1. Between Potential and Reality: negotiating participatory visual processes towards community emergence Jacqueline Shaw, Graham Jeffery and Kerrie Schaefer (apols for absence!)

2. From ground level insight to global policy influence UN Post-2015 context - Participate research initiative Visual methods programme - participatory video, DST and Photovoice used to drive community-led action research processes in 10 countries Overall, insight on relational processes needed to shift power dynamics that prevent sustainable change

3. Intro to Remaking Society project

4. Community emergence This conference has identified place-based and identity-based communityThis conference has identified place-based and identity-based community Community not static object to be servicedCommunity not static object to be serviced Dynamic, emergingDynamic, emerging Created and negotiated through processes (often tension-filled)Created and negotiated through processes (often tension-filled) Tensions are generativeTensions are generative

5. ‘Community’ – problematic concept In this study we drew on a ‘dynamic’ notion of community, articulated by Prof. David Watt after the programme for community arts that Kelly went on to define via the British Socialist critical tradition, and Shelton Trust’s manifesto on cultural democracy (1986). According to Watt: “Static notions of community are seen as impositions, usually categorisations, by a dominant culture concerned to maintain itself as monolithic by exercising its power to define and subsume subgroups. Dynamic notions of community … allow the creation of purposive communities of interest which, by the process of self-definition, resist being thus subsumed and can retain an oppositional integrity. This autonomy introduces the possibility of internal negotiation as a basic mode of social interaction, and they are consequently potentially democratic and alterable. The commitment to democracy as a principle is then seen as leading to the possibility of broad alliances between autonomous groups working to undermine the dominant culture through an insistence on common access to the process of creating meaning and value within the culture” (1991: 64).

6. The practice realities in context Idealistic framing – tendency for optimistic discussion of general perceived potential that can result –rather than how, for whom and in what circumstancesIdealistic framing – tendency for optimistic discussion of general perceived potential that can result –rather than how, for whom and in what circumstances Call for evaluation of social impact – tendency to focus on individual rather than collective gainsCall for evaluation of social impact – tendency to focus on individual rather than collective gains Contested context between policy and practice intentions, across existing divides and agenciesContested context between policy and practice intentions, across existing divides and agencies

7. What are the key tensions between possibility and constraint?

8. e.g Practice happens on continuum between boundaries ENABLER Structured process- separating internal and external Public voice Speaking up POSSIBILITY Being heardPRACTICE TENSION Risk of exposure Public silence Keeping quiet HINDRANCE Pressure due to short timeframe or external expectation

9. Extended participatory process Group forming andGroup forming and building – safe space building – safe space Group level (internal)Group level (internal) exploration and reflection exploration and reflection How change can happen and what prevents it? Horizontal level dialogueHorizontal level dialogue From issues to solutionsFrom issues to solutions - and the barriers?- and the barriers? Across community dialogueAcross community dialogue Vertical dialogueVertical dialogue

10. Films

11. Adapted from Shaw 2012:135-6 Process Possibilities Linked practice tensions Establishing collaborative dynamics – shifting power imbalance Within community dynamics – avoiding take-over by most influential when negotiating between individual/group/wider needs Developing voice through group interaction Ethics of public exposure – encouraging open expression versus risk of inappropriate exposure and backlash Towards community- driven development Whose agenda? – external commissioning influence versus practitioner’s intentions/group interests Tendency for policy/research agenda to frame thus close down possibilities Deepening contextual understanding From community-identified issues to community-led solutions Superficiality versus deeper critical insight Learning through action versus static understanding Evolving social influenceOngoing conversation versus consultation Opening pathways versus opposing barriers/lack of long-term support Bridge building versus entrenching difference

12. More info Remaking Society film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrBgT51c z18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrBgT51c z18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrBgT51c z18 Remaking Society twitter feed www.twitter.com/remakingsociety Participate Documentary http://real- time.org.uk/case-study/work-us http://real- time.org.uk/case-study/work-ushttp://real- time.org.uk/case-study/work-us Online exhibition http://www.workwithus2015.org Online exhibition http://www.workwithus2015.org http://www.workwithus2015.org Real Time www.real-time.org.uk www.real-time.org.uk Email - info@real-time.org.uk info@real-time.org.uk jackie-shaw@btconnect.com jackie-shaw@btconnect.com