The review had a strong communication angle, and was keen to capture progress, changes, ideas in the voice of the people in the ground. To do so, it used mini-videos, captured at the end of the interviews.

You can access to

About the videos

As far as possible views and key learning points shared by the people consulted are collected in videos. They were collected at the end of in-depth interviews. People were asked to repeat some key points they had shared in the conversation. This was therefore an opportunity to validate, check and deepen the discussion. We felt that overall people had enjoyed being filmed, and that it was perceived as an appreciation of what they had to say.

Videos are… Because… 
An opportunity to “give voice” Videos are, first and foremost, a reminder that people on the ground have insights and understandings that, when captured and shared, are important to inform a project. It is their voice – rather than the consultant voice – which should be heard!
Short Most videos last a just a few seconds. They are meaningful sound-bites, compressing an idea in few words. Context information is provided in the you-tube page. It is important not to take them out of context (which is provided in the interviews in the field diary)
One video, one point Each video capture one single point emerged from the interview. We tried to make them short and sharp.
Truthful Videos are retakes of what was said in the interview. We asked people “you said that… Could you please repeat it?” They are not “implanted”: we never asked people to make the point we were looking for.
Validations As we asked people to repeat what they said, we also asked “you said that…  Did we understand well?”. In some cases, further details had emerged, or clarification were made. Video helped to validate important points made in the interview
Some evidence… not “all” evidence The videos do not capture all that emerged in an interview, but 1) points that stood out and 2) points that were new. Some issues were repeated across interviews. If we felt we had a sound-bite already, we would not capture it again. Not everything can be captured in a video. In particular, it is hard to give a sense of what people “do not know”. A video of someone saying “I do not know about …” would be diminishing. We avoided these, unless we could also capture options and solutions about it.
Good and “bad” We used video to capture both successes and challenges.
Limited disclosure (but open) We informed people that the video would be used as part of the reivew, and that the review is externally shared, with different stakeholders. We also told them that videos will be put on YouTube. We chose not to sign a formal disclaimer on the video to avoid making people worry about the implications of “signing a paper” after having shared information. We feel that the way in which videos are captured and used is equivalent to “quote” people within a report, and therefore do not demand a full disclaimer. People accessing the review and the video should be aware that people consented for the their use within the review and for HC activities, and should be respectful if sharing them.
Archived and classified The videos are collected in a video log. The log includes information about the people featured in the video, the location. The log has a content summary and a link to the online version. It also contains keywords, to facilitate search on key topics. The video log is a resource to support further use of the videos.
Good (enough) quality We used professional tools to capture the video (and SLR camera + professional microphone). They were uploaded on you tube in high resolution. We believe, however, that the lack of professional equipment should not discourage staff from getting videos in the future.
Critical communication, (not PR) Last but not least, we wanted to reclaim “communication”. Communication – within NGOs-  is mostly linked to “PR and marketing. But communication matters for learning and for monitoring. It is a different type of communication: more critical, more inquisitive. These mini video are an attempt to show that communication matters, and to experiment modalities to also use it for critical thinking and learning.

Ideas to use the videos

We hope that the videos are seen as a resource that is used beyond this report and beyond the review. They can be used “one to one”, to stress a point (which we did, from time to time, during our field work). They could be projected, as part of presentations, or captured in reports. There are many opportunities to use them. Some ideas on how to use them follows:

Stimulate discussion Video can be used to elicit discussion with different stakeholders: community members, donors, supporters, other organizations.
One to one, projected, broadcasted.. Videos are flexible! They can be used on a mobile phone, on a computer, or broadcasted on screen.
Trainings They can be linked to training activities, to offer examples, to stimulate debates.
Connect them! Most videos can be used as “stand alone” clips to promote a specific point, and this is the idea beyond the “sound-bites”. But it is also possible to connect them – in playlists or edited narratives. Exploring “connections” amongst videos, is a powerful support to analysis, and we invite review users to browse the video-log and the interview to derive their own learning.
Collect more videos! It is hoped that the video collection will inspire member organizations to collect their own, and broaden the collection started with this review.