Delta voices of climate crisis: Community Digital Storytelling in Bangladesh and Vietnam

Abstract

This article explores the audiovisual research method Community Digital Storytelling (CDST) as developed for a project documenting Indigenous delta voices in Bangladesh and Vietnam. Centred on the co-production and collection of community stories, this interdisciplinary method incorporates smartphone filmmaking, environmental storytelling, community-based participatory research, and Indigenous methodologies. Addressing community participation, power dynamics and fieldwork challenges, CDST is presented as an adaptable method capable of capturing eco-imaginaries, fostering dialogue on socioecological challenges, and amplifying the voices of marginalised communities. The article contributes a valuable guide to participatory media production with communities in various contexts, offering insights for scholars and practitioners seeking inclusive, respectful, and impactful research practices.

‘For story is the most powerful intergenerational manifestation of hope’.

(Archibald, Lee-Morgan, and de Santolo 2019)

Introduction

Storytelling has served as a crucial tool in equipping humanity to navigate periods of uncertainty and unpredictability. Family stories, ancestors’ tales, fables, and fairytales are just some of the forms that storytelling takes to provide the necessary narrative framework against the complexities of ambiguity. People share stories not only to comprehend events, their causes, and consequences but also to collectively envision feared or desired futures. As a hyperobject, the current climatic predicament represents a complex, expansive, and interconnected phenomenon that challenges our ability to understand it in its entirety (Morton 2013). Due to its magnitude, the climate crisis is not a singular story to tell, or a future easily imagined; it has quickly evolved into the overarching context for any narrative concerning our existence on this tumultuous planet (Smith et al. 2017). Climate change stories capture this shared experience of uncertainty, attempting to make it legible and tangible while creating a new vocabulary for the ongoing environmental crisis.

The Anthropocene (or rather the Capitalocene) demands an environmental imagination grounded in the terrestrial knowledge and multivocal stories of diverse communities across the world (Harris 2017; Oppermann 2023). The planetary threat of irreversible environmental degradation is continuously being incorporated into songs, tales, and texts of affected societies, in the way that they have always sung about their relationship with nature. Sakakibara describes how ‘a story about an eroding homeland is a reflection on a changing place, and a changing identity’ for Indigenous and rural communities: ‘When homes become threatened or moved, or places become transformed or uncertain, stories necessarily capture and respond to the changes’ (2008, 462). Turning to disenfranchised and directly affected storytellers for tales of environmental collapse responds to Haraway’s call to pay attention to ‘what stories we tell to tell other stories with’ and ‘what stories make worlds, what worlds make stories’ (2016, 12).

Called the ‘bellwether for the earth and the Anthropocene,’ river deltas are experiencing accelerated and intensified shifts in social and ecological dynamics (Nicholls et al. 2020, 3). Given their status as regional and hemispheric food-baskets, agriculture and aquaculture are continuously intensifying to meet local and broader demands of growing populations. Moreover, deltaic spaces face an increased risk of rising sea levels and land subsidence resulting from climate change due to their low elevation, making them susceptible to even minor changes in water level (Krause and Harris 2021). Delta communities are also impacted by extreme flooding, droughts, coastal erosion, salt-water intrusion, and pollution. Climate-induced environmental stresses exacerbate the already formidable list of socioecological challenges that delta societies face, including heightened social inequalities, entrenched poverty, systemic workforce exploitation, and the pervasive marginalisation of minorities. Turning to these communities, we not only gain insights into local environmental issues and the impact of global political processes but also learn from traditional knowledge systems and cultural practices that resist the current climate crisis.

This paper aims to encapsulate and assess the audiovisual research method of the ‘Community Digital Storytelling and Delta Futures’ project (2021–2023), designed to document delta voices and examine the impact of environmental degradation on Indigenous communities in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Delta in Bangladesh, and the Red River and Mekong Deltas in Vietnam. The project was developed within the framework of the UKRI GCRF Living Deltas Hub (2019–2024) and received ethical approval from Durham University. This interdisciplinary method incorporates elements from various research approaches, including smartphone filmmaking, environmental storytelling, community-based participatory research (CBPR), and Indigenous methodologies. Given the central role of community involvement in the project, the methodological framework was designed to be flexible and malleable, capable of adapting to the needs, desires, and specifics of the involved communities. In this context, I collaborated with the Munda people in Bangladesh, the Dao people in North Vietnam, and the Khmer people in South Vietnam to produce short films and digital stories reflecting their socioecological challenges.¹ During 5-day digital storytelling workshops, participants produced 32 individual stories of delta degradation and Indigenous livelihood struggles. These short films incorporate a variety of creative communication and expression forms chosen by the participants, including singing and dancing performances, monologues, news report-style documentaries, and daily-life reenactments.

The community digital storytelling method (CDST) is hereby presented in the following way: first, I offer a detailed description of CDST with a focus on its rationale, tools, and workshop structure; second, I conduct an evaluation of this method in reference to community participation, power relations, and fieldwork challenges. This paper proposes CDST as an adaptable research method capable of capturing eco-imaginaries and amplifying the voices of delta and other marginalised communities. The audiovisual character of the digital stories provides a powerful medium for the inclusion of community members, especially in cases of illiteracy, while exploring the creative potential of individuals whose voices are so often unheard, whose lives are intrinsically disordered by the impact of environmental collapse (Dreher 2012; Pratt 2020). By exploring and assessing the resulting method in the following sections, my goal is to develop a guide for creative multimedia research in collaboration with local communities.

The Method: Step-by-step

The Community Digital Storytelling method adheres to a well-structured process encompassing multiple stages, culminating in the creation of digital stories presented as short videos (ranging from 2 to 5 min). Such videos and films are often referred to as ‘cellphilms’, for being produced with, for, and by cellphones (Dockney and Tomaselli 2009), showcasing the increasing affordability and accessibility of digital video technologies within creative practice and research (Milne, Mitchell, and de Lange 2012; Schleser 2021). Differing from other participatory visual methodologies, the integration of participants’ smartphones in CDST represents an asset-based approach, which responds to the challenge of a research team arriving in the field with costly cameras and departing with them afterwards (Mitchell, de Lange, and Moletsane 2016; Schleser and Berry 2018). Asset-based approaches encourage disadvantaged communities to use local resources and capacities while increasing control of the research process (Hipwell 2009). Related to Participatory Video (PV), CDST entails a script-less video production method, guided by a collaborative team engaging in repeated cycles of shooting and reviewing video content according to the worldviews and requirements of the participants (Marzi 2023; Roberts and Muñiz 2020).

In broad strokes, the focal point of the research process is the CDST workshop, typically spanning 5 days and encompassing 10 sessions (one morning and one afternoon session per day) dedicated to storytelling, filmmaking practice, editing, film screening, and group discussion. The workshop's preparation involves training the trainers, conducting meetings with community representatives and gatekeepers, and recruiting participants. Post-workshop activities encompass tasks such as adding subtitles to the videos, addressing any minor technical issues, coordinating follow-up community screenings, and providing ongoing support to storytellers engaged in video production. Through this process, we collect the following types of data: individual interviews and group discussions with participants about the research process and the storytelling experience²; group discussions with facilitators on workshop evaluation; researcher’s fieldnotes; reports by the workshop coordinator; photographs and workshop documentaries.³ In this section, I delineate the research stages with a specific emphasis on the workshop sessions, incorporating relevant literature and drawing upon examples gleaned from fieldwork. (Figure 1)

Figure 1. Step-by-step guide of ‘Community Digital Storytelling’ method (2024). Graph by the Author.

The pre-workshop stage initiates with a comprehensive training programme for workshop facilitators, ensuring they possess the necessary skills and knowledge to guide participants effectively and ethically. Technical proficiency in smartphone filmmaking is a prerequisite; thus, the training places a strong emphasis on CDST practice, research ethics, and the principles of effective facilitation. In promoting participation, facilitators must actively encourage mutual respect and understanding, present diverse perspectives with cultural sensitivity, and establish a safe workshop space by building confidence and navigating power dynamics. As Kovach notes, ‘because sharing story triggers memory, conversations may bring forth a range of human emotions, and […] a researcher must be aware that the choice of this method opens a door for healing some of the wounds associated with decolonisation’ (2021, 88). Facilitators play a crucial role in supporting the digital storytelling process, offering guidance, advice, and constructive feedback, when necessary, all while ensuring that participants maintain creative control. A central focus of the training is to guide facilitators in obtaining and securing participants’ consent throughout the workshop. Participants should possess a thorough understanding of the study's aims, structure, outputs, as well as the anticipated use of their personal data, including images, video, and voice recordings.

When the training of trainers is completed, a series of in-depth consultations ensue with community representatives and gatekeepers, fostering a collaborative approach centred on community perspectives and traditions. These meetings build trust between the research team and participants, tailoring the workshop to the community's characteristics, preferences, and needs, addressing potential concerns. Following the presentation of the research project and the CDST method, the community representatives lead the discussion, posing questions, suggesting modifications, and critically assessing the potential impact of the research on their community. However, it is important to note that complete control over all aspects of the research seldom rests entirely in the hands of the community, as the method itself is pre-designed, albeit in a malleable manner (Tobias, Richmond, and Luginaah 2013). During this stage, participant recruitment is also carried out based on specific criteria (experience of using a smartphone, interest in the project, desire to film an environment-related story of their choice), aiming to form a diverse and representative group that maintains gender balance. By entrusting the selection of participants to the community, we ensure that workshop involvement becomes a collective decision, widely supported across the community. Successful recruitment ensures that a variety of voices and experiences contribute to the storytelling process, diversifying the narratives produced during the CDST workshop.

Having set up the workshop space and shared the schedule with the participants, the workshop is ready to start. Participants arrive and take their seats, forming groups around tables or settling on the floor, depending on the room configuration. Day 1 of the workshop kicks off with the first morning session. Facilitators introduce themselves and provide an overview of the project, distributing consent forms and addressing any queries participants may have. The next step involves collaboratively establishing ground rules, covering aspects such as attendance, punctuality, turn-taking, active listening, and mutual respect. The first activity is to hold an open discussion on the overarching theme of the study, which, in the case of the ‘Community Digital Storytelling and Delta Futures’ project, was climate change and delta degradation. While facilitators have prepared a PowerPoint presentation as a reference, the primary aim is to encourage participants to freely express their thoughts, share experiences, and voice opinions within a supportive environment. This initial dialogue lays the groundwork for the storytelling activities that follow.

The story development begins with mindmapping, a tool that combines spontaneous brainstorming, relaxed deliberations between group members, and hand-drawn visualisation of ideas. Workshop participants are divided into two mixed-gender groups. Guided by a facilitator, participants collaboratively create a visual map of their chosen subject (e.g. the impact of climate change on Khmer culture) on A0 paper. The central topic is typically placed within a circle at the map's centre. Next, the chosen topic is connected to various subtopics using connecting lines, referred to as ‘branches.’ These subtopics, such as causes, impacts, examples, solutions, action points, and traditions, are linked to the central theme. In many cases, the groups define their general topics differently, as well as the subtopics they are interested in exploring. Some groups incorporate drawings around the topics, use markers for colouring, include short stories, add references, or even provide directions to specific places. (Figures 2 and 3)

Figure 2. Mind mapping activity in Thanh Cong, Vietnam (2022). Image by the Author.

Figure 3. Mind mapping activity in Koyra, Bangladesh (2021). Reproduced courtesy of Dhaka International Mobile Film Festival.

The mindmapping activity concludes with each team presenting their mindmap to the group, followed by an open discussion on the potential themes of the videos, as well as the overall story that this workshop will create. The group discussion takes the form of a ‘talking circle’, which is a type of focus group inspired by African and Indigenous worldviews. According to chilisa Chilisa, ‘the talking circle symbolises and encourages sharing of ideas, respect of each other's ideas, togetherness, a continuous and unending compassion and love for one another [as well as] equality of members in the circle’ (2012, 181). The circle serves as the nest for the collaborative creation of stories in the style of Indigenous storywork, which aims to ‘rectify the damage [of hegemonic oppression] and reclaim our ability to story-talk, story-listen, story-learn and story-teach’ (Archibald, Lee-Morgan, and de Santolo 2019, 21). While giving voice to the involved communities, Indigenous storywork enables them to collaboratively form an Indigenous research community that transcends borders and countries. The talking circle is also an opportunity to assess the storytelling process and check in with the participants about the level of support and involvement they will require later.

In the afternoon session of the day, our focus shifts from mindmapping to story-planning. I developed Story Plan as a necessary intermediary stage between mindmapping and storyboarding. Even when participants have a well-defined story in mind, they often require assistance in structuring it. For those who have not yet determined their topic, story-planning provides essential parameters for constructing a narrative, preparing them for the more technical aspects of storyboarding. Beyond its structural role, this step serves as a seamless transition from the collaborative character of mindmapping to the more individualised process of capturing one's own story on film. The Story Plan has a simple, straightforward layout with five columns and the following headings: ‘PURPOSE – Why are you telling this story? KEY MESSAGES – Name the three main ideas. STORY – How does it start, unfold, end? PEOPLE, PLACES & SOUNDS – Who will feature in your video and what are the main locations? What sounds will you include? ACTIONS – How will you realise your project?’. The form also provides space for storytellers to input their name, date, and the title of their project. Functioning as a digital storytelling tool, Story Plan ‘puts the participant story and lived experience first,’ assisting the storyteller in a participatory manner to shape their narrative into a dynamic, digital form (Cunsolo Willox et al. 2013, 138).

Tobias et al. observe that ‘CBPR research processes are typically slower and more drawn out than non-collaborative approaches’, which can be attributed to the ‘length of time required to develop trusting relationships with communities’ (2013, 132). In this context, when a participant has not yet identified a topic, message, or broader theme for their story, we guide them to select two to three branches from their group’s mindmap to explore storytelling opportunities. This focused approach helps narrow down potential topics and start developing their story plans. Facilitators stand ready to assist participants in completing their story plans, whether through collaborative brainstorming or discussing how an idea can be transformed into a short film. In all cases, participants choose their storylines and the overarching message of their works. Once the groups have filled in these forms, they share their story plans and tentative storylines, examining various aspects such as style, flow, and use (or not) of a narrator. During these group presentations, participants are prompted to identify their dialogue partners at the local, national, and global levels, and are encouraged to consider the most suitable platforms for engaging with these partners.

Next, we offer a brief training on crafting storyboards, understanding shot sizes, and comprehending the elements of a sequence. A storyboard is a visual outline of the key scenes in a film, animation, or other visual media, serving as a blueprint for the final production. Guided by story plans, participants sketch storyboards, breaking down the story into smaller sequences, considering which photos and videos to capture within the community. This breakdown aids in pinpointing locations, characters, interviewees, props, and essential elements for filming. While working on the storyboards, we keep in mind that such digital stories often follow ‘a very Western approach to storylines, which sees the story “wrap up” neatly within 3–5 min’, but this structure ‘does not necessarily resonate with non-Western storytelling forms or traditions, which celebrate stories-in-process and do not require stories to conclude succinctly and fully by the end’ (Cunsolo Willox, Harper, and Edge 2013, 140). With that in mind, CDST videos exhibit a less rigid structure compared to conventional digital stories. Some videos centre around a singular topic, while others delve into multiple subjects or initiate discussions about specific socioecological challenges, often avoiding to provide a definitive conclusion or endpoint.

Day 2 begins with a short screening session showcasing various examples of videos and films, including some produced during past CDST workshops. Emphasis is placed on providing participants with insights into smartphone filmmaking and digital storytelling, demonstrating the feasibility of creating a film within a short timeframe. Facilitators demonstrate various styles and techniques, emphasising the significance of breaking sequences into 3–6 shots instead of capturing the entire sequence at once. Hands-on practice enables participants to filming outdoors and familiarise themselves with the camera and shooting environment, guided by facilitators. Returning to the workshop space, a screening of the footage enables participants to assess their work, identify flaws, and refine their shooting plans. Following suggestions for improvement, facilitators address ethical and safe photography, particularly in challenging situations involving private, controversial, or potentially illegal activities. The morning session ends with participants and facilitators collaborating on shooting plans, taking practical considerations into account given the limited time and a small supporting team.

The afternoon session of Day 2 and the entire Day 3 are dedicated to the filming of CDST videos. Participants are divided into two teams, each led by a facilitator, with assignments based on their shooting plans. Proximity to different filming locations is often the primary criterion. However, there have been instances where participants selected a facilitator based on additional considerations, such as gender or expertise in a specific topic. For instance, in Shyamnagar, Bangladesh, two workshop participants (one male and one female) collaborated on a film addressing child marriages and the resulting maternity crisis in the Munda community, seeking the support of a female facilitator. The filming sessions are longer and more demanding than the rest, requiring creativity and persistence. The participants and the CDST team are in constant motion, adjusting the schedule to meet the filming requirements. Typically, each group remains together during filming to provide mutual support and learning, given the varied challenges they encounter. As an asset-based approach, participants use their own devices for shooting, with the option to share if they lack access or have devices with insufficient specifications. (Figures 4–6)

Figure 4. Filming in Shyamnagar, Bangladesh (2022). Reproduced courtesy of Dhaka International Mobile Film Festival.

Figure 5. Filming in Koyra, Bangladesh (2021). Reproduced courtesy of Dhaka International Mobile Film Festival.

Figure 6. Filming in Shyamnagar, Bangladesh (2022). Reproduced courtesy of Dhaka International Mobile Film Festival.

Day 4 finds the participants with all necessary footage for their short films. With one-to-one guidance, the editing starts on the participants’ smartphones. After downloading the editing app on each smartphone,⁴ the facilitators offer an overview of the editing process, including tips and techniques. Participants learn various elements of the video editing process, including voice recording, titling, transitions, effects application, and the final exportation (Figure 7). In Bangladesh, we initially experimented with group editing by gathering participants according to the mindmap teams. However, progress was slow, and feedback clearly indicated the need for personalised guidance. The editing phase in the CDST process typically unfolds smoothly, with some participants assuming full control, while most of them occasionally or actively seek support from facilitators. In some instances, additional shooting or sound recording was necessary for certain videos.

Figure 7. Editing in Thanh Cong, Vietnam (2022). Image by the Author.

The last workshop day comprises two sessions: the morning session, often dedicated to editing and final touch-ups on the videos; and the afternoon session, signifying the end of the workshop and the beginning of the post-production phase. The final session features three main activities: screening of the short films, group discussion, and a community celebration for the successful completion of the workshop. Prior to any public screening, the short films undergo a thorough group review conducted by the participants and community representatives to ensure the formal approval necessary before sharing them. The screening also provides an opportunity to reflect on the creative process and consider the produced stories individually and collectively as part of a holistic narrative about the involved community (Minkler 2005; Thomas and Britton 2012). Reflections and comments from community members and the facilitation team are documented for valuable insights. Facilitators lead discussions, prompting participants to reflect on sharing their stories and representing community issues (Cunsolo Willox, Harper, and Edge 2013; Fine et al. 2003). They encourage dialogue among participants, fostering discussions about the videos in the broader context of current community challenges and the necessity for collective action. Then, the participants collaboratively decide on methods and platforms for sharing their videos, along with determining the strategy for the publication of the research findings derived from data analysis. All collected data are made available to the community for approval before any analysis and interpretation can begin.

The workshop culminates in a community celebration where certificates of participation are awarded to the involved community members. Group photographs are taken, and the community comes together to share a meal, celebrating the collaborative creative work. The celebration becomes more vibrant when singing, dancing, and other performances take place. Celebrating with the people they worked closely with is a rewarding and joyous moment for the CDST team, who have developed a deeper understanding of this community and forged strong bonds with its members. The plan is to meet again in person and online for further community screenings and trainings.

Unpacking Community Digital Storytelling

Indigenous scholars globally emphasise storytelling's significance for community unity and connection with nature and ancestors. A fundamental lesson from Indigenous cosmologies and research methodologies is to pay attention to the stories that nature generously offers and to respectfully tune in to the harmony of the singing carrying them. Frances Wyld and Bronwyn Fredericks explain how storytelling works: ‘We believe that the songs of the earth are shared when we are open to the sweetness and the sorrow that songs can bring, along with other emotions, stories, and learnings. We recognise that the earth has a song that Indigenous people listen to as a story’ (2015, 2). This form of environmental storytelling is multidirectional and horizontal, in the sense that it is not aimed to an external, unknown audience but, first of all, to us – our own peoples, natural elements, and the earth’s creatures – all constituents of our local ecosystems. Therefore, storytelling incorporates story-listening in a single holistic, synergistic, dialectic and decolonial format (Saiyed and Irwin 2017).

In the current existential crisis, the decolonisation of environmental storytelling begins by providing platforms and the necessary skillset to those combating climate change (Arnold 2018). Delta dwellers, standing at the forefront of this fight alongside other disenfranchised groups, find that their songs and stories are frequently overlooked and unheard. Research ‘dealing in stories can change who speaks, who gets heard, and even who hears, relative to more standard procedures of data collection, what ideas and topics are considered in scope, authorship’ (Moezzi, Janda, and Rotmann 2017, 8). The stories serve as points of dialogue within the communities, as well as with the researchers and facilitators. In this context, the CDST method is conceptualised as an active process of documenting diverse realities, while constructing and deconstructing environmental narratives and imaginaries from the point of view of the involved communities. Instead of treating them as the main research data, the resulting stories are equally important to the collective action and participatory process that incubated them.

The objective of CDST is to amplify counter-stories, described as ‘powerful forms of resistance […] not only questioning the assumed nature of [Western] ideals and the practices they generate but also serving to narrate an alternative story […] through the eyes of the colonized’ (Smith 2021, 1). Sharing one's stories goes beyond providing a testimony or an oral account of a historical event or period of injustice; it is primarily about safeguarding a threatened and vanishing world. Highlighting their research value, Chilisa argues that ‘folklores, folktales, stories in song and poetic forms, and the indigenous language through which they are communicated are the data collection and analysis tools that provide the missing chapters of the history, philosophies, theories, concepts, categories of analysis, and interpretation of data in research’ (2012, 126). In alignment with this Indigenous research paradigm, the proposed version of CDST embraces all forms and formats of storytelling to collect and showcase traditional knowledge, cosmovisions, oral history, and collective imagination for the future. The CDST workshops serve as immersive spaces where participants can celebrate their heritage, express concerns about living in a rapidly changing world, develop and share stories, receive feedback, and document the output of the creative process with their smartphones.

Creating a video counter-story in workshops is a collective journey that guides each participant toward a different topic, influenced by their personal circumstances and the challenges encountered by their community. As the workshops discussed here were part of a broader research project centred on delta degradation and climate change, there was a focus on conveying narratives about the effects of delta transformations on livelihoods, communities, cultures, and ecosystems. From a more technical standpoint, the participants are encouraged to enhance their stories using various audiovisual elements, including photographs, video clips, collage, text, music, singing, and voice-over. The incorporation of multimedia tools and technology empowers storytellers to craft and share narratives that mirror Indigenous perspectives, cultural values, and experiences. This approach recognises the dynamic nature of storytelling in the digital era while upholding the core of Indigenous storywork.

Community Participation

Building upon the foundations of Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) methodologies, CDST ensures active community involvement throughout the research journey, grounded in the establishment of an equitable partnership between community members, representatives of local organisations, and academic researchers (Coughlin, Smith, and Fernández 2017; Low et al. 2012; Tobias, Richmond, and Luginaah 2013). Starting with a collaboration between the researcher and local gatekeepers, CDST creates a nexus of research relationships that not only support the creative process but also forge bonds with everyone involved in the workshop setting. Dialogue requires a deep understanding of the other side's reality, needs, and intentions, and CDST workshops serve as conversation hubs for community members and their guests. In this setting, the researcher actively assumes a dedicated role as a participant and continuous learner within the dynamic storytelling process (Shaw 2016), supported by local facilitators with the necessary technical skillset, a strong knowledge of the region, and a desire to engage meaningfully with research participants. Welcoming outsiders to their homes and ancestral lands, community members decide on the level of interaction with the research team, which quite often leads to friendships that outlast the workshop. Similarly, the researcher builds relationships with the facilitators that are equally transformative to those with the participants, as they bring a rich experience of the local context and firsthand exposure to the workshop process.

With the emphasis on the hosting community, the dynamics of each group, along with local community issues, create a workshop-specific framework that influences the creative outputs. In Shyamnagar, Bangladesh, female members of the Munda community are actively involved in the local economy, working in fields, shrimp farms, and the garment industry. Health and social challenges connected to these occupations were portrayed in some of the short films, bringing in a crucial gendered perspective. These short films were shown at community screenings at the end of the workshop but also a year later in special community gatherings, attended widely by Munda people and local NGOs. Creating and showing these videos, the project fostered a dialogue within the communities around difficult and sometimes controversial topics.

Examining the level of community participation in the research process, the CDST method was designed to be as flexible and adaptable as possible, incorporating research tools (such as talking circles, mind mapping, story planning, storyboarding) that could be tailored to local contexts and community needs, permitting collaborators to assume control of the research activities. For Chris High and his colleagues, ‘in the case of participatory video, the question is not just the extent to which a community makes media, but the degree to which it owns and controls the process’ (2012, 42). In this context, the community screening and roundtable at the end of the workshop serve a dual purpose: allowing members to approve, reject, or negotiate how and which short films will be shared, representing the entire community (Gubrium, Hill, and Flicker 2014); and initiating a collective interpretation and data analysis. The presentation of each short film by the filmmaker and the discussions they initiate in the workshop space serve as the initial interpretation and essential guidance for any further analysis (Figures 8 and 9). Follow-up community screenings aim to involve workshop participants in a more in-depth analysis of the videos and explore possibilities for co-publication of research outputs. In Bangladesh, a workshop participant created a Facebook/YouTube channel called ‘Munda TV’ to share videos of interest to Munda people across the Sundarbans region, including the CDST short films.

Figure 8. Community screening in Thanh Cong, Vietnam (2022). Image by the Author.

Figure 9. Community screening in Koyra, Bangladesh (2021). Reproduced courtesy of Dhaka International Mobile Film Festival.

Determining how close CDST is to the top of the ‘ladder of participation – from token representation to active self-determination’ (Goldman, Booker, and McDermott 2008, 192) can be challenging. Yet, the main objective is to destabilise ‘power relations between researcher/research subjects or observer/observed, as well as to explore transformation and research that makes a difference’ (Kindon 2003, 144). In the workshop documentaries and, at times, in their short films, participants reflect on the research process and their experiences, sharing observations and assessing both the workshop and facilitators. The participants’ gaze on the research project signals destabilisation, but more significantly, CDST recognises them as knowledge agents and powerful storytellers shaping their own meanings. Rather than adhering to an empowerment-focused research agenda for ‘subjugated voices,’ CDST practitioners are urged to ‘not want anything from the [research] relationship that is not the product of that relationship’ (Bishop 2005, 123). Participants exercise creative control over their videos, handling filming and editing, defining aesthetics and message, yet always inspired by the artistic collaboration with the facilitators and fellow community members. (Figures 10 and 11)

Figure 10. Filming in Tran De, Vietnam (2023). Image by the Author.

Figure 11. Filming in Thanh Cong, Vietnam (2022). Image by the Author.

Community involvement contributes to the ‘rigor, relevance, and reach of science’, the ‘three Rs’ of CBPR (Balazs and Morello-Frosch 2013, 10). Rigour entails the application and advancement of principles of ‘good science’ throughout the research process, including data collection, design, and analysis. Relevance pertains to aligning scientific inquiries with pertinent questions. Reach denotes the extent to which knowledge generated by the research is distributed to a wide range of stakeholders and converted into practical tools applicable in academic, political, and public spheres. Welcoming local communities into the design and delivery of CDST involves the productive negotiation of research principles, the definition, and contextualisation of study questions, as well as improving the reach of research outcomes. In the first session of the workshop in Tran De, Vietnam, some participants expressed disinterest in heritage topics, finding a focus on changing livelihoods more relevant. As a result, the workshop team explored filming life stories on environmental migration and the Khmer community's daily struggles, capturing threats to tangible and intangible heritage. By adapting the method to the needs and interests of the participants, research becomes not only more relevant to the involved community but also ensures that the video stories can promote dialogue more effectively.

Power (Im)Balance

Navigating power dynamics in participatory methodologies presents notable ethical dilemmas, prompting consideration of the motivations behind a research project, the study design, the ownership of co-produced outputs, and the actual benefits for participants. Indigenous scholarship guides researchers engaged directly with communities to raise profound and thought-provoking inquiries: ‘Where do I stand with regard to the researched? Am I still the colonizer? Who are the researched? Are they still colonial subjects distinct from the colonizer because of their incapabilities, or are they active agents capable of generating solutions to their social challenges?’ (Chilisa 2012, 198; Wilson 2008). Finding one’s position towards these questions requires reflexivity and a sincere commitment to Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s aphorism that ‘Indigenous research is a humble and humbling activity’ (2021, 5). Community-oriented research places researchers on the same level as the participants, with a clear anti-extractivism mindset directed by gratitude for the time, knowledge, and creativity they contribute. After all, the ‘etymology of data is gift’ and ‘collecting data is the gifting of another’s story to a researcher’ (Kovach 2021, 82). Recognising this interconnectedness underscores the reciprocal nature of research relationships, where the exchange of knowledge and stories becomes a mutual and meaningful collaboration between researchers and the communities they engage with.

Stories are not merely data. As living connections between narrators and listeners, stories foster bonds, ignite mutual exchange, demand respect and accountability. Given that CDST involves the creation and collection of video stories, each community negotiates the relationship with the researchers differently. In Thanh Cong, Vietnam, the entire village supported the filming process, inviting us into their living rooms, gardens, walks in the forest and around the lake, as well as sessions of traditional healing and evening drinks after work. Moving around the village required respect for the daily routine of the locals. Some activities could be filmed in the morning, and some stories could only be shared in the late afternoon. After receiving the training in smartphone filmmaking, the youngest workshop participant (19 y.o.) chose to work independently. He separated from the group after the sessions of the first workshop day and did not return until it was time for editing. His short film depicted simple yet private scenes of family life, and he felt uncomfortable bringing our small crew home. Sharing the final video story with the CDST team and later with an unknown wider audience does not necessarily mean that every step of the process can also be made public.

Accountability is not confined to the processes outlined by university research ethics policies. Beyond these policies, the process of informed consent is continually refined through informal conversations with participants, allowing for check-ins and offering support for their continued participation (Heard 2023). Considering that the lead researcher actively participated in all stages of the research process, acknowledging and negotiating their positionality became an integral aspect of securing continuous consent from the participants. An additional step to ensure accountability was achieved by the follow-up community screenings a year after the completion of the workshops. During the screenings, I reported on how I used, shared, analysed the short films, and most importantly, about the progress I had made towards preparing a collaborative online platform where all videos would be deposited. The latter was thoroughly discussed in the initial workshops, and some keen participants joined the online conversations about the creation of the website.

So far, I have touched on some aspects of Renee Pualani Louis’s (2007) guidance for research with Indigenous peoples, which involves careful consideration of relational accountability, respectful representation, reciprocal appropriation, and the provision and compliance with the rights and regulations of colonised and marginalised individuals. Acknowledging the interconnectedness of all research stages and parameters, this paradigm holds the researcher accountable for respecting all human and more-than-human relationships, for attentive listening and platform formation ‘for the voices and knowledge systems of the Other,’ and for conducting the research in an ethical manner that benefits the researched and respects their value systems (Chilisa 2012, 36). At the core of this methodological guidance stands the need to limit the researcher’s power to unilaterally identify, categorise, and represent Indigenous knowledge, cosmologies, and livelihoods. Bringing community voice and ownership into the research quickly translates into a destabilisation of the usual power dynamics and a transfer of authority that typically rests with the researcher. Aline Gubrium, Amy Hill, and Sarah Flicker take a step further, arguing that ‘reflexive attention to issues of power and a sense of cultural humility’ are necessary in collaborative storytelling, as researchers and facilitators are still in a position to shape content decisions even when their role is limited to supporting the participants with their stories (2014, 1607). While funding and other practical reasons may explain why researchers maintain control over fundamental research design, deliberate efforts must be made to decentralise their positions, as well as those of anyone involved in the research without community membership (Kovach 2021).

The malleability of the CDST method aligns with the objective of CBPR to ‘equalize power differences, build trust, and create a sense of ownership in an effort to bring about social justice and change’ (Castleden and Garvin 2008, 1395). The researcher's perceived control and authority increase in tandem with the level of structure implemented in the method. Before a CDST workshop, the researcher establishes connections with an Indigenous community through gatekeepers, who, depending on the country, can be community leaders, local NGOs, or officials of the local administration. The framework of equitable partnership is extensively discussed in preparatory meetings with gatekeepers and community representatives, later formalised in the first workshop session. Prior to the first workshop in Bangladesh, we held a series of meetings with community representatives and gatekeepers to present, discuss, and adapt the activities to the local context. We quickly decided to minimise abstract academic presentations on climate change and delta degradation and instead to allocate time for additional storytelling activities, where participants could share their own experiences of delta life. At that time, I finalised the Story Plan activity by adding the part titled ‘PEOPLE, PLACES AND SOUNDS’, which invited participants to visualise their stories within their communities and engage in dialogue with family members, friends, and landscapes (see previous section).

The preparatory discussions in Bangladesh significantly shaped the workshop structure and helped defining new avenues for dialogues between workshop participants and viewer, with the most notable suggestion being to assist participants in submitting their videos to national and international short film competitions. The incorporation of participant-led communication plans fostered trust between the storytellers and the research team, conveying a clear message about the ownership of the short films (Mistry and Berardi 2012; Mistry, Bignante, and Berardi 2016). Trust is cultivated by researchers attentively addressing the needs of community partners and reciprocating in a meaningful manner. It was also at that stage when it was proposed to organise additional community screenings a year after the completion of the workshops, with an open invitation to community members, elders, NGOs, and local politicians. The community representatives regarded the CDST workshops as a starting point for public discussion and social change rather than a mere research collaboration.

CDST, akin to other CBPR and PAR approaches, represents a Western research method⁵ that has been thus far implemented predominantly with non-Western communities. As previously discussed, the collaborative nature of CDST demonstrates a clear stance against research extractivism and participant exploitation. However, a lingering question persists: can collaboration and integration of participant-led activities alone suffice to decolonise research initiated by Western scholars? Integral to decolonising initiatives is not only the effort to dismantle power dynamics among researchers and the researched but also to learn from them and incorporate their perspectives, transforming the ontology and epistemology of research practice. For Smith, decolonisation ‘is not simply about challenging or making refinements to qualitative research. It is a much broader but still purposeful agenda for transforming the institution of research, the deep underlying structures and taken-for-granted ways of organizing, conducting, and disseminating research and knowledge’ (2005, 88). Indigenous scholars do not propose the complete rejection of Western research approaches but, instead, aim to conduct meaningful and beneficial research for their communities, which involves integrating their unique worldviews and constructing theories anchored in their cultural outlooks (Archibald, Lee-Morgan, and de Santolo 2019).

In Tran De, the project team cooperated with the local Khmer community, who regularly practice Theravada Buddhism. When the participants chose topics for their short films, it became evident that there was a distinct focus on religious practices as part of their Indigenous heritage. Most storyboards included rituals, everyday scenes from the temple, or even explored the role of religion in their lives. As a result, we scheduled filming to take place at the local Buddhist temple and the storytellers’ home shrines in the next couple of days. Dealing with unpredictable weather during the monsoon, we also had to coordinate with the temple's schedule and the availability of the monks, as well as to synchronise with the participants whose homes we were going to shoot in. Tuning into the religious life of the Khmer community, we were invited to integrate spirituality into the research in two different ways: first, by capturing a ceremonial sensescape with its smells, sounds, and images; second, by learning from the participants and the monks about the central role of Buddhism in their Indigenous identities. CDST filming aligns with the rhythm and embraces the dynamic character of traditional storytelling, adept at capturing communal lifestyles, relational realities, and prevailing forms of knowledge. The videos created in Tran De invite viewers on a spiritual journey, as experienced by community members both privately and publicly, with the overarching goal to foster a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted impact of the environmental crisis.

The decolonial spirit of CDST also addresses power hierarchies in research by fostering a ‘creative genesis of new modes of collective expression’ (Thomas and Britton 2012, 183). In participatory video, filmmakers define the aesthetics and politics of representation, yielding outputs that convey their desired narratives in their chosen style (Kindon 2003; Kindon, Pain, and Kesby 2007). As a participant-led creative and artistic practice, CDST welcomes the rich oral storytelling traditions of Indigenous peoples, bridging them in a respectful manner with the affordances of digital media. For instance, the CDST workshop in Koyra, Bangladesh, produced two short films that commenced with Munda songs, rich in symbols depicting the struggles of Indigenous livelihoods. The first song appears in the video ‘My Language is My Soul’ (2021) by Surovi Munda and tells a story of exclusion and marginalisation that the community has faced: ‘I am feeling shy, I will not go to cultivate rice. Hindus and Muslims tease us, saying that Munda men and women cultivate paddy together.’ The song was performed again by another participant at the celebration that followed the community screening at the end of the workshop. The second song appears in a metaphoric scene in the video ‘Increased Salinity, Poor Nutrition’ (2021) by Swapna Bala Munda, where, as part of a group game, three children form a circle, holding hands around the fourth child who is sitting down. The song goes: ‘Mala oh Mala, we are all playing. You are sitting alone without your friend. Get up, wipe away your tears, look at the sky, and catch us if you can.’ When the singing stops, the three children break the circle and start running, and if they get caught by the fourth (previously seated) child, they lose. Chosen deliberately, the second performance underscores that despite poverty and environmental degradation, Munda children remain healthy, and the families have an optimistic outlook for a brighter future through collective efforts. Without delving into the songs’ semiotics, the intertwining of traditional storytelling and digital media exemplifies the oral traditions of the Munda people, forming a powerful narrative about their Indigenous experience in Bangladesh.

Creating new digital stories on contemporary challenges within a traditional narrative framework not only demonstrates the ethical and productive nature of research but also corresponds with cultural norms, firmly rooted in the agency of the involved communities, provided the research is carried out with carefulness, sincerity, and sensitivity (Hendry 2007). Marzi observes that such a ‘research process is often messy and unpredictable in its outcomes and requires the researcher to be flexible enough to follow its organic cyclical pathway’ (2023, 512). In doing so, CDST strives to establish a creative practice that can accommodate diverse voices and perspectives, challenging dominant narratives and promoting a more inclusive and equitable research paradigm.

Lessons From Fieldwork

The development and implementation of the CDST method have faced challenges associated with its distinctive features as a fieldwork-based participatory creative practice. CDST fieldwork involves training in digital storytelling production, conducting interviews and group discussions to understand participants’ perspectives and experiences, and documenting the process by the researcher and facilitators. With their short duration, the workshop sessions prove to be intense for all involved, demanding commitment, dedication, and adaptability. Even though there might be opportunities for additional training and support in further storytelling endeavours, the CDST method is designed to lead to the production and collection of completed short films by the end of the field visit. Fast-paced training and well-organised filming and editing sessions allow for successful workshops. However, demanding topics, varying levels of digital literacy, participant recruitment, and country-specific issues can impede the creative process. These themes necessitate further discussion.

Starting with content-related challenges, participants are invited to tell stories that are most detrimental to them and their communities. While remaining open to diverse subjects empowers participants, it also carries the risk of their endangerment if the chosen topic is controversial or poses security risks (Gubrium, Hill, and Flicker 2014). In Bangladesh, a participant considered making a short film on the land dispute he was entangled in with local authorities. NGO representatives and some participants alerted us to the potential escalation of the situation, citing a recent incident where members of another Indigenous community were killed by land grabbers. In response, the team decided that it is best to incorporate this critical issue into the broader topic of Munda vulnerability in the region. Other topics may require filming in remote or challenging locations (rivers, swamps, forests) which is not always possible to coordinate within a tight timeframe. Compromises must be made, especially in cases of unpredictable weather. In Tran De, the workshop took place during the monsoon season, and the shooting plan underwent multiple changes as the rain unexpectedly disrupted the process. Even when it was not raining, the winds were strong, impacting the sound quality of some videos. We had to re-record some dialogues or edit the videos to reduce the noise.

The CDST workshop offers a valuable skillset to the involved community members, yet the existing level of digital literacy translates into a different starting point for each participant. As mentioned earlier, there are cases of participants who completed the shooting almost independently, whereas others require constant one-to-one support. In Bangladesh, most participants were in their twenties, which translated into a higher familiarity with smartphones and social media, in contrast to Vietnam, where the majority were in their fifties or sixties. Both workshops in Vietnam required longer training sessions in film shooting and editing. Nevertheless, the skill set is not solely determined by age. There was even a younger participant who accidentally deleted most of their footage before we had a chance to back it up. Overall, the technical quality of the final output is significantly shaped by the filmmaker's skills. Still, the pivotal element that prevails is the passion and commitment of every participant to embrace the roles of storyteller and filmmaker. Having a clear vision and well-developed story makes a video impactful regardless of its technical attributes.

A closely related challenge involves the departure of workshop participants. Long consultations with the hosting communities typically result in the recruitment of participants who are deeply interested in collaborative storytelling. However, the CDST process is demanding, and it is understandable that a participant might lose interest or realise they cannot fully commit for 5 to 6 days. In each workshop held in Vietnam, we recruited 8 participants, but one individual decided to leave after the initial introductory session, citing disinterest. Revisiting the transcripts from the group discussions, it became clear that the two participants did not feel comfortable enough to create and share stories despite the help offered by the facilitators and other team members. Replacing a participant on such short notice while maintaining gender balance was only achievable thanks to the warm support of the local community.

Conclusion

Community Digital Storytelling addresses the imperative need for local counter-stories concerning climate breakdown and environmental degradation, aimed at informing, enriching, and challenging existing eco-imaginaries. Equipped with digital media technologies, storytellers and filmmakers from river deltas and other vulnerable regions can engage in dialogue with global audiences, sharing both traditional and contemporary narratives that highlight a protective, non-exploitative relationship with nature, alongside the impact of historical injustices caused by capitalism and colonialism. To achieve this, CDST leverages tools from smartphone filmmaking and environmental storytelling, drawing ethical principles from Indigenous and community-based participatory research approaches. The workshop-based method is adaptable responding to diverse realities, and grounded in equitable partnerships with the goal of decolonising the research process. By compiling a guide for this qualitative research method and multimedia creative practice, this article contributes to scholarly discussions on participatory methodologies with disenfranchised communities, which can amplify their voices and promote collective action toward social justice and change. Every method and methodology comes with inherent limitations. The critical assessment of CDST by the lead researcher, local collaborators, and participants in Bangladesh and Vietnam has identified these limitations and potential challenges leading to considerable improvements. Moving forward, CDST can be implemented in a wide range of projects and contexts, either as a stand-alone method or in combination with others, demonstrating accountability, reciprocity, and respect for the involved communities.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the UKRI GCRF Living Deltas Hub under Grant Reference NE/S008926/1.

Notes on contributors

Angelos Theocharis

Angelos Theocharis PhD (University of Edinburgh), is a cultural anthropologist with a focus on community heritage, identities, media, and the impact of the Anthropocene. He currently holds a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship at Newcastle University, where he is working on his project titled ‘Indigenous Visualities of the Climate Crisis.’ This project explores the impact of environmental degradation and climate change on the cultural practices and material culture of Indigenous peoples through visual narratives produced by these communities.

Notes

1 The local partners included: in Bangladesh, the University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh (ULAB), the Dhaka International Mobile Film Festival, as well as the local NGOs Initiative for Coastal Development (ICD) and People's Research on Grassroots Ownership & Traditional Initiative (PROGOTI); in Vietnam, the Central Institute for Natural Resources and Environmental Studies (CRES), Vietnam National University, and the DRAGON-Mekong Research Institute for Climate Change, Can Tho University.

2 All sound and video recordings not included in the participants’ videos and workshop documentaries are transcribed and translated to English.

3 Throughout the workshop, progress is documented through photos and videos, adhering to the consent provided by individual group members. A workshop documentary is curated by the facilitators, including interviews with the participants.

4 In Bangladesh, we used the KineMaster app, while in Vietnam, we opted for CapCut. There are plenty more options of free apps available.

5 CBPR and PAR methodologies have historically been developed and practiced within Western academic institutions and research frameworks. They emphasize collaboration, community engagement, and participatory approaches to research, which are rooted in Western epistemological and methodological traditions. The adoption of CBPR and PAR by non-Western communities reflects a broader trend of Western research methods being applied to diverse cultural and geographical contexts.