Pictures that tell a thousand words

Sarah Johnsen discusses the use of auto-photography in her research into the day-to-day experience of homeless people

Auto-photography is not widely utilised as a research method within the social sciences, but can be used to great effect in qualitative projects. Essentially, the method involves asking research participants to take photos of places, people, and objects that are meaningful to them – and then using these images as a means to understanding the structures and processes influencing their lives.

Auto-photography was one of several research methods used in a three-year ESRC-funded project conducted recently by the University of Bristol and Queen Mary, University of London entitled ‘Homeless Places: The Uneven Geographies of Service Provision for Single Homeless People’. The project also involved postal surveys involving more than 400 emergency services for homeless people, participant observation in 18 centres, and over 200 in-depth interviews, but many of the most insightful findings derived from the auto-photography phase of the project.

Guidelines regarding how to ‘do’ auto-photography are few and far between. The procedure used in the Homeless Places project, however, was as follows:
· Initial interviews were held with homeless people using emergency services (e.g. night shelters, day centres, and soup runs). These explored their 'biographies', considering their experiences of various services and of being homeless in different towns and cities throughout the UK.
· Then, if interviewees were willing to participate in the auto-photography exercise, they were given a disposable camera that they kept for approximately one week. Their strategies of completing the task varied. Some created a 'photo diary', taking snaps of people and places encountered as they went about daily life. Others chose to go on a single photographic 'mission' – sometimes carefully constructing lists of the sites they wanted to photograph before ever venturing out with the camera.
· The researchers would then get two sets of the photos developed (one for the research team, one for the research participant to keep).
· Finally, a member of the research team spent a significant period of time discussing each image with the photographer, asking, for example: where was the photo taken?, what do you use this space for and when?, who else uses it?, do you feel safe there?, how do you negotiate the use of that space with other homeless people, local retailers, members of the public, the police etc.? These conversations tended to be very unstructured and simply 'evolved' around the images shown.

The exercise gave us insight into many of the 'hidden' spaces of homelessness – some of which the research team wouldn’t have known to ask about (because they don’t feature in homelessness literature) or, alternatively, would have been neither safe nor appropriate for a member of the research team to access in person. We learned, for example, how the use of squats and begging ‘pitches’ are governed by complex codes of etiquette which, when transgressed, may be self-policed (sometimes violently). Similarly, we gained greater understanding of the survival strategies used by homeless people in towns where services are scarce, and the complex tactics employed by street homeless people to avoid the notice of authorities – especially important in an era where begging and street drinking is increasingly criminalised via punitive legislation (e.g. Antisocial Behaviour Orders). Discussions revolving around photographs of the spaces appropriated (often the most marginal spaces in cities or isolated woods and barns in rural areas) also allowed significant insight into the influence that stigma associated with homelessness had on homeless peoples’ self-esteem.

The auto-photography exercise was popular with research participants who (almost without exception) enjoyed the opportunity to create a pictorial record of their everyday life. The research technique was not without its difficulties, however. On the contrary, the method presented a number of pragmatic challenges and raised several important ethical issues. Logistically, auto-photography can in fact be a researcher’s worst nightmare! In one city, nearly two thirds of the cameras distributed were never returned because research participants lost them, flogged them, were victims of theft, or were themselves arrested for minor criminal offences before returning their camera (to name but a few of the scenarios encountered). Strategies adopted to minimise such problems included enlisting the support of service staff to remind participants to return their cameras; removing packaging to decrease the likelihood of cameras being flogged; and (where participants suffered from drug addiction) timing follow-up interviews carefully so as to ‘catch’ individuals when they were most able to discuss the images. Needless to say, such endeavours were very time-consuming.

When conducting auto-photography with vulnerable people it is also imperative that questions of safety are given serious consideration. Some of our participants did after all have their cameras stolen. Anything ‘floggable’ is a potential resource to those with substance addictions – even something as seemingly insignificant as a disposable camera. Moreover, one participant admitted to having been “a bit worried” about the potential actions of members of the public who appeared suspicious when he took photos of some of the derelict buildings that he had made ‘home’. Others explained that they’d chosen not to go into some of the places they would have liked to for fear that they might ‘bump into’ former drug-using peers at a time when they were trying to break away from a drug-fueled lifestyle and remain ‘clean’.

In terms of ethics, it is usually standard practice to anonymise informants when reporting the findings of qualitative research. The research team had always advocated this practice, especially when vulnerable people were involved. Yet, when using auto-photography questions arise regarding ownership of the images. Indeed, using auto-photography begs the question: should we really change all names to pseudonyms when by doing so we essentially deprive the photographer of true ownership of their work? Yet, on the other hand one has to question the appropriateness of using participants’ real names (even when given permission) in case they 'change their minds' later on in an attempt to disassociate themselves from their homeless past. This is certainly an ethical dilemma worthy of further debate within research circles.

In conclusion, auto-photography is a very time-consuming, and at times incredibly frustrating, research method. It is however well worth attempting given the value of the images and narratives generated. The potential benefits to researcher and ‘the researched’ alike are many – but such an endeavour should only be embarked upon with adequate sensitivity and ethical consideration.

Dr Sarah Johnsen worked as a Research Associate in the Geography Department at Queen Mary, University of London. She now works as Research Manager in the Research & Development Unit of The Salvation Army’s national headquarters. Contact: sarah.johnsen@salvationarmy.org.uk, 020 7367 4850.

Reports from the Homeless Places project can be downloaded free of charge from www.homeless-research.org.uk.top