Video presentation of research results to policymakers 
– some notes from the ODI Livelihood Options study in India

Priya Deshingkar & John Farrington  6.11.03 

This study sought to identify how policy might better support upward trajectories out of poverty through diversification out of low-return activities such as semi-subsistence agriculture or certain caste-based occupations, and prevent, mitigate or reverse downward trajectories entailing “enforced” diversification. 

The study has so far generated several journal articles and briefing papers, a set of conference papers, and over 20 ODI Working Papers, and a book is in preparation. However, it is clear that senior administrators are too busy to read more than a fraction of these. Four videos have therefore been made and presented at meetings with government officials, donors and NGOs to convey the main policy messages in relation to (respectively): seasonal migration and new agriculture-related enterprises (Andhra Pradesh) and accumulative and coping strategies (Madhya Pradesh). 

All the videos were approximately 25 minutes in length, all were filmed by professional local companies, and all were of TV-compatible (beta) quality. Each cost around Rs.1,87,500/- (£2500, at approx. Rs.75/- = £1) to make, including the cost of field visits but excluding the average cost for each of some 5 days of senior research staff time and 5 – 10 days of field researchers’ time. They can be reproduced as DVD at around Rs.375/- (£5)/copy, on videotape for Rs.225/- (£3), or at under Rs.75/- (£1) each for (lower quality) CD versions. 

The main lessons were:

• Senior researchers must know what “storyline” they wish to present to convey research results, and must be responsible for preparing the script

• The film company must be given specific guidance re which households, individuals, government officers etc to interview on what subject, and provided with practical support and introductions by field research staff.  Although this may appear to be top-down it is important to be clear that the filming is not being done to collect fresh evidence but is actually portraying research results based on more bottom-up participatory methods including focus group discussions.. 

• The senior researcher must have a strong hand in selecting the most appropriate clips to assemble the “story”

• For the Indian context, a proven English-language “voice-over” is needed for the script/storyline presentation, but villagers should be audibly presenting their arguments in their own languages.

• “Stills” can be inserted strategically to summarise the evidence or argument

• Don’t try DIY videoing – always use a professional individual or company

• Always shortlist companies or individuals based on their earlier products, and take up references on how reliable they are, and how well they “teamwork” and how flexible they are with incorporating changes (2-3 times) which will inevitably be required.  It is best to work with teams who have easy access to an editing studio.

Overall, to have villagers “tell their own story” was found to be immensely powerful: they could present personal evidence of such difficult issues as corruption, and do so in explicit language. Importantly, for a country where qualitative methods are all-too-often dismissed as “statistically invalid” videos bypassed such objections by presenting direct, compelling evidence from the people to policymakers.