Title: Integrating Participatory 1
Author: USER
Document comments: DocumentCreationInfo

Integrating Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) with Cinema for Development in Gishiri Community, Abuja, Nigeria

Igbaba, Sunday Ogbu, PhD, Erinugha, Azubuike Charles, PhD, Ezeugwu, Cindy Anene, PhD, Ndukwu, George Odochi, PhD, Etuk, Eno Elizabeth

Integrating Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) with Cinema for Development in
Gishiri Community, Abuja, Nigeria

By

Igbaba, Sunday Ogbu, PhD
Department of Theatre and Cultural Studies, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nigeria
Email: sundayigbaba5@gmail.com | ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8519-1648

Erinugha, Azubuike Charles, PhD
Film and Media Arts, Institute of Strategic and Development Communication, Nasarawa
State University, Keffi, Nigeria. Email: mailbrothersmovie@gmail.com
| ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0008-2396-6592

Ezeugwu, Cindy Anene, PhD
Department of Theatre and Film Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria
Email: cindy.ezeugwu@unn.edu.ng | ORCID: 0000-0002-3106-3755

Ndukwu, George Odochi, PhD
The Institute for Development Synergy (TIDS), Abuja, Nigeria
Email: developmentcommunicationnig@gmail.com | ORCID: 0009-0001-6179-396X

Etuk, Eno Elizabeth
Film and Media Arts, Institute of Strategic and Development Communication, Nasarawa
State University, Keffi, Nigeria. Email: enolee4@gmail.com | ORCID: 0009-0009-9259-
7089

Abstract
This article interrogates the viability of Participatory Video (PV) as cinema for development within the context of the Gishiri community in Abuja, Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nigeria. Anchored  in  Participatory  Learning  and Action  (PLA)  and  development  communication paradigms, the study documents and analyses a six-day Cinema for Development (CfD) workshop conducted by postgraduate scholars of the Institute of Strategic and Development Communication (ISDEVCOM), Nasarawa State University, Keffi. Using qualitative research methods involving participant observation, interviews, focus group discussions, and visual- textual analysis of participatory video outputs, the study demonstrates how PV repositions community members from passive subjects to active cultural producers and development actors. Findings reveal that participatory video fosters social conscientisation, cultural affirmation, skill acquisition, youth empowerment, and collective agency, while also serving as an advocacy medium for infrastructural renewal. The study contributes theoretically by advancing Cinema for Development as a people-centred audiovisual praxis and practically by offering a replicable framework for community-based filmmaking in Nigeria and comparable Global South contexts. Keywords: Participatory Video, Cinema for Development, Participatory Learning and Action, Community Development, Development Communication, Gishir

Background
Film has historically functioned as both cultural expression and social intervention. Beyond entertainment, cinema possesses the capacity to interrogate socio-political realities, preserve cultural memory, and mobilise collective action. Bordwell, Thompson, and Smith (2017) assert

that film communicates ideas, emotions, and lived experiences in ways that deeply resonate with audiences, often shaping perception and behaviour. In development contexts, this emotive and narrative power positions film as a potent catalyst for social change.

In African societies where oral tradition, performance, and communal storytelling remain central to social life, film becomes an extension of indigenous communicative practices. When embedded within participatory frameworks, cinema transcends representation to become a dialogic process of co-creation. This study situates participatory video within its transformative potential, examining how cinema can function for, by, and with the people of the Gishiri community in Abuja, FCT.

The  research  emerges  from  a  Participatory  Learning  and Action  (PLA)  field  workshop conducted during the 2024/2025 academic session by postgraduate students of ISDEVCOM, Nasarawa State University, Keffi. The workshop provided a living laboratory for experimenting with Cinema for Development (CfD), using participatory video as both a method and an outcome.

Cinema for Development
Cinema for Development (CfD) refers to the intentional deployment of film, video, and audiovisual storytelling as instruments for social transformation, participatory engagement, and sustainable development. Unlike mainstream cinematic traditions that prioritise entertainment, auteurism, or commercial imperatives, CfD is anchored in the ethics of social responsibility, collective authorship, and emancipatory communication (Mefalopulos, 2008; White, 2003). It treats cinema not merely as a representational medium but as a dialogic process through which communities interrogate their realities, articulate aspirations, and mobilise action.

At its core, CfD challenges the epistemological imbalance that characterises conventional development communication, where knowledge is produced externally and disseminated to passive recipients. Instead, CfD aligns with participatory paradigms that locate communities as co-creators of meaning and agents of their own development narratives (Servaes, 2008). In this sense, CfD resonates strongly with the philosophical foundations of Theatre for Development (TfD), which reconceptualises performance as a communal process rather than a finished product (Boal, 1979; Mda, 1993), and with the pedagogy of the oppressed articulated by Paulo Freire, whose theory of conscientisation emphasises critical reflection, dialogue, and praxis (Freire, 1970). Cinema for Development thus reframes filmmaking as a process of collective inquiry. The camera becomes not an extractive observational device but a participatory tool that enables communities to see themselves, debate their conditions, and negotiate solutions. This approach disrupts the hegemonic gaze often embedded in ethnographic and documentary traditions, where communities are “spoken for” rather than speaking (Nichols, 2017). CfD insists that development is not simply about visibility but about voice, agency, and power over representation.

Cinema for Development and Participatory Filmmaking
Participatory filmmaking constitutes the methodological backbone of Cinema for Development.
It refers to filmmaking processes in which community members are actively involved in
defining themes, operating cameras, conducting interviews, shaping narratives, and interpreting
meanings (Lunch & Lunch, 2006; Shaw, 2012). This participatory orientation distinguishes CfD

from advocacy documentaries or informational films that, while socially conscious, often retain hierarchical production structures. Scholars of participatory media argue that the transformative potential of film lies less in the final artefact than in the social relations and learning processes generated during production (White, 2003). Through collaborative scripting, filming, and screening, participants engage in dialogue, negotiate differences, and develop critical consciousness about their lived experiences. This aligns with Freirean praxis, as propounded by Freire (1970), in which reflection and action are inseparable components of social change.

In Cinema for Development contexts, participatory film operates simultaneously as a diagnostic tool, a pedagogical process, and a communicative platform. It enables communities to analyse development challenges such as displacement, health crises, gender inequality, and environmental degradation, while also amplifying grassroots perspectives to policymakers, development agencies, and wider publics (Shaw & Robertson, 1997). Thus, the reflexive nature of participatory filmmaking, particularly when coupled with community screenings and feedback sessions, allows film to function as both a mirror and a mediator. Just as Lunch & Lunch (2006) puts it, communities not only document reality but also interrogate it, often arriving at new understandings and collective strategies through watching themselves on screen.

Cinema for Development in Contemporary African Contexts
In contemporary Africa, rapid urbanisation, infrastructural expansion, and neoliberal development policies have produced profound social transformations, often accompanied by displacement,  marginalisation,  and  cultural  erosion  (Watson,  2009). Within  this  context, Cinema for Development emerges as a critical intervention that documents lived experiences of change while contesting dominant development narratives that prioritise infrastructure over human wellbeing. Hence, urban peripheries and informal settlements frequently experience development as a paradox: increased visibility and strategic importance coexist with precarity, insecurity, and exclusion from decision-making processes. CfD offers a means of narrating development “from below,” capturing the emotional, cultural, and psychological dimensions of change that are often absent from official reports and policy documents (Servaes, 2008).

Correspondingly, African scholars and practitioners increasingly recognise the limitations of externally driven media interventions that portray communities as sites of deficiency. CfD, by contrast, foregrounds resilience, indigenous knowledge systems, and culturally grounded interpretations of development (Mda, 1993; Okome, 2007). By privileging vernacular languages, cultural symbols, and community aesthetics, participatory cinema resists homogenising representations and affirms the legitimacy of local epistemologies—moreover, CfD functions as a counter-archive. In contexts where oral histories and everyday experiences are easily erased by urban renewal and state-led development, participatory films preserve collective memory and serve as historical testimony. Nichols (2017) corroborates this position, arguing that this archival function is particularly significant for communities facing displacement, as film becomes both evidence and resistance.

Development Communication and Participatory Praxis
The emergence of development communication as a field was largely a response to the failure of modernisation paradigms that assumed information transfer alone could generate social change. Early diffusion models treated communication as a linear process, privileging expert knowledge and mass media dissemination (Rogers, 2003). However, these approaches often overlook local contexts, power relations, and cultural meanings.

Contemporary development communication scholarship emphasises participation, dialogue, and empowerment as central principles. Ongkiko and Flor argue that underdevelopment is often sustained by communication gaps that exclude communities from meaningful participation in decisions affecting their lives (Ongkiko & Flor, 2006). Communication, in this sense, is not merely about access to information but about the ability to engage, negotiate, and influence development processes. Similarly, Mefalopulos contends that participation without communication is inherently superficial, as meaningful involvement requires sustained dialogic exchange (Mefalopulos, 2008). This underscores the centrality of communicative practices, listening, storytelling, debate, and collective reflection in development praxis.

Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) embodies these principles by situating knowledge production within communities themselves. Perhaps this is why Chambers (1997) puts it that PLA tools such as mapping, transect walks, seasonal calendars, problem trees, and focus group discussions facilitate collective analysis rather than extractive research, transforming inquiry into a shared learning experience.

Integrating Participatory Video Within PLA Frameworks
The integration of participatory video into PLA represents a methodological expansion that enhances the visual, dialogic, and archival dimensions of participatory practice. Participatory video extends PLA's emphasis on collective analysis by introducing audiovisual storytelling as both process and product (Lunch & Lunch, 2006). Within PLA frameworks, participatory video functions as a visual-dialogic tool that complements traditional methods. Insights generated during mapping or focus group discussions can be translated into filmed narratives, while community screenings create spaces for validation, debate, and further reflection. This cyclical process reinforces the Freirean notion of praxis, where reflection and action continually inform one another (Freire, 1970). Importantly, participatory video challenges the dominance of written texts in development documentation, making knowledge accessible to non-literate audiences and respecting oral and visual communication traditions prevalent in many African societies (White, 2003). By embedding participatory filmmaking within PLA, Cinema for Development becomes a sustained practice of empowerment rather than a one-off communication intervention.

Gishiri Community – Gishiri and Community Problem
Gishiri  is  a  peri-urban  community  within Abuja  FCT  experiencing  rapid  infrastructural transformation due to road expansion and urban renewal projects. While development initiatives have introduced new road networks and public facilities, they have also led to the demolition of schools, places of worship, water facilities, and traditional institutions.

The central problem confronting Gishiri is the paradox of development-induced displacement. The demolition of community infrastructure, including a primary school, police station, royal palace, borehole, church, and mosque, has disrupted education, security, cultural continuity, and spiritual life. Although reconstruction efforts are ongoing, the interim period has generated socio-cultural dislocation and vulnerability. Thus, the study investigates how participatory video enables the community to articulate these challenges while documenting resilience and advocacy for restorative development.

Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative research design grounded in interpretivist epistemology. Qualitative methods are appropriate for capturing meanings, emotions, symbols, and lived experiences embedded in participatory filmmaking processes (Osuala, 1982). The research instruments involved Participant Observation, in which researchers actively participated in PLA and PV processes, enabling immersive understanding of community dynamics (Kumar, 2011). In-depth Interviews: Conducted with community elders, youths, women, and facilitators to assess  perceptions  before  and  after  the  PV process.  Focus  Group  Discussions:  Used  to collectively analyse development issues and evaluate the impact of participatory video. Visual Analysis: Systematic review of participatory video footage to interpret thematic patterns and narrative structures.

Participatory Video as Method and Medium
Participatory Video and Documentary Film
Participatory Video is a collaborative filmmaking process that enables communities to conceptualise, produce, and disseminate audiovisual narratives about their realities. Unlike conventional documentaries,in which the filmmaker controls representation, PV empowers participants to decide which stories to tell and how to tell them.

While documentaries aim for professional standards and external audiences (Bernard, 2007), PV prioritises process over polish, agency over aesthetics, and empowerment over consumption. PV differs fundamentally from documentary in authorship, intention, and ethics. Participants are not subjects but filmmakers; the camera becomes a tool of dialogue rather than observation. This distinction underpins the CfD experiment in Gishiri.

The Gishiri PLA-PV Workshop Process
Day one involved cultural immersion and communal bonding. The workshop commenced with a culturally sanctioned visit to the Esu (traditional ruler) and council of elders, affirming respect for indigenous authority. A Gbagyi song of love served as an icebreaker, dissolving boundaries between facilitators and community members and establishing trust. Subsequently, day two involved community mapping and story Development. Through participatory mapping, residents visually documented their environment, identifying resources, losses, and aspirations.

These maps became analytical tools for generating PV storyboards. On day three, there was a transition from storyboard to screen. Thus, community members operated cameras, directed scenes, and narrated experiences across key locations. The process transformed ordinary spaces into cinematic testimonies of lived reality. The fourth day's activity involved filming community loss, resilience, and renewal. Under guided facilitation, participants filmed demolished infrastructures and emerging reconstruction efforts, producing a layered narrative of pain, hope, and accountability. Day five involved post-production and skill transfer. Participants were introduced to nonlinear editing using Adobe Premiere and Final Cut, learning the basics of editing, sound design, and sequencing. The sixth day involved community screening and reflection. This was the stage at which the completed participatory video was screened for the community, followed by critical reflection and collective evaluation.

Discussion and Findings
The findings of this study demonstrate that Participatory Video (PV), when embedded within a Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) framework, constitutes a powerful mechanism for people-centred development. The discussion below critically examines the findings in relation to the study's objectives and the theoretical underpinnings that guided the research.

On Participatory Video, Conscientisation, and the Emergence of Collective Voice. One of the foremost findings of this study is that participatory video significantly enhanced community conscientisation and collective voice among the people of Gishiri. This outcome directly aligns with the study's first objective, which sought to explore the effectiveness of participatory video as a tool for mobilisation and action.

Through the PLA-PV process, community members were not merely exposed to development issues; they were actively involved in identifying, analysing, and visually narrating those issues. This process resonates strongly with Paulo Freire's theory of conscientisation, which posits that sustainable social change emerges when people critically reflect on their lived realities and recognise their capacity to transform them. By holding the camera, directing scenes, and narrating their own stories, the people of Gishiri transitioned from passive recipients of development interventions to active historical subjects.

The participatory mapping, storyboarding, filming, and screening stages created dialogic spaces for collective reflection. The camera functioned not only as a recording device but as a catalyst for dialogue, enabling community members to articulate shared concerns such as infrastructural demolition, displacement, and cultural loss. In this sense, PV operationalised Freire's notion of dialogue as a praxis of reflection and action, thereby strengthening community agency.

This finding also reinforces development communication theory, particularly the position that communication is not merely informational but transformational. By privileging horizontal communication over top-down messaging, the PV process enabled the emergence of a collective voice that reflected community-defined priorities rather than externally imposed development agendas.

On Youth Skill Acquisition and Creative Entrepreneurship. Another significant finding is that participatory video fostered youth skill acquisition and creative entrepreneurship, fulfilling the study's objective of appraising film production processes as tools for community empowerment. The hands-on engagement of youths in camera operation, lighting, sound recording, directing, and editing demystified the filmmaking process and repositioned cinema as an accessible livelihood pathway. This outcome aligns with the empowerment framework embedded in PLA, which emphasises capacity building, skill transfer, and local ownership of development processes.

From a Cinema for Development (CfD) perspective, this finding underscores cinema's dual function as both cultural expression and economic resource. The acquisition of practical audiovisual skills raised participants' awareness of the creative economy's potential, particularly within Nigeria's expanding film and media landscape. This supports broader cultural development discourses which recognise film and audiovisual production as engines of youth employment, innovation, and social mobility.

Theoretically, this outcome affirms participatory communication's insistence that empowerment is most effective when communities are equipped with tools, skills, and confidence to sustain development initiatives beyond external facilitation. In this regard, participatory video transcended its immediate advocacy role and became an instrument for long- term socio-economic empowerment.

On Strengthening Cultural Identity and Historical Memory. The study further reveals that participatory video strengthened cultural identity and historical memory, directly addressing the objective of assessing the effect of participatory approaches on cultural perception.

By documenting demolished cultural institutions such as the royal palace, places of worship, and communal landmarks, the participatory video process functioned as a form of visual archiving. Elders narrated histories, youths reenacted memories, and community members contextualised loss within broader narratives of resilience and continuity. This process reaffirmed culture as a living, dynamic system rather than a static relic.

This finding aligns with cultural studies perspectives that view media as a site for negotiating identity and memory. Within the CfD framework, cinema becomes a cultural repository that preserves indigenous knowledge while adapting it to contemporary realities. The participatory nature of the filmmaking ensured that cultural representation was not exoticised or distorted but grounded in lived experience.

Furthermore, the communal screening and reflection sessions transformed the film into a collective mirror, enabling the community to see itself, remember its past, and envision its future. This reinforces the theoretical position that development divorced from culture is unsustainable, and that cultural affirmation is foundational to social transformation.

On Participatory Video as Advocacy for Infrastructural Accountability. A critical finding of the study is that participatory video functioned effectively as an advocacy tool for infrastructural accountability, aligning to determine whether it can alleviate identified societal challenges.

The visual documentation of demolished schools, boreholes, security posts, and worship centres transformed abstract grievances into concrete evidence. Unlike written reports that may be inaccessible to grassroots communities, the participatory video articulated development concerns in a language that is both emotive and universally intelligible.

This outcome supports development communication theories that emphasise the strategic role of media in bridging grassroots realities and decision-making spaces. The participatory video created a platform for Gishiri's voices to reach policymakers, local authorities, NGOs, and development partners. Importantly, the film did not merely portray victimhood; it documented ongoing reconstruction efforts, thereby presenting a balanced narrative of loss, resilience, and hope.

Within the PLA framework, this advocacy function reinforces the principle that communities must not only diagnose problems but also engage power structures through informed and strategic communication. Participatory video thus emerges as a dialogic advocacy tool that amplifies community voices without stripping them of agency.

On Validating Cinema as a Tool for People-Centred Development. Collectively, the findings validate cinema, specifically participatory video, as a viable instrument for people-centred development when embedded within participatory frameworks. This conclusion directly addresses the overarching aim of the study: to theorise and experiment with Cinema for Development as an extension of Theatre for Development and participatory communication practices.

The study demonstrates that cinema, when reclaimed from elite and commercial dominance, can function as a democratic space of engagement, education, and empowerment. By centring people's lived experiences, cultural realities, and developmental aspirations, participatory video operationalises the core principles of PLA: inclusivity, dialogue, co-ownership, and sustainability.

Theoretically, the findings contribute to the evolving discourse on CfD by empirically illustrating how film can move beyond representation to become a process of social praxis. In practice, the Gishiri case affirms that communities possess the creativity, insight, and agency to drive their own development when provided with participatory tools.

In synthesis, the discussion confirms that participatory video simultaneously functions as: a conscientisation tool, a capacity-building mechanism, a cultural preservation medium, and an advocacy platform. These interlocking outcomes affirm the study's theoretical position that sustainable development is most effective when communication is dialogic, culture-sensitive, and participatory. The Gishiri experience thus stands as a compelling case for integrating Cinema for Development into academic curricula, community interventions, and development policy frameworks in Nigeria and beyond.

Conclusion
This study firmly establishes participatory video (PV) as a realistic, inclusive, and highly effective approach to community development and empowerment, particularly within grassroots contexts where voices are often marginalised. By integrating Participatory Learning and Action  (PLA)  principles  with  audiovisual  storytelling,  the  Gishiri  PLA-PV  project demonstrates that film can move beyond its conventional roles of entertainment or elite artistic expression to become a practical instrument for social engagement, dialogue, and transformation. In this sense, film is repositioned as cinema of the people-produced with communities rather than for them, and driven by lived experiences rather than external narratives.

The findings reveal that participatory video creates a democratic communicative space in which community members actively define problems, articulate priorities, and collectively imagine solutions. Through hands-on involvement in scripting, filming, performance, and reflection, participants do not merely consume messages; they become authors of their own development stories. This process strengthens local ownership, enhances confidence, and builds critical consciousness, thereby transforming passive beneficiaries into active development actors.

Furthermore, the study underscores the cultural significance of participatory video as a tool for preserving indigenous knowledge, oral histories, and performative traditions. In the Gishiri experience, audiovisual storytelling functioned as a living archive capturing language, rituals, everyday practices, and community memory in forms that are both accessible and transferable

across generations. This cultural preservation role reinforces identity and social cohesion while simultaneously situating local knowledge within broader development discourses.

Equally important is the catalytic role of participatory video in promoting sustainable development. By visually foregrounding community-defined issues such as infrastructure, health, security, and social inclusion, the PV process stimulated stakeholder dialogue, enhanced advocacy potential, and opened pathways for collaborative problem-solving. The visual and performative nature of the medium amplified community voices, making them harder for policymakers, development agencies, and civil society actors to ignore.

In conclusion, the Gishiri PLA-PV project validates participatory video as both a methodological and ideological intervention in development practice. It affirms that when communities control the means of representation, development communication becomes more ethical, culturally grounded, and sustainable. Participatory video thus emerges not merely as a tool, but as a transformative process-one that mobilises participation, preserves culture, and reclaims development as a people-centred, dialogic, and empowering endeavour.

Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study and in line with its stated objectives, namely, to examine the effectiveness of participatory video for mobilisation and action, to appraise its role in community empowerment, and to assess its capacity to drive sustainable development, the following recommendations are advanced:
1.		Establish Dedicated Funding Mechanisms for Participatory Audiovisual Projects. In view of the study's finding that participatory video functions as an effective tool for conscientisation, advocacy, and community empowerment, it is recommended that dedicated funding structures be established to support participatory audiovisual initiatives. Government agencies, universities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), private sector stakeholders, and international development partners should collaborate to create Cinema for Development (CfD) funds targeted at grassroots communities. Such funding mechanisms should prioritise community-led audiovisual storytelling projects and capacity-building workshops in participatory filmmaking, post-production, dissemination,  and  community  screening  processes. This  recommendation  directly responds to the objective of assessing participatory video as a tool for mobilisation and action, as sustained funding would ensure continuity beyond pilot interventions. In line with participatory development theory, financial support should be structured to avoid donor-driven agendas, instead enabling communities to define development priorities and narratives. By institutionalising funding for participatory audiovisual work, participatory video can transition from episodic experimentation to a sustainable development communication strategy.

2.		Integrate Participatory Video into Development Communication, Film, Theatre, and Media Curricula in Nigerian Higher Institutions. Given the demonstrated effectiveness of participatory video in fostering skill acquisition, cultural consciousness, and youth empowerment, it is recommended that participatory video be formally integrated into the curricula of development communication, theatre arts, film studies, media studies, and related disciplines in Nigerian tertiary institutions. Curriculum integration should embed participatory video within practical course modules, link theory to community-based fieldwork and service learning, and emphasise the ethical, cultural, and participatory

dimensions of filmmaking. This recommendation aligns with the study's objective of appraising film production processes as tools for empowerment. By exposing students to participatory methodologies, higher education institutions can produce graduates equipped not only with technical skills but also with competencies in social responsibility and community engagement. From a theoretical standpoint, this approach advances Freirean pedagogy by transforming the classroom into a site of praxis where reflection and action intersect. Furthermore, institutionalising participatory video in academic programmes will expand the frontiers of Cinema for Development scholarship, stimulate research innovation, and bridge the persistent gap between academia and grassroots development practice.

3.		Strengthen Collaboration among Universities, NGOs, CBOs, and Local Governments. In recognition of the study's finding that participatory video serves as an effective advocacy tool for infrastructural accountability, it is recommended that multi-stakeholder partnerships be strengthened among universities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), community-based organisations (CBOs), and local government authorities. Such collaboration should: support co-designed community development interventions, facilitate the dissemination of participatory video outputs to policymakers, and ensure that community-generated knowledge informs development planning. This recommendation directly addresses the study's objective of determining whether participatory video can address identified societal challenges. Universities bring research expertise and technical capacity; NGOs contribute development experience and access to funding; CBOs ensure community ownership; and local governments provide policy leverage and implementation frameworks. Within the PLA and development communication frameworks, collaboration ensures that participatory video is not merely an isolated communicative act but is integrated into decision-making processes. When community voices captured through PV are acknowledged by institutions of power, development becomes dialogic, accountable, and people-driven.

4.		Promote Community Ownership and Capacity Transfer for Sustainability. Beyond institutional collaboration, it is recommended that participatory video initiatives deliberately prioritise community ownership and capacity transfer. Training programmes should target youths, women, and local leaders to ensure that filmmaking skills, equipment management, and advocacy strategies remain within the community. This recommendation is anchored in the study's overarching aim of driving sustainable development. Sustainable outcomes are achievable only when communities possess the skills and confidence to continue development communication independently of external facilitators. Participatory video, therefore, should be positioned not merely as a project output but as a long-term community resource.

5.		Recognise Participatory Video as a Policy Tool in Development Planning. Finally, it is recommended that policymakers and development planners formally recognise participatory video as a legitimate tool for development planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Participatory video outputs should be incorporated into community needs assessments, urban renewal consultations, and social impact evaluations. This recommendation reinforces the theoretical validation of cinema as a people-centred development instrument, as demonstrated by the Gishiri experience. When policy frameworks acknowledge audiovisual narratives as valid forms of evidence, community participation is elevated from symbolic inclusion to meaningful engagement.

Collectively, these recommendations reinforce the study's central argument that cinema, when embedded within participatory frameworks, transcends entertainment to become a vehicle for empowerment, advocacy, and sustainable development. Implementing these recommendations will not only strengthen participatory video practice but also institutionalise Cinema for Development as a credible paradigm within Nigerian and global development discourse.

References
Anaeto, S. (2008). Localism in communication for development in a globalised world. In E.
Mojaye et al. (Eds.), Globalisation and development communication in Africa (pp.
67–82). Ibadan University Press.
Ayakoroma, B. F. (2018). Approaches to documentary film production (Unpublished lecture notes)—Department of Theatre and Cultural Studies, Nasarawa State University, Keffi.
Bernard,  S.  C.  (2007).  Documentary  storytelling:  Making  stronger  and  more  dramatic nonfiction films—Focal Press.
Boal, A. (1979). Theatre of the Oppressed. Pluto Press.
Bordwell, D., Thompson, K., & Smith, J. (2017). Film art: An introduction (11th ed.). McGraw- Hill Education.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. Intermediate Technology
Publications.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin.
Kumar, R. (2011). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Lunch, N., & Lunch, C. (2006). Insights into participatory video: A handbook for the field.
InsightShare.
Mda, Z. (1993). When people play people: Development communication through theatre.
Witwatersrand University Press.
Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook. World Bank.
Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of communication. World Bank.
Nichols, B. (2017). Introduction to documentary (3rd ed.). Indiana University Press.
Okome, O. (2007). Cinema and social change in Africa. African Studies Review, 50(3), 1–14. Ongkiko, C. M., & Flor, A. G. (2006). Introduction to development communication. University
of the Philippines Open University.
Ongkiko, I. V. C., & Flor, A. G. (2006). Introduction to development communication. UP Open
University.
Osuala, E. C. (1982). Introduction to research methodology. Africana-First Publishers. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Servaes, J. (2008). Communication for development and social change. Sage Publications. Shaw, J. (2012). Participatory video: A practical guide. Routledge.
Shaw, J., & Robertson, C. (1997). Participatory video: A practical approach to using video creatively in group development work. Routledge.
Somma, D., & Bodiang, C. (2004). The cultural approach to HIV and AIDS prevention. Swiss
Centre for International Health.

UNESCO. (2021). The African film industry: Trends, challenges and opportunities for growth.
UNESCO Publishing.
Watson, V. (2009). The planned city sweeps away people with low incomes: Urban planning and
21st-century urbanisation. Progress in Planning, 72(3), 151–193.
White,  S.  A.  (2003).  Participatory  video:  Images  that  transform  and  empower.  Sage
Publications.

TIDS JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT (TJD) Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2026