M., Wallerstein, N. (2008). Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes (2nd ed.). San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.

Parker, E., Robins, T., Israel, B., Brakefield-Caldwell, W., Edgren, K. K., & Wilkins, D. J. (2005). Philosophy and Guiding Principles for Dissemination of Findings of the Michigan Center for the Environmental and Children's Health (MCECH) Including Authorship of Publications and Presentations, Policies and Procedures, Access to Data, and Related Matters. In B. Israel, E. Eng, S. A & E. Parker (Eds.), Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health (pp. 434-437). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Plyer, A. (2008). New data reveals 16 New Orleans neighborhoods have less than half their pre-Katrina households: Postal records give solid estimates, provide innovative approach to measuring recovery (Press Release). New Orleans: Greater New Orleans Community Data Center.

Shaffer, R. (1983). Beyond the Dispensary. Nairobi, Kenya: African Medical and Research Foundation.

United States Bureau of the Census . (2000). Census 2000 Sample Characteristics (SF3). From a compilation by the GNO Community Data Center. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census.

Viswanathan, M., Ammerman, A., Eng, E., Gartlehner, G., Lohr, K., Griffith, D., et al. (2004). Community-Based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence (No. AHRQ Publication 04-E0222). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Wallerstein, N. (1992). Powerlessness, empowerment, and health: Implications for health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion, 6, 197-205.

Wang, C., & Burris, M. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education and Behavior, 24, 369-387.

Wang, C. C. (1999). Photovoice: A participatory action research strategy applied to women's health. Journal of Womens Health, 8(2), 185-192.

Wang, C. C., & Burris, M. (1994). Empowerment through photo novella: Portraits of participation. Health Education Quarterly, 21, 171-186.

Wang, C. C., & Redwood-Jones, Y. (2001). Photovoice ethics: Perspectives from Flint Photovoice. Health Education and Behavior, 28(5), 560-572.

Wang, C. C., Yi, W. K., Tao, Z. W., & Carovano, K. (1998). Photovoice as a participatory health promotion strategy. Health Promotion International, 13(1), 75-86.

Wang, C. C., & Pies, C. A. (2004). Family, maternal, and child health through photovoice. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 8(2), 95-102.

White, S. (2003). Participatory Video: Images that Transform and Empower: Sage.

Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: psychological, organizational and community levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 43-63). New York: Academic/Plenum.

7. Please describe the project or body of work from which the submitted product developed. Describe the ways that community and academic/institutional expertise contributed to the project. Pay particular attention to demonstrating the quality or rigor of the work:

• For research-related work, describe (if relevant) study aims, design, sample, measurement instruments, and analysis and interpretation. Discuss how you verified the accuracy of your data.
• For education-related work, describe (if relevant) any needs assessment conducted, learning objectives, educational strategies incorporated, and evaluation of learning.
• For other types of work, discuss how the project was developed and reasons for the methodological choices made.

Building on photovoice methodology (Wang & Burris, 1997; Catalani & Minkler, in press), we defined videovoice as a health advocacy and research methodology through which people, usually the subjects or consumers of mainstream media, get behind video cameras to research issues of concern, communicate their knowledge, and advocate for change (Catalani et al., under review). Our goals were to use this particular video technique to facilitate: (1) Research and documentation by community members of community strengths and challenges; (2) Group discussion of important issues to promote critical consciousness and empowerment; (3) Communication across communities and with policy- and decision-makers, institutional leaders, and program planners; and, (4) Mobilization/action on public health challenges.

This videovoice community assessment was conceived and implemented by a community-university-film partnership initiated by REACH NOLA, a New Orleans organization working to build community-university partnerships for health. Since its establishment after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, REACH NOLA has worked to enhance community engagement in health research and practice.

The project’s theoretical framework was grounded in CBPR principles (Israel et al., 2008) and empowerment theory, described by Wallerstein (1992) as “a social action process by which individuals, communities and organizations gain mastery over their lives in the context of changing their social and political environment to improve equity and quality of life” (p. 198). As Zimmerman (2000) notes, regardless of the level of empowerment, 3 factors – participation, control, and critical awareness—are involved.

Setting and participants: The project took place from September 2007 to August 2008 in New Orleans’ Central City neighborhood. Before Katrina, this neighborhood was home to over 19,000 people (87% African American; 50% living below the poverty line) (US Census, 2000). Although Central City was hard hit by Katrina, about 78% of the residents had returned as of June 2008 (Plyer, 2008).

Initially, four community and academic partners founded the project as a part of their longstanding involvement in REACH NOLA’s CBPR activities. For their time and leadership, all core community, film, and academic partners received equal salary support. This core group reached out to four additional research and film partners to join the collaboration. Partners then recruited additional community participants by posting flyers; through announcements at local social service, arts, religious, and health organizations; and, by word of mouth. Eight interested community members attended a weekend orientation and training, providing an opportunity to discuss the videovoice process, project objectives and timeline, community health concerns, ethics and safety in video production, and video equipment operation. Potential participants were told they would receive a stipend of $200 for taking part in the project; access to editing/production equipment; copies of the final film; a video camera upon completion of the project; and, access to all footage and data during and after the project. All eight joined the partnership. Our CBPR team then consisted of sixteen people, including filmmakers (n=2), academic researchers (n=4), and community members (n=10). Half of our partners were African American, more than half (56%) were male, and ages ranged from 28 to 78.

8. Please describe the process of developing the product, including the ways that community and academic/institutional expertise were integrated in the development of this product.

Data Collection: Community assessment findings are based on the triangulation of several kinds of data: participants’ environmental footage, in-depth interviews, and discussion sessions. We placed video cameras in the hands of community members, all of whom (n=10) captured environmental footage of neighborhood assets and needs through their own eyes and experiences. Initially, the team set out to "tell the story of Central City, New Orleans" and refined this direction as footage collection, discussion, and analysis ensued. In total, we collected more than 25 hours of environmental footage, representing a wide-ranging collection of images depicting everyday sights, sounds, and special events that were meaningful to participants. In-depth interviews were conducted with community members, who were recruited through word of mouth, using a semi-structured guide that focused on community assets and needs. In total, we conducted 37 interviews, averaging approximately 30 minutes in length and representing a purposeful sample of community leaders and residents from diverse backgrounds.

Participants attended weekly discussion and training sessions for twelve weeks while collecting footage and an additional six sessions while editing footage. Each weekly session lasted approximately two hours and was videotaped. During the first eight sessions, several participants shared short clips of the environmental or interview footage from that week and academic or filmmaker partners facilitated discussion about the clips. Questions based on the SHOWeD technique (Shaffer, 1983) were used to facilitate the discussions and involved asking the group: (a) What do you See here? (b) What’s really Happening here? (c) How does this relate to Our lives? (d) Why does this problem, concern, or strength Exist? and, (e) what can we Do about it?. During the second half of each meeting, filmmaker partners led a co-learning training by screening additional clips of footage and then eliciting questions and suggestions from participants regarding their viewability, expression, and communication. Critical discussion provided the opportunity for partners to build relationships, establish trust, and to engage in honest dialogue that partners agreed was rare for such a diverse group.

Data analysis and interpretation: Qualitative themes emerge from weekly discussions. At the midpoint in the data/footage collection period, the team engaged in a participatory visual analysis process, identifying primary themes based on the emergence of common and repeated concepts in interviews, environmental footage, and weekly discussions. This process informed purposeful selection of additional interviews and environmental footage, with the objective of reaching saturation and testing rival hypotheses.

Once data/footage collection concluded, we began the iterative process of participatory video editing and discussion. From the onset of the project, we assumed that filmmaker partners would implement the technical aspects of editing while eliciting instruction and feedback from community partners. When several community partners communicated their strong interest in the technical aspects of video editing, we redefined this stage so that community partners became the principle film editors with the assistance of filmmaker partners as their technical mentors. During this process, three community partners used Final Cut™ professional editing software to assemble rough and then refined versions of the film with feedback from all partners.

The first community screening of the final film provided an opportunity to celebrate, share our film, and confirm findings with residents. After viewing the film, more than 200 community attendees provided feedback through discussion and survey responses on the film’s accuracy and quality. Although attendees felt that the film lacked one important viewpoint,—that of children under age 18 (not permitted by our IRB agreement during this pilot)—there was overwhelming agreement that the film accurately reflected the most important assets and needs of the community.

9. Please discuss the significance and impact of your product. In your response, discuss ways your product has added to existing knowledge and benefited the community; ways others may have utilized your product; and any relevant evaluation data about impact, if available. If the impact of the product is not yet known, discuss its potential significance.

In Harmony was produced by the New Orleans VideoVoice Project through an innovative partnership between community members, filmmakers, and academic researchers. It captures rich qualitative insight into community needs and assets in an area of the United States that struggles with substantial disparities. The hurricane and the breaking of the levees created a sense of urgency for local community members, leaders, and policymakers to take action. In Harmony has been used to mobilize for action and advocacy during a pivotal time in city planning and development.

Community Premiere Screenings: Approximately 200 people attended two community premieres of “In Harmony.” The first premiere was a celebration of the film’s completion and our community filmmakers each received an award and video camera in acknowledgement of their efforts. After each premiere screening, community leaders from our group facilitated an action-oriented discussion on issues raised by the film. Post screening evaluations revealed that the vast majority (83%, n=79) of respondents agreed very strongly that the film brought up issues that they cared about. Most respondents (80%) indicated that they were interested in joining with others to take action on the issues raised and most (69%) reported that they would be interested in participating in the next videovoice filmmaking project. Although many of the attendees were leaders from local social service and health organizations, there were no government policymakers in attendance despite having been invited by multiple people and through multiple means.

YouTube & Sharing Online: The final film was broken into several short issue-based films and then shared online through YouTube—specifically, www.youtube.com/VideoVoiceCollective. After two-months, these films received a total of over 4400 views from across the North America, Europe, South America, Asia, Northern Africa, and the Middle East (in that rank).

DVD Distribution: The film and extras on the making of “In Harmony” were also distributed via DVD. Every project participant received at least one personal copy plus additional copies to share with family, friends, and local leaders. Partners also shared the DVD with targeted community leaders and policymakers with consideration for their influence over the issues of concern. As of December 2008, we had strategically distributed over 1000 DVDs.

Since the production of "In Harmony" all of our partners have continued to use video in their lives, community projects, and work. One community partner has sense become the director of the New Orleans VideoVoice Project and is now leading a videovoice project in collaboration with youth.

10. Please describe why you chose the presentation format you did.

We chose video for three reasons. First, video has the capacity to capture rich data in the form of vivid moving images and sound. Second, video is typically produced by teams and, therefore, it is an apt medium for partnered efforts. Third, video has ability to communicate findings and knowledge gained and involve all partners in the communication process. All partners contributed substantially to the communication of findings through film screening events, the distribution of DVDs, and online video sharing. One advantage of video as a medium for communication and mobilization is that films are commonly viewed by groups. In groups, people are more able to engage in critical discussion of what they view. We found that discussing the film was integral to sharing findings in a meaningful manner and mobilizing for change. Theatres, schools, organizations, and even family living rooms have the equipment necessary to bring groups together to watch films. Through these many means, “In Harmony” can be shared. In addition to disseminating findings through group screenings, technological advancements can also facilitate the strategic dissemination of films to particular individuals. Through DVD, personal computers, and mobile devices like cellphones, videos reached individuals around the world quickly and cheaply.

11. Please reflect on the strengths and limitations of your product. In what ways did community and academic/institutional collaborators provide feedback and how was such feedback used? Include relevant evaluation data about strengths and limitations if available.

The ways in which academic and community partners worked together to produce this film are described in question 29 and 28. As most of the information that we provide speaks to the strengths of our video product, we will address its limitations here.

First, as we explained to potential participants during the informed consent process, privacy could not be guaranteed for those who appear on video. Although participants appeared to speak openly and honestly with the community members that interviewed them, their responses were likely affected by the knowledge that family, friends, neighbors, and perhaps even people from around the world might view them and their testimony on video.

Second, there are several ethical challenges inherent to visual products, as described by Wang and Redwood-Jones (2001) and Gross et al (1988). These threats could not be completely removed, however we attempted to address them by implementing a video ethics and safety workshop, informed consent procedures, and participatory and inclusive editing practices.

Third, video projects may be cost and time prohibitive for some partnerships. However, our project budget (approximately $45,000) and timeline (11 months) were comparatively more economical and less time-intensive than many traditional methodological approaches to CBPR, as described by Israel et al (2005).

12. Please describe ways that the project resulting in the product involved collaboration that embodied principles of mutual respect, shared work and shared credit. If different, describe ways that the product itself involved collaboration that embodied principles of mutual respect, shared work and shared credit. Have all collaborators on the product been notified of and approved submission of the product to CES4Health.info? If not, why not? Please indicate whether the project resulting in the product was approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) and/or community-based review mechanism, if applicable, and provide the name(s) of the IRB/mechanism.

This videovoice community assessment was conceived and implemented by a community-university-film partnership. This partnership was initiated by REACH NOLA, a New Orleans organization that works to build community-university partnerships for health. Since its establishment during the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in 2005, REACH NOLA has worked to enhance community engagement in health research and practice.

Consistent with the work of Parker et al (2005), this partnership was guided by CBPR principles of collaboration that specifically established policies and procedures around project development, research implementation, data ownership, authorship, financial arrangements, development and dissemination of findings, and ethics and safety. These principles reinforced the ideal of partnered participation between community, academic, and filmmaker collaborators during all stages of the research process. As a part of our commitment to equity, all community, academic, and film partners participated in the allocation and management of our common budget. We maintained our budget and spending records transparently, using a Google™ spreadsheet accessible to all principle partners. Although this process resulted in further time commitment for all partners, each group felt that its interests were equally represented in the way that we allocated our funds. Funds were kept in two accounts, one controlled by our principle community partner through the fiscal sponsorship of a partnering community-based organization and one controlled by our principle academic partner through the fiscal sponsorship of an academic organization.

All partners and participants have been notified and gave their approval of submitting of "In Harmony" video to online sharing sites and other resource sharing tools. The core publication committee--which includes three community members, three academic partners, and one filmmaker partner--unanimously approved the submission to CES4Health.info.

Human Subjects approval was granted to “New Orleans Videovoice” (CPHS #2008-1-7) on April 2008. Additionally, our partners from UCLA were granted human subjects approval for “New Orleans Videovoice” under the Memorandum of Understanding between the two institutions for expedited research.