Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘informed’

This post is co-authored by Emily Tomkys, Oxfam GB; Danna Ingleton, Amnesty International; and me (Linda Raftree, Independent)

At the MERL Tech conference in DC this month, we ran a breakout session on rethinking consent in the digital age. Most INGOs have not updated their consent forms and policies for many years, yet the growing use of technology in our work, for many different purposes, raises many questions and insecurities that are difficult to address. Our old ways of requesting and managing consent need to be modernized to meet the new realities of digital data and the changing nature of data. Is informed consent even possible when data is digital and/or opened? Do we have any way of controlling what happens with that data once it is digital? How often are organizations violating national and global data privacy laws? Can technology be part of the answer?

Let’s take a moment to clarify what kind of consent we are talking about in this post. Being clear on this point is important because there are many synchronous conversations on consent in relation to technology. For example there are people exploring the use of the consent frameworks or rhetoric in ICT user agreements – asking whether signing such user agreements can really be considered consent. There are others exploring the issue of consent for content distribution online, in particular personal or sensitive content such as private videos and photographs. And while these (and other) consent debates are related and important to this post, what we are specifically talking about is how we, our organizations and projects, address the issue of consent when we are collecting and using data from those who participate in programs or monitoring, evaluation, research and learning (MERL) that we are implementing.

This diagram highlights that no matter how someone is engaging with the data, how they do so and the decisions they make will impact on what is disclosed to the data subject.

No matter how someone is engaging with data, how they do so and the decisions they make will impact on what is disclosed to the data subject.

This is as timely as ever because introducing new technologies and kinds of data means we need to change how we build consent into project planning and implementation. In fact, it gives us an amazing opportunity to build consent into our projects in ways that our organizations may not have considered in the past. While it used to be that informed consent was the domain of frontline research staff, the reality is that getting informed consent – where there is disclosure, voluntariness, comprehension and competence of the data subject –  is the responsibility of anyone ‘touching’ the data.

Here we share examples from two organizations who have been exploring consent issues in their tech work.

Over the past two years, Girl Effect has been incorporating a number of mobile and digital tools into its programs. These include both the Girl Effect Mobile (GEM) and the Technology Enabled Girl Ambassadors (TEGA) programs.

Girl Effect Mobile is a global digital platform that is active in 49 countries and 26 languages. It is being developed in partnership with Facebook’s Free Basics initiative. GEM aims to provide a platform that connects girls to vital information, entertaining content and to each other. Girl Effect’s digital privacy, safety and security policy directs the organization to review and revise its terms and conditions to ensure that they are ‘girl-friendly’ and respond to local context and realities, and that in addition to protecting the organization (as many T&Cs are designed to do), they also protect girls and their rights. The GEM terms and conditions were initially a standard T&C. They were too long to expect girls to look at them on a mobile, the language was legalese, and they seemed one-sided. So the organization developed a new T&C with simplified language and removed some of the legal clauses that were irrelevant to the various contexts in which GEM operates. Consent language was added to cover polls and surveys, since Girl Effect uses the platform to conduct research and for its monitoring, evaluation and learning work. In addition, summary points are highlighted in a shorter version of the T&Cs with a link to the full T&Cs. Girl Effect also develops short articles about online safety, privacy and consent as part of the GEM content as a way of engaging girls with these ideas as well.

TEGA is a girl-operated mobile-enabled research tool currently operating in Northern Nigeria. It uses data-collection techniques and mobile technology to teach girls aged 18-24 how to collect meaningful, honest data about their world in real time. TEGA provides Girl Effect and partners with authentic peer-to-peer insights to inform their work. Because Girl Effect was concerned that girls being interviewed may not understand the consent they were providing during the research process, they used the mobile platform to expand on the consent process. They added a feature where the TEGA girl researchers play an audio clip that explains the consent process. Afterwards, girls who are being interviewed answer multiple choice follow up questions to show whether they have understood what they have agreed to. (Note: The TEGA team report that they have incorporated additional consent features into TEGA based on examples and questions shared in our session).

Oxfam, in addition to developing out their Responsible Program Data Policy, has been exploring ways in which technology can help address contemporary consent challenges. The organization had doubts on how much its informed consent statement (which explains who the organization is, what the research is about and why Oxfam is collecting data as well as asks whether the participant is willing to be interviewed) was understood and whether informed consent is really possible in the digital age. All the same, the organization wanted to be sure that the consent information was being read out in its fullest by enumerators (the interviewers). There were questions about what the variation might be on this between enumerators as well as in different contexts and countries of operation. To explore whether communities were hearing the consent statement fully, Oxfam is using mobile data collection with audio recordings in the local language and using speed violations to know whether the time spent on the consent page is sufficient, according to the length of the audio file played. This is by no means foolproof but what Oxfam has found so far is that the audio file is often not played in full and or not at all.

Efforts like these are only the beginning, but they help to develop a resource base and stimulate more conversations that can help organizations and specific projects think through consent in the digital age.

Additional resources include this framework for Consent Policies developed at a Responsible Data Forum gathering.

Because of how quickly technology and data use is changing, one idea that was shared was that rather than using informed consent frameworks, organizations may want to consider defining and meeting a ‘duty of care’ around the use of the data they collect. This can be somewhat accomplished through the creation of organizational-level Responsible Data Policies. There are also interesting initiatives exploring new ways of enabling communities to define consent themselves – like this data licenses prototype.

screen-shot-2016-11-02-at-10-20-53-am

The development and humanitarian sectors really need to take notice, adapt and update their thinking constantly to keep up with technology shifts. We should also be doing more sharing about these experiences. By working together on these types of wicked challenges, we can advance without duplicating our efforts.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

This post was originally published on the Open Knowledge Foundation blog

A core theme that the Open Development track covered at September’s Open Knowledge Conference was Ethics and Risk in Open Development. There were more questions than answers in the discussions, summarized below, and the Open Development working group plans to further examine these issues over the coming year.

Informed consent and opting in or out

Ethics around ‘opt in’ and ‘opt out’ when working with people in communities with fewer resources, lower connectivity, and/or less of an understanding about privacy and data are tricky. Yet project implementers have a responsibility to work to the best of their ability to ensure that participants understand what will happen with their data in general, and what might happen if it is shared openly.

There are some concerns around how these decisions are currently being made and by whom. Can an NGO make the decision to share or open data from/about program participants? Is it OK for an NGO to share ‘beneficiary’ data with the private sector in return for funding to help make a program ‘sustainable’? What liabilities might donors or program implementers face in the future as these issues develop?

Issues related to private vs. public good need further discussion, and there is no one right answer because concepts and definitions of ‘private’ and ‘public’ data change according to context and geography.

Informed participation, informed risk-taking

The ‘do no harm’ principle is applicable in emergency and conflict situations, but is it realistic to apply it to activism? There is concern that organizations implementing programs that rely on newer ICTs and open data are not ensuring that activists have enough information to make an informed choice about their involvement. At the same time, assuming that activists don’t know enough to decide for themselves can come across as paternalistic.

As one participant at OK Con commented, “human rights and accountability work are about changing power relations. Those threatened by power shifts are likely to respond with violence and intimidation. If you are trying to avoid all harm, you will probably not have any impact.” There is also the concept of transformative change: “things get worse before they get better. How do you include that in your prediction of what risks may be involved? There also may be a perception gap in terms of what different people consider harm to be. Whose opinion counts and are we listening? Are the right people involved in the conversations about this?”

A key point is that whomever assumes the risk needs to be involved in assessing that potential risk and deciding what the actions should be — but people also need to be fully informed. With new tools coming into play all the time, can people be truly ‘informed’ and are outsiders who come in with new technologies doing a good enough job of facilitating discussions about possible implications and risk with those who will face the consequences? Are community members and activists themselves included in risk analysis, assumption testing, threat modeling and risk mitigation work? Is there a way to predict the likelihood of harm? For example, can we determine whether releasing ‘x’ data will likely lead to ‘y’ harm happening? How can participants, practitioners and program designers get better at identifying and mitigating risks?

When things get scary…

Even when risk analysis is conducted, it is impossible to predict or foresee every possible way that a program can go wrong during implementation. Then the question becomes what to do when you are in the middle of something that is putting people at risk or leading to extremely negative unintended consequences. Who can you call for help? What do you do when there is no mitigation possible and you need to pull the plug on an effort? Who decides that you’ve reached that point? This is not an issue that exclusively affects programs that use open data, but open data may create new risks with which practitioners, participants and activists have less experience, thus the need to examine it more closely.

Participants felt that there is not enough honest discussion on this aspect. There is a pop culture of ‘admitting failure’ but admitting harm is different because there is a higher sense of liability and distress. “When I’m really scared shitless about what is happening in a project, what do I do?” asked one participant at the OK Con discussion sessions. “When I realize that opening data up has generated a huge potential risk to people who are already vulnerable, where do I go for help?” We tend to share our “cute” failures, not our really dismal ones.

Academia has done some work around research ethics, informed consent, human subject research and use of Internal Review Boards (IRBs). What aspects of this can or should be applied to mobile data gathering, crowdsourcing, open data work and the like? What about when citizens are their own source of information and they voluntarily share data without a clear understanding of what happens to the data, or what the possible implications are?

Do we need to think about updating and modernizing the concept of IRBs? A major issue is that many people who are conducting these kinds of data collection and sharing activities using new ICTs are unaware of research ethics and IRBs and don’t consider what they are doing to be ‘research’. How can we broaden this discussion and engage those who may not be aware of the need to integrate informed consent, risk analysis and privacy awareness into their approaches?

The elephant in the room

Despite our good intentions to do better planning and risk management, one big problem is donors, according to some of the OK Con participants.  Do donors require enough risk assessment and mitigation planning in their program proposal designs? Do they allow organizations enough time to develop a well-thought-out and participatory Theory of Change along with a rigorous risk assessment together with program participants? Are funding recipients required to report back on risks and how they played out? As one person put it, “talk about failure is currently more like a ‘cult of failure’ and there is no real learning from it. Systematically we have to report up the chain on money and results and all the good things happening. and no one up at the top really wants to know about the bad things. The most interesting learning doesn’t get back to the donors or permeate across practitioners. We never talk about all the work-arounds and backdoor negotiations that make development work happen. This is a serious systemic issue.”

Greater transparency can actually be a deterrent to talking about some of these complexities, because “the last thing donors want is more complexity as it raises difficult questions.”

Reporting upwards into government representatives in Parliament or Congress leads to continued aversion to any failures or ‘bad news’. Though funding recipients are urged to be innovative, they still need to hit numeric targets so that the international aid budget can be defended in government spaces. Thus, the message is mixed: “Make sure you are learning and recognizing failure, but please don’t put anything too serious in the final report.” There is awareness that rigid program planning doesn’t work and that we need to be adaptive, yet we are asked to “put it all into a log frame and make sure the government aid person can defend it to their superiors.”

Where to from here?

It was suggested that monitoring and evaluation (M&E) could be used as a tool for examining some of these issues, but M&E needs to be seen as a learning component, not only an accountability one. M&E needs to feed into the choices people are making along the way and linking it in well during program design may be one way to include a more adaptive and iterative approach. M&E should force practitioners to ask themselves the right questions as they design programs and as they assess them throughout implementation. Theory of Change might help, and an ethics-based approach could be introduced as well to raise these questions about risk and privacy and ensure that they are addressed from the start of an initiative.

Practitioners have also expressed the need for additional resources to help them predict and manage possible risk: case studies, a safe space for sharing concerns during implementation, people who can help when things go pear-shaped, a menu of methodologies, a set of principles or questions to ask during program design, or even an ICT4D Implementation Hotline or a forum for questions and discussion.

These ethical issues around privacy and risk are not exclusive to Open Development. Similar issues were raised last week at the Open Government Partnership Summit sessions on whistle blowing, privacy, and safeguarding civic space, especially in light of the Snowden case. They were also raised at last year’s Technology Salon on Participatory Mapping.

A number of groups are looking more deeply into this area, including the Capture the Ocean Project, The Engine Room, IDRC’s research network, The Open Technology InstitutePrivacy InternationalGSMA, those working on “Big Data,” those in the Internet of Things space, and others.

I’m looking forward to further discussion with the Open Development working group on all of this in the coming months, and will also be putting a little time into mapping out existing initiatives and identifying gaps when it comes to these cross-cutting ethics, power, privacy and risk issues in open development and other ICT-enabled data-heavy initiatives.

Please do share information, projects, research, opinion pieces and more if you have them!

Read Full Post »

There’s a great, ongoing discussion happening around aid and development and the ethics of using photographs and other media and stories about people INGOs and NGOs are working with (a.k.a beneficiaries, clients, participants). The discussions are organized by CORE Group in DC. I also participated in the first meeting of the group in April (see this post: On the ethics of photos in aid and development work).

Today’s meeting focused on consent and informed consent for photographs.
Jim Stipe was the key speaker. He shared Catholic Relief Services‘ experiences with developing a process that allows for informed consent in a variety of situations.
.

Future discussions will cover related topics such as what happens with social media sites and consent and copyright? What about fair use of images and stories? I’m quite looking forward to continuing the discussions and learning!

Check out the compilation of tweets here on Storify – be sure to read from bottom to top!

Also see this old post: Child protection, the media and youth media programs.

Read Full Post »

  1. Share
    Looking forward to group conf call with CORE today ref: Photos, ethics, values and INGO/NGO work.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 06:55:44
  2. This morning I participated in a massive conference call about photography in aid and development, and the ethics and values that surround photos taken and used by NGOs. The call was organized by CORE Group (@coregroupdc). Now maybe I’m exaggerating here, but the call organizer, Ann Hendrix-Jenkins, read off a list of participants that went on forever. I’m estimating that there were something like 40 or 50 people listening in from as many organizations. This topic has always been important for a strong segment of NGO staff and it seems to be gaining steam again.

    After I started tweeting about it, a couple of people asked if I’d be writing a blog post. So here it is. I’ve ‘Storified’ it since I was tweeting instead of taking notes, and because there was a nice side conversation happening with folks on Twitter too. (See the Storify here – it looks a little bit nicer there than it does here.)
  3. Share
    “Humanitarian photography is a hot button issue.Touches on dignity, how we do our jobs, & our ideas about ourselves, others & our work.”
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:08:52
  4. The call organizers had earlier conducted a survey about NGO images, policies, consent, and operational processes around photographers and photography and shared it with participants ahead of the call. The organizers also suggested a couple of links to check out beforehand, including an Aid Watch post (“Adorable child in NGO fund-raising photo sues for royalties“) and a link to a photo  that appeared in the New York Times. These two links and other similar “poverty porn images” had sparked the discussions that led to the decision to organize today’s call. [update: here is the original discussion thread on Linked In]
  5. Share
    Jeez – like 50 orgs on this CORE call re: photography, ethics and values. Discussing: @aidwatch post ht.ly/a3gYA & more
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:06:19
  6. Share
    I’m reminded that these discussions happen all the time among INGOs, even when they are not documented on Twitter or a blog.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:10:46
  7. Share
    Second photo touching off this conversation is NYT image from last year re Somalia famine. ht.ly/a3i0s #povertyporn
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:13:32
  8. Share
    Also reminded that blogs can and do touch off broader and wider discussions that often we never know are happening….
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:14:45
  9. Share
    @meowtree I think too many people online forget that about a lot of issues. Not all discussions are necessarily open for outside viewing.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:16:09
  10. Share
    @meowtree Shoot, I forgot about the call! Are you going to write a post about it?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:28:06
  11. Share
    @meowtree Would have loved to be there but couldn’t… Will you report?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:36:40
  12. Laura Pohl (@lauraepohl) from Bread for the World gave a short introduction to the topic along with some points to think about.
  13. Share
    What considerations do NGOs (and journos/freelancers) need to go through before publishing a photo? Appropriate use? Consent? What else?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:16:15
  14. After this introduction, Jim Stipe from Catholic Relief Services gave a quick summary of the survey highlights, and we had a group discussion around some of the key issues detected in the survey and additional ones sourced from the participants on the call. 
  15. Heartening to know most INGOs have photo policies saying images must show dignity, & image usage is restricted/protected to some staff.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:21:54
  16. Share
    Hearing: INGOs don’t seem to have policies stating photo must match/relate to/be part of story or have policies re: copyright of photos.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:23:38
  17. Share
    Hearing: often pgm staff are taking photos, but many INGOs don’t train staff on policies or good techs for photos or on photo ethics.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:25:47
  18. Share
    Hearing: What about consent for photos? We need to discuss this much more. It’s key to a good photo policy.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:26:57
  19. Share
    @meowtree Unable to keep up today, busy. But have you asked @irinnews input? I use their photo service. Will catch up soon. Thanks for topic
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:28:38
  20. Share
    My question: what is ‘informed consent’? what are different ways to get it? how to ensure ppl rlly understand use of their image and story?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:37:41
  21. Share
    @meowtree you can’t ensure that ppl understand use of their image unless they know context in which it will be used & understand its nuances
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:40:12
  22. Share
    Re: informed consent – how not to intimidate ppl with consent forms? Also – shd we be applying US consent laws to local settings? or not?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:39:02
  23. Share
    @meowtree @jcdonner thanks brilliant, parallel questions for researchers being encouraged in IDRC SIRCAII programme, spread it
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:40:34
  24. Share
    Also: how does consent differ when children/under 18s are involved? what about difference btwn traditional and social media use of images?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:40:32
  25. Share
    @meowtree What I learned from ethnography: entirely contextual and subjective. Even when you’ve succeeded, you’ve failed. But you must try
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:41:52
  26. Share
    @meowtree When in doubt, err on the side of caution.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:42:32
  27. Share
    Someone asks: What about before and after pictures in the case of malnutrition? is it better to show the “after” picture to show progress?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:42:41
  28. Share
    Another Q: what about when working with images of people in conflict settings? where use of their images may endanger them?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:43:25
  29. Share
    Comment: Takes a lot more ppl, resources and planning than we think to do this right. We seldom put enough emphasis on ethical image/video.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:44:51
  30. Share
    @meowtree In the West we focus on “informed consent” re: the individual–but in other cultures, the community consent is more important
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:40:28
  31. Share
    .@meowtree good discussion of photos in #ict4d vs journalism here is.gd/G4oGsC
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:20:44
  32. Share
    Comment: Need to work with US media also to help have more ethical use of images.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:46:26
  33. Share
    Re. #povertyporn conversation @meowtree is tweeting: all humanitarian/devt agencies should have comms ombudspersons to defend those depicted
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:47:19
  34. Share
    @meowtree I’ve always found Photovoice UK’s ethical guidelines useful in regard to some the issues at your discussion photovoice.org/images/uplo…
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:47:47
  35. Share
    [ 1] MT @meowtree Comment: Takes a lot more ppl, resources, planning than we think… We seldom put enough emphasis on ethical image/video
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:48:29
  36. Share
    Interesting commentary on INGO photo policies & the ethics of humanitarian photography by @meowtree.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:48:35
  37. Share
    @meowtree @giantpandinha I really like the ombudspersons idea but they would need to be local?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:49:28
  38. Share
    @miskellaneous @meowtree Anybody with an empathetic impulse would be a good start. But yes, eventually, why not local?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:50:32
  39. Share
    @meowtree photos and ethics such a big topic. I find the whole issue of people coming back from mission trips and volunteering with these
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:49:52
  40. Share
    @meowtree photos equally disturbing. Take a snap of a poor kid and then put on facebook – where’s the dignity and ethics in that? Volunteer
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:50:36
  41. Share
    @meowtree eduction is equally important, but so hard!! At the very least, if you wouldnt want a similar image of your mum/child/bro etc to
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:51:35
  42. Share
    @meowtree be shown are the world or usesd in the same way, then think twice. (this concept doesnt go down well when I mention it to people).
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:52:16
  43. Share
    .@meowtree One challenge – a Western audience that is eager to consume #povertyporn. Many INGOs seek to reach out to that audience.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:51:08
  44. Share
    Comment: tension btwn fundraising people, program people. What is the concept of what the org is doing? Charity? solidarity?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:55:08
  45. Share
    @meowtree @miskellaneous I find the “golden rule” goes a long way. Would I want my child, my niece/nephew depicted this way? Ever?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:54:02
  46. Share
    @giantpandinha @meowtree yes it’s my golden rule too though there are somethings it misses like cultural understandings of modesty
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:57:06
  47. Share
    @miskellaneous @meowtree I remember a moment with my agency’s graphic designers when we cropped a woman’s belly peaking out from her t-shirt
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:58:00
  48. Share
    @miskellaneous @meowtree Again, the golden rule worked there. (But you are right @miskellaneous, might not work in every situation.)
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 11:59:46
  49. Share
    Comment: can we look at studies on the use of photos and impact on donors & learn. Also look at ethics vs what works w fundraising?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 12:07:06
  50. Share
    Comment (mine) and what about participatory media? How often do we promote people’s own photos/videos of themselves/their communities?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 12:07:55
To finalize the call, we heard a summary from Jim of some of the areas that the group could consider forming smaller groups to dig into and work on further, including: 
  • Issues around consent, alternative ways to obtain consent, release forms, and how to get truly informed consent.
  • Ethics of both taking photos and ethics of using photos – these are related yet separate issues.
  • What makes for a good NGO photo? What’s a good vs bad photo? What works and what doesn’t?
  • How do you grow your options for getting more high quality photos? How to train your staff on good photography? How to find and work with good freelance photographers? How to plan out a shoot and put the right amount of time into it? How to ensure photos are taken ethically?
  • Creating a photo policy, what does a good photo policy look like? what should it contain?
  • How to tell better stories? You can document your programs with photos and you can tell visual stories – these are 2 different things….
  • Getting good photo captions. If you don’t have good captions, photos are less useful.
  • Other places to source photos; eg., if you don’t have the photos you need, where can you go to get them?
  • Photo journalism vs NGO photography – similar yet different, different approaches and goals. Let’s discuss this.
  • Vocabulary for talking about photos in order to articulate to staff why one photo better than another. Turning gut sense into language and tools.
  • Looking at studies on the use of photos and their impact on donors, what can we learn from that? How to reconcile the different set of ethics that we may find in terms of ‘what works’ for fundraising and what is ethical?
  • What about participatory media and people portraying themselves and their own images
  • An Ombudsperson within INGOs who can defend the rights of those being photographed
  • The question of how people perceive you when you go from doing program work to becoming a photographer in the same afternoon. 
  • The related question about what happens when your organization makes you do both things? Who owns the photos? Do you get paid if your organization uses them? What if you are using your own equipment? How is your organization using you if that’s not your job in the first place? What are you expected to do and how much of this should you actually be doing?
  • Budgeting. We need to begin inserting budget into the conversation. How much can we pay photographers, or do we invest in training our own staff?
  1. Share
    Well pointed out by @miskellaneous: our “golden rule” re. depiction of “the Other” sometimes “misses cultural understandings of modesty”.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 12:08:55
  2. Share
    However, I still believe some “golden rule” is better than none, and the bottom line should be: err on the side of caution.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 12:10:15
  3. Share
    Comment: What about when you’re asked to be both a “program” person and also take comms/PR photos? How does community view you?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 12:08:59
  4. Share
    Comment: what are the rules when your focus is pgm, but ‘photographer’ is added to your task list before you go out to ‘the field’?
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 12:10:10
  5. Share
    @meowtree @julienne_l I work with youth and struggle with this a lot. How do you keep integrity and get ppl to pay attention? #povertyporn
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 12:04:39
  6. I’m looking forward to continuing the discussions as this is an issue that constantly jumps out at me. It’s fantastic to know that there is such a strong contingent of NGO staff who are keen to address the issues around how we take and how we use photographs of the people that we work with.
  7. Share
    That’s it for tweets from @coregroupdc conversation on #povertyporn, photos, ethics and values. More later – discussions will continue.
    Tue, Apr 03 2012 12:11:55

Read Full Post »