Photovoice

Photovoice is a participatory method first developed by Caroline Wang and Mary Ann Burris in the 1990s, drawing on traditions of feminist and critical pedagogy. It invites participants to use photography to document and reflect on their experiences, highlighting issues that matter to them. Initially applied in public health and community development, it has since been adapted across many fields, including environmental research. Photovoice is often used in community-based projects to stimulate dialogue, build collective understanding, and influence decision-making. For researchers working on biodiversity and sustainability, it provides a way to engage with local knowledge, generate rich visual and narrative data, and connect individual and collective perspectives to broader governance debates.

Photovoice is different from other photography-based approaches, such as photo journals, competitions, or exhibitions. This is because:

• Photovoice involves working with a designated group of people over a set period of time. The group is asked to reflect on a shared question or theme and respond to it through photography.  

• Photovoice is not just about visual content, it offers a structured, reflective process, in which the photographs are a starting point for dialogue, reflection, and potentially, change.  

• Photovoice has traditionally been a method for people who are often overlooked, unheard or unseen in a particular setting. The intended value of Photovoice projects is important to consider – whose viewpoints (human and / or environmental) are you supporting or enabling?  

In this module Geraldine Brown explains how Photovoice was used within PLANET4B, in this video she introduces the PLANET4B Learning Community:

In this video Geraldine Brown introduces how Photovoice can be used to explore perspectives and experiences through images:

Key Features‍

Participants:

• Group size ranges from 10 – 35 people, the group should enable group discussions but also have opportunities to support individuals. The method can also be adapted to use with individuals.
• In the PLANET4B project this method was integrated into the participatory filmmaking undertaken with the UK case study Learning Community (exploring nature-society relations amongst Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities). Meanwhile a close variant of it – photo interview – was used as part of the Swiss case study (exploring organic farming practices and religion).
• Participants do not necessarily need to know each other beforehand, however, if you are running this method with a new group it is recommended to spend a session building connections and create a sense of familiarity. The 'Who Am I?' Method, or Biodiversity Storytelling may be helpful.

Timeframe:

• A minimum of 2 sessions with the participants is recommended, however this could be increased, depending on your timeframe and goals.
• Once you have recruited your group, ideally allow a minimum of 2 weeks for taking photos, reflecting, and writing captions. This timeframe can, however, be shortened or extended based on your schedule and capacity.

Budget and Materials:

Photovoice can be a low-cost method, however you may still need to budget for the following:

• Photography equipment: many people will be able to take photos using their phones. You might want to consider having some cameras available to borrow, or tripods or photo lights - this helps include those without phone cameras or allows for higher-quality images if desired.
• Workshop materials - flipcharts, sticky notes and markers (for planning, storyboarding and group discussion, and snacks, drinks, or lunch (if in person)
• Gifts – a small thank-you gift could be offered for attending, however a prize is not appropriate in this method, as all contributions are equally valued.
• Display materials - including printing costs, clip frames, foam boards, or digital screens.
• Time – if workshops happen during work hours, factor in the cost of people’s time.
• Participant information sheets and ethical consent forms, if being used as part of a research process.

Skills Required:

To help support the method run smoothly, ensure the following skills are covered by the team:

• Facilitation: Guide group discussions in a way that encourages reflection and flattens hierarchy. Create a space where participants feel comfortable to speak, share, and challenge ideas.
• Supporting: participants should have ownership of the process, the organiser’s role is to support, not steer, the process.
• Storytelling and communication: Support photographers in developing captions and communicating the meaning behind their images, exploring if this could be distilled into a clear message.
• Leveraging and influence: Understand how the images and stories might have an impact. For example, will they raise awareness, build momentum, or prompt a specific change?
• Project coordination: Manage logistics, communication, scheduling, materials, budget

When using photovoice in a research setting, attention should be paid to the research process, the integrity of the approach, and the implications it holds for co-created knowledge.

Define research objectives

• Begin by clarifying what the Photovoice project is intended to investigate, while leaving space for unexpected outcomes to emerge.
• Objectives may include exploring how people perceive and value biodiversity, how everyday practices shape interactions with species or landscapes, or how photographs surface overlooked features of the environment.
• Researchers may also wish to examine how the method itself creates space for dialogue, participation, or advocacy, aligning objectives with both participant interests and wider research aims.
• Longer-term objectives can include informing biodiversity policy, strengthening community engagement, or supporting community-led initiatives for ecological change.

Data generation

• Photovoice produces multiple forms of data, including participant-taken images, captions, transcripts of group discussions, and researcher fieldnotes.
• If an exhibition or public dialogue is hosted, this process will also generate additional data.
• Managing this variety of data requires clear organisation, such as cataloguing images with metadata, linking them to transcripts or captions, and using secure digital storage with agreed access protocols.
• Together, these materials provide a basis for analysing both what participants photograph and how they collectively interpret and discuss their images.

Ethics and consent

• Ethical practice is central, since photographs may depict people, private spaces, or ecologically sensitive sites.
• Informed consent should explain how images and accompanying narratives will be used, stored, and shared.
• Participants should retain control over whether their images are identifiable, anonymised, or shared publicly, and be able to withdraw consent at any point.
• Researchers should be transparent about whether photographs, captions, or quotations will appear in publications, exhibitions, or policy outputs.

Analytical strategies

• Thematic analysis can identify recurring concerns, narratives, and values related to biodiversity, but should be complemented by attention to what is absent as well as present in the data.
• Narrative analysis can explore how participants construct stories around their images, while the sequencing and selection of photographs can signal priorities and hierarchies of meaning.
• Visual analysis can draw on visual sociology and semiotics to examine symbolism, composition, and perspective, recognising that images may convey emotions or insights not made explicit in words.
• Discourse analysis can investigate how language, metaphor, or silence frame biodiversity, linking visual and verbal material to wider ecological and political contexts.
• Comparative and triangulated approaches can connect across participants, groups, or sites, and situate findings in broader ecological and governance debates, grounding interpretation in both local and systemic contexts.

Positionality

• The researcher’s role shapes the process, from framing prompts to facilitating group analysis and curating outputs.
• Reflexive practice requires recognising how assumptions about biodiversity, photography, or advocacy may privilege certain representations.
• Working collaboratively with participants, or with a diverse facilitation team, can mitigate bias and ensure that a plurality of voices is represented.
• Transparency about how facilitation choices influence what stories, images, and themes are prioritised strengthens credibility.

Theoretical framing

• Photovoice is situated within traditions of participatory action research, feminist scholarship, and critical pedagogy.
• It connects with debates on visual methods, memory, identity, and environmental communication, as well as biodiversity governance and political ecology.
• The method highlights how images and dialogue can act as both data and advocacy, producing knowledge that is empirical, cultural, and political.
• Positioning Photovoice within participatory and reflexive research traditions underscores its potential to support both knowledge generation and transformative social-ecological change