Using participatory video in environmental research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tackling environmental challenges that face humanity requires us to acknowledge new ways of working and to cross disciplinary boundaries. However, the methodological toolkit used by environmental researchers to explore the human attitudes, knowledge and behaviours that drive global challenges such as biodiversity loss and climate breakdown remains constrained. Here, we describe participatory video, a methodology for capturing and communicating knowledge, which goes beyond interviews, focus groups and participant observation. We draw from the literature and our own experience of conducting participatory video projects in Nepal, Guyana and Peru. We demonstrate the diverse ways in which the methodology can be applied to environmental research and highlight its strengths and limitations. Participatory video provides a more holistic understanding of environmental issues by using multiple types of data, its longer‐term engagement with issues, opening channels of communication between stakeholders, engaging a diversity of knowledge systems and advocating for transformative change. By taking a participatory video approach, environmental researchers may begin to counter commonplace criticisms about lack of diversity and entrenched colonialism. This simultaneously responds to wider calls for environmental research to engage with social justice issues, represent diverse voices, understand different contexts and acknowledge the role of power. Crucially, this helps build trust amongst all those involved. By demonstrating how we have successfully used participatory video in projects in conservation, ecology and climate science, we provide guidance for researchers looking to expand their methodological toolkit. Ultimately, we seek to improve the use of participatory methods to help support communities to tackle the environmental challenges that they face. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.061 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".