When communications on social media go wrong, and then they go right again, or, how to run a better photography competition in the future
Kate Hawkins
A few weeks ago at the Resyst annual meeting we had a long conversation among researchers about blogging and social media more generally. As a communications professional who has worked with academics or a long time I found myself nodding in sympathy as researchers voiced their fears about these new mediums of engagement. Worries clustered around losing control of information, intellectual property, emerging ideas and data being misappropriated and misconstrued, and the possibility of negative reactions to the work they put out. Simultaneously we were holding a capacity building meeting on how to use images and film in research communications. It was great to get academics, communications staff and professionals from the creative sector together to stimulate some excitement about these types of mediums.
After spending some time soothing the troubled brows of academics about the low risk of negative backlash on social media it was ironic that a week later our photography competition on gender and ethics was in the firing line on Twitter. The competition had been ReTweeted by DFID Research team prompting Nick Cavanagh, a photographer who works on international development, among other topics, to send us an email criticising the prize (a chance to have your work displayed at the upcoming Global Symposium) and suggesting that it would be more appropriate to offer a prize with some monetary value.
We decided to have a chat with Nick to understand how we can do things better next time.
As I understand it you became aware of our photo competition when DFID ReTweeted us. You have some criticisms of the terms of the competition, could you explain more?
Initially, as a working photographer, I thought the competition looked really interesting. You are always searching for ways to increase your profile. But when I looked closely at the terms and conditions the competition didn’t seem to offer anything in return. It strikes me as an imbalanced transaction between the client and photographer to request images without paying for them. You would never go into a shop and ask for a pair of jeans and say I will wear them, and this will raise your profile, but I’m not prepared to pay for them. It devalues the worth of the photography. Photographers need to earn a living too, and you need to bear this in mind. We will never progress if we can’t afford to buy a lens or take a trip to field sites. Because I am passionate about international development I am probably more irked than others would be.
I was interested by your comment, “images have an ability to carry narrative but it’s a mistake to see them as simply a communications tool.” I have worked with research projects which used photography as a method for enquiry but could you explain more about your views on this?
To me communications is all about how fantastic everything is, it is marketing. I’ve worked on a number of projects that used photography as a method for evaluating programmes and knowledge management. If you see a photo of a clinic on opening day it is clear what it is a picture of. The photos during the renovation process tell a story. But true evaluation is to return and look at sustainability. Photographers observe things others might not – the chart on wall that’s out of date the sexual violence centre which has no woman police officers. In these cases nobody was hiding the evidence because nobody had noticed it until they saw the image.
We are encouraging researchers to adopt innovative ways of communicating their research – particularly when it concerns issues which are impenetrable to some. It is hard to communicate around gender, ethics, and health systems. What are your thoughts on researchers using photography?
I can’t do a professional research job, it is not my field. But if I took an image of a polio clinic I would want to flush out the narrative. Professional photography is methodical and technical, it takes time and effort to learn these skills. The importance of an image means there’s no short cut. You need to understand light and composition and you can’t get this by just being enthusiastic. Of course you want to encourage creativity in everyone – if you’ve got a camera in your hand you are a photographer. But often the images you are left with are of poorer quality. Also people may put themselves or their subjects in danger in the course of documenting their work – people can react to cameras in strange ways.
Talk to me more about the transaction between photographer and subject.
Amateurs tend to say that they are ‘taking a photograph’. A creative would say they are ‘making the photograph’. If you are taking you say, ‘look down the lens.’ The person being photographed is not getting anything. But if the subject and the photographer work together on an image it is different. People are part of the creation of the image – that is why people often steer away from stock photography – it can feel extractive.
Could you explain more about the incentive structures for international development photographers in different settings?
When you are starting out as a photographer there are certain fixed costs. International development photography often has higher costs because it can involve travel and you have insurance costs. Cameras are expensive too and in places like Sub-Saharan Africa they don’t have a long shelf life. It’s not like studio photographers you are often in dusty places and need to safely transport equipment. Many photographers starting out in low-income countries get into the work through fashion and wedding photography – that is where the market is.
So what should projects like RinGs do differently in the future?
If you can’t afford a photographer on a daily rate then you can purchase stock images – but they probably won’t work and will have been over-used. If you want to appeal to photographers you either have to offer a really good prize or profile. Your audience is very niche and so you are unlikely to get a gallery to run images. Photo equipment might be a good alternative. For many photographers in low-income settings a £500 camera would be gold dust. However with a monetary prize you are likely to get fraudulent entries.
We are thankful to Nick for taking the time to talk to us. His comments are food for thought. It would be interesting to hear what others think. Please feel free to comment below.