The Murky Ethics of Visual Qualitative Methods: Picturing a Clear Path Forward
As a visual qualitative researcher, I believe in the value of methods that include images, such as photos, in the production and interpretation of knowledge (Glaw, Inder, Kable, & Hazelton, 2017). Photovoice in particular—a participatory visual qualitative method in which people take pictures to identify, discuss, and address their challenges (Wang & Burris, 1997)—changed my own observational lens and allowed participant-generated ideas to emerge in my inquiries. As a young HIV researcher, I became discouraged by my own well-intentioned work. I feared that the questions I was asking women about their HIV-related risk behaviors were demoralizing them by assuming solutions (e.g., condom use) that were incompatible with their problems (e.g., relationship violence). Photovoice gave me another perspective. Ten years later, I still use the method to integrate the visions of people living with HIV into the interventions and policies designed to help them (e.g., Teti, French, Bonney, & Lightfoot, 2015).
Many other qualitative researchers have also described the benefits of Photovoice (e.g., Carlson, Engebretson, & Chamberlain, 2006; Chilton, Rabinowich, Council, & Breaux, 2009; Jurkowski, 2008; Wang, Morrel-Samuels, Hutchison, Bell, & Pestronk, 2004). Photos facilitate expression across varied levels of literacy, capture experiences difficult to articulate through language alone, and inspire creativity and solutions among participants who have often previously lacked opportunities to discuss their experiences (Wang, 1999). As a participatory action research (PAR) method, Photovoice privileges the well-being of participants and the translation of research to action as much as the discovery of information (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995). Researchers and participants are knowledgeable partners in Photovoice and collaborate to enact research, analyses, and solutions. Participant knowledge is located specifically in the photos they take, interpret, and share (Evans-Agnew & Rosemberg, 2016). Thus, other potential benefits of Photovoice are the dismantling of negative social stereotypes and the ability to educate and influence policy and decision makers via photos that act as communication bridges (Foster-Fishman, Nowell, Deacon, Nievar, & McCann, 2005).
As the use of visual methods and Photovoice in particular has grown, critics have rightfully pointed out, however, that Photovoice researchers tend to present a romanticized view of participatory photography (Prins, 2010). Similarly, many visual researchers, myself included, have warned of the ethical challenges of using images. I read, often nervously, the visual ethics literature, asking myself whether and how I contribute to the problems and solutions. Recently, my concerns about the growing list of ethical dilemmas were leaving me overwhelmed and inactive, versus responsive. Although I was reading numerous articles about the ethics of visual methods, it was common to see statements that indicated few people were talking about ethics or that we needed more research to better understand ethics. I agreed with Boxall and Ralph’s (2009) warnings that if we, as qualitative visual researchers failed to grapple through difficult ethical scenarios, the use of creative visual methods could diminish, in a world where the public’s use of photos to create and make sense of information is increasing rapidly. In this editorial, I propose that the existing literature on visual ethics is robust and abundant, versus lacking, and that we should act on this knowledge in at least three key areas, to better inform and use institutional review boards (IRBs), choose the right visual methods to protect participants, and establish ways to stay informed on ever-evolving visual ethics challenges.