Comparar métodos
Examine os métodos selecionados lado a lado; as linhas que diferem ficam destacadas.
| Participatory Video× | Most Significant Change for Development× | |
|---|---|---|
| Área | Development Studies | Development Studies |
| Família | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Ano de origem≠ | 2006 | 2005 |
| Autor original≠ | Don Snowden (Fogo process, 1960s); codified by Nick and Chris Lunch (InsightShare) and Shirley White | Rick Davies & Jess Dart |
| Tipo≠ | Participatory visual research and communication method | Participatory, story-based monitoring and evaluation technique |
| Fonte seminal≠ | Lunch, N., & Lunch, C. (2006). Insights into Participatory Video: A Handbook for the Field. Oxford: InsightShare. ISBN: 9782940290086 | Davies, R., & Dart, J. (2005). The 'Most Significant Change' (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its Use. CARE International, Oxfam, et al. link ↗ |
| Outros nomes | PV, Community Video, Video for Development, Participatory Filmmaking | MSC technique, Story-based monitoring, Most significant change stories, Monitoring without indicators |
| Relacionados | 4 | 4 |
| Resumo≠ | Participatory Video (PV) is a set of techniques through which a group or community creates its own films to explore issues, voice concerns, communicate with each other, and advocate to outsiders. Rooted in the 1960s Fogo Island process and codified for development practice by Nick and Chris Lunch of InsightShare and by Shirley White, PV treats the camera not as the property of an outside researcher but as a tool placed in the hands of community members, so that the process of making the video — as much as the film itself — builds confidence, analysis, and collective agency. | The Most Significant Change (MSC) technique is a participatory, story-based approach to monitoring and evaluating development programmes that dispenses with predefined indicators. Developed by Rick Davies and elaborated with Jess Dart in their widely used 2005 guide, it works by systematically collecting stories of significant change from those closest to a programme and then filtering and selecting the most significant of them through deliberative panels at successive levels of the organisational hierarchy. The result is a structured, dialogical account of what stakeholders themselves judge to be the most important outcomes of an intervention. |
| ScholarGateConjunto de dados ↗ |
|
|