Photovoice, Book Review Example

Those new to the “photovoice” concept may be excused if they are puzzled at first. Think of “photovoice” as a kind of open-source method to “signify a general participatory photography methodological approach. While sharing similar roots, not all projects referred to as ‘photovoice’ projects are specifically PhotoVoice projects, as run by this organisation” (PhotoVoice). “This organization” references “PhotoVoice” (note the capital “V”), a proprietary organization with its own mission. In short, the two terms are rather like “photocopy” and “Xerox.” The 1997 article by authors Wang and Burris does not reference the PhotoVoice brand, because their generic “photovoice”, which they developed in Yunnan, China, predates it. Their idea was to give cameras to otherwise unempowered individuals and let them loose in the interest of community activism — recording what was found from the point of view of members of that community, not of researchers outside that community looking in with their own expectations (Wang and Burris).

The main problem with the article is that since its publication in 1997 it has been superseded by the Web — Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube — and its increasingly seamless cultural presence via mobile technology. The Web itself is now one huge photovoice platform. The use of the proprietary PhotoVoice website as a fundraising mechanism is a reflection of this. Wang and Burris, meanwhile, have no active Web presence. So the article, although useful, is no longer topical. What started out as an exercise in practical idealism has been virtuously absorbed by forces outside itself. That is probably its best contribution.

Works Cited

PhotoVoice. Background to the field: PhotoVoice, photovoice methodology and participatory photography. 2014. Website. 24 May 2014.

Wang, Caroline and Mary Ann Burris. “Photovoice: Concept, Methodology, and Use for Participatory Needs Assessment.” Health Education & Behavior (1997): 369-387. Article.