Photovoice for promoting empowerment with migrant and refugee communities: A scoping review

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Sage in Action Research, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503241269750 1 Photovoice for Promoting Empowerment with Migrant and Refugee Communities: A Scoping Review Aloe Cubero* Lucía Mildenberger** Rocío Garrido*** (corresponding author) * Pedagogy Department, Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona, Spain ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6308-3937 **Ministry of Health of Cordoba Province, Cordoba, Argentina ***Psychology Department, University of Seville, Seville, Spain. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2238-0222. Correspondence details: r[email protected] Reference: Cubero, A., Mildenberger, L., & Garrido, R. (2024). Photovoice for promoting empowerment with migrant and refugee communities: A scoping review. Action Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503241269750 2 Photovoice for Promoting Empowerment with Migrant and Refugee Communities: A Scoping Review Policymakers and researchers carry a significant responsibility to foster environments and opportunities that authentically enhance migrants’ sociopolitical involvement in host societies. Incorporating participatory action research methods, such as photovoice, is crucial to amplify migrants’ voices and experiences. This scoping review investigates the implementation of photovoice projects with migrant and refugee populations, as well as their impact on empowerment. Following PRISMA guidelines, 65 articles published from 2000 to 2020 were analysed. The findings indicate that photovoice can serve as a potent tool for fostering intrapersonal, interpersonal and citizenship levels of empowerment. However, key epistemological and methodological considerations must be upheld to promote profound levels of empowerment. Keywords: photovoice; migrants; empowerment; participatory action research (PAR); scoping review Introduction Several social, economic, historical and international factors converge and intertwine to create and complexify migrations today. In 2020, approximately 281 million international migrants existed worldwide, constituting 3.6% of the global population, with the highest reception rates in Europe (86.7M), Asia (85.6M) and North America (58.7M) (IOM, 2022). It is well-known that migrants’ rights are often not recognised or guaranteed⎯especially in the case of racialised and impoverished migrants—and the continuum of violence shapes not just their journey to migrate but also their experiences in the host communities (Buckingham et al., 2021; Solano & Huddleston, 2020). According to Mora and Piper (2021, p. 2), ‘crossing inequalities that affect and finally condition migration not only refer to social categories, but also public policies, international regimes, states and other normative definitions and discourses’. 3 Thus, geopolitical and economic dynamics determine the material conditions of international migration and the vulnerabilities experienced by displaced people. For instance, visa policies characterised by high fees or complex procedures result in migration flows through unsafe routes, causing the death of many individuals (Könönen, 2020). Furthermore, precarious living and working conditions, limited access to health services, exclusion and the denial of citizenship for political participation are just some of the oppressions that migrants face in host societies (Buckingham et al., 2021; Gold & Nawyn, 2019). There is therefore an urgent need to implement human rights–based policies to protect migrant and refugee communities, with international organisations striving to ensure compliance (IOM, 2022; Solano & Huddleston, 2020) and practices to address diversity effectively (Garrido et al., 2019). To achieve this, promoting partnerships involving all stakeholders is also imperative, with a particular emphasis on migrant participation (European Commission, 2020). In addition, right-wing populism and hate speech within the institutional landscape have been growing globally (Hogan & Haltinner, 2015), situating the ‘immigrant’ as the ‘threatening other’ (Ekman, 2019) to the economy and national traditions, but also as a source of insecurity and crime (Liang, 2008). These narratives are amplified and spread through mass and social media, generating a climate of symbolic and cultural violence towards migrant and refugee communities (Ekman, 2019). Hence, alternative discourses on migration that acknowledge its benefits for host societies and recognise the diversity of migrant populations in their own words are needed (Mamary, 2023). Despite oppression’s negative impact on migrants’ wellbeing, it can be transformed and contested through the generation of resistance and empowerment processes (Buckingham et al., 2021; Moane, 2003; Prilleltensky, 2008). In the words of 4 Maton (2008, p. 5), empowerment is a ‘group, participatory and developmental process through which oppressed individuals and groups gain greater control over their lives and environment, acquire valuable resources and basic rights, achieve important life goals, and reduce marginalisation’. Although participation is crucial for the empowerment of migrants, it can be a privilege for some due to living conditions, status and lack of time, among other factors (Martinez-Damia et al., 2021). Therefore, community researchers and practitioners should promote participatory methodologies that aim to (a) engage communities in meaningful ways that respect their voice and agency, (b) facilitate processes and resources to advocate for social change and (c) co-create knowledge based on trust between partnerships (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2022). Participatory Action Research (PAR) can be a powerful strategy to this end. Specifically, photovoice as a PAR method has been widely used to promote empowerment processes with migrants and refugees (Chapman et al., 2013; Lögdberg et al., 2020). Nevertheless, empowerment largely depends on the methodological considerations taken into account within the research process. PAR methodologies should be implemented under a critical lens in order to help to achieve social change and flee from the extractivist logics of knowledge production that have been so present in the history of social sciences (Deliovsky, 2017; Mohanty, 1988). Thus, this article examines the use of photovoice studies with migrant and refugee populations from 2000 to 2020, focusing on methodological aspects related to empowerment. We introduce photovoice as a PAR method and its potential contribution to migrant and refugee empowerment. Following we explain in detail our scoping review procedure and present our results. Then, we discuss the importance of preserving the methodological understanding of photovoice as an inherently collective process and 5 the urgent need to advocate for feminist and post/de/anticolonial epistemicmethodological frameworks so that photovoice does not lose its emancipatory goals. Framing Photovoice as a Participatory Action Research (PAR) Method PAR methodologies aim to construct action-oriented knowledge collectively to bring about social change (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2021). In this sense, this framework cannot be understood as timeless, but instead located in a particular sociohistorical context with complex power relations, addressing the multiple layers of oppressive systems and unveiling hierarchies within research in order to find pathways towards truly emancipatory PAR processes (Lenette, 2022). In this vein, photovoice has been identified as an emancipatory and empowering PAR method (Budig et al., 2018; Hergenrather et al., 2009; Liebenberg, 2018). Developed by Caroline Wang & Mary Ann Burris (1994, 1997), it proposes that participants take photographs and build narratives to ‘record and reflect their strengths and concerns … promoting critical dialogue and knowledge about important issues … and reaching policymakers’ (Wang & Burris, 1997, p. 370). Photovoice is rooted in three theoretical foundations: first, in critical pedagogy (Freire, 1973), which seeks emancipation through critical consciousness and action-oriented dialogue; second, in feminist theory and methodology, which seeks to democratise science and combat power inequalities (Frisby et al., 2009); and, lastly, in documentary photography and visual techniques (Collier & Collier, 1986), by which people document their own realities, as an epistemic shift from gathering to producing knowledge. Photovoice is a flexible method that usually includes three phases (i.e., individual, group, social), connected with its main goals: (a) critical thinking, (b) sharing of experiences and development of resources, and (c) sociopolitical incidence (Cubero & Garrido, 2023). First, participants are invited to reflect individually about a 6 topic to develop their photonarrative, which promotes critical thinking about their lives and communities. Second, a group discussion is facilitated based on the photonarratives, where people share their views and identify commonalities, resources and action needed to make changes. Finally, photovoice results are typically shared with the community and policymakers so that these realities can be visualised and change can be generated (e.g., through photo exhibitions or ad campaigns). Photovoice was initially oriented toward emancipation, but critical approaches to PAR have further broadened the way in which it is developed. Photovoice has been identified as a feminist and de/anticolonial method (Cornell et al., 2019; Fricas, 2022; Lykes & Scheib, 2017; Reid & Frisby, 2008). Despite nuanced differences, these approaches underscore the need for researchers to self-reflect continually during photovoice implementation, considering intersections of identities with co-researchers and addressing power dynamics related to gender, class, and race (Cubero & Garrido, 2023). This appears crucial when co-researching with migrant and refugee communities for ‘centring concerns and world views of non-Western individuals, and respectfully knowing and understanding theory and research from previously Other(ed) perspectives’ (Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021, pp. 1–2). Migrant and Refugee Empowerment Through Photovoice Photovoice has been extensively applied with migrants and refugees, mostly in needs assessments and explorations of their experiences in host societies (Lögdberg et al., 2020; Rhodes et al., 2015). Through its visual language, migrants and refugees are able to narrate their own experiences with all their nuances (Lenette & Boddy, 2013), expressing ‘deeper and hidden emotions, stories, or ideas about complex issues beyond language and cultural barriers’ (Marzana et al., 2023, p. 113). The first-person approach in photography and narration allows for the re-signification of experiences, fostering 7 critical consciousness regarding communities and power dynamics (Wang & Burris, 1997). Furthermore, photovoice allows us to understand how migrants and refugees make meaning of their realities – frequently invisible or stereotyped – while positioning themselves against systems of oppression (Lykes & Scheib, 2017). Photovoice has also been a space for migrants to build support networks and develop skills related to communication, decision-making, advocacy and action-taking (Cubero & Garrido, 2023; Kwok & Ku, 2008). This capacity is engaged in the social phase of photovoice, when these networks are broadened through the building of partnerships and solidarity to promote change in host communities (Wang & Burris, 1997). The photonarratives are already an example of counterspeech to the normalisation of anti-migrant discourses (Mamary, 2023). Moreover, this advocacy orientation allows participants to engage in dialogue with other stakeholders and policymakers (Liebenberg, 2018; Wang & Burris, 1994). Achieving these levels of participation correlates positively with migrant empowerment (Chapman et al., 2013; Cubero & Garrido, 2023; Guariso et al., 2016). Of the various approaches to addressing empowerment (see Christens, 2024), this study follows the proposal of García-Ramírez et al. (2011), which explains migrant empowerment through three interrelated ecological levels that could be linked to the PAR action stages (Fals Borda, 1987), as well as the three photovoice phases explained above (Figure 1): intrapersonal, interpersonal and citizenship. According to GarcíaRamirez and colleagues (2011), ‘this complex process involves the dialogical and dual reconstruction of selfhood and settings: at the citizenship level, from exclusion to belonging; at the interpersonal level, from isolation to participation; and at the intrapersonal level, from hopelessness to psychological wellbeing’ (p. 89). 8 Nevertheless, the method’s impact on empowerment depends on the epistemological framework, methodological design, resources and community partnerships to facilitate meaningful participant engagement and create social change (Evans & Rosemberg, 2016; Liebenberg, 2018). Photovoice projects have become widespread in various fields, but they often deviate from their original goal of actively contributing to social justice (Call-Cummings et al., 2018). Without denying its usefulness also at these levels (e.g. contributing to individual growth or community reflections), this can distance the method from its theoretical and practical underpinnings, and thus, prevent it from promoting empowerment processes (Evans & Rosemberg, 2016). This scoping review arises precisely from the need to analyse and systematise how photovoice is conducted, identifying the elements that influence whether or not migrant and refugee empowerment is fostered. This research gap arises from scientific literature, as well as from our own challenges as white women researchers–from Europe and Latin America–using photovoice with migrant and refugee communities. Consequently, first, we contextualised the photovoice studies, exploring when, where, by whom, for what purposes and within which epistemological frameworks they were conducted. Secondly, we addressed the methodological design¸ in terms of participants and community networks. Thirdly, we analysed the process’s duration, data 15 The studies develop some strategies to the diversity of participants. For example, Stevens (2010) reflects on the difficulties deriving from the diverse backgrounds and traumatic life stories of Cambodian participants: ‘history under the Khmer Rouge made them sceptical of participating in the photographic method of the evaluation, which might allow their locations to be easily identified’ (p. 279). Therefore, the methodological design must consider the intersectionality of participants and overcome barriers to participation (e.g. legal status, language and cultural barriers, lack of time), perhaps by hiring cultural mediators, and facilitating transport of participants. As noted above, building community networks is key when implementing photovoice with migrant and refugee populations. In this regard, 86% mentioned some type of partnership, such as community-based organisations (37%), educational settings (12%), health and reception services for migrants and refugees (11%) and faith-based organisations (3%). The involvement and role of these entities/institutions vary greatly, from assisting in recruiting participants (Haque & Rosas, 2010; Sin et al., 2010) to providing a space for group sessions (Turk et al., 2015). However, in other projects, community partnerships are essential for developing an in-depth advocacy strategy: As a result of the partnership, the women presented their gallery and concerns at local conferences, academic settings, community forums, and the Mexican Consulate’s office in El Paso … providing an opportunity for study participants to present their ‘Call to Action’ and encourage key health officials to make a public commitment to address IPV and sexual and reproductive health (Moya et al., 2014, p. 10). Procedure In terms of number of group sessions, 31% of the studies held 1–2 meetings, 9% held 3–4 meetings, 22% held 5–6 meetings and 14% held 7–8 meetings. The remaining studies (22%) do not provide information or did not conduct group sessions. Regarding data analysis, 92% apply qualitative content analysis to produce themes, categories 16 and/or codes. Only one relies mainly on quantitative analysis (Quach et al., 2015), while another (Haque & Rosas, 2010) applies a different methodology from the rest (nonmetric multidimensional scaling, MDS). Three papers do not mention any method of analysis. Despite the importance of photographs in this method, 72% of the papers do not mention having analysed the images, while 23% of them acknowledge the photographs as part of the data set or previously analysed with participants. Visual analysis is named in 5% of the papers, as in Rogers et al., (2018), who apply thematic analysis and code the images into categories, or Logan & Murdie (2014), who ‘analysed [196 photographs] using content analysis and summarised by theme’ (p. 103). Others, such as Chapman et al. (2013) and Fozdar and Hartley (2014), apply semiotic visual analysis. Specifically, the latter pair undertake ‘a semiotic analysis of the representation of the home space … to explore the ways in which identity, emotion and social connections were signified’ (p. 8). It is therefore clear that photographs are often used to stimulate participants’ debates or reflections, rather than being analysed as data in depth. Wang & Burris (1997) highlight participatory analysis as a fundamental element in photovoice, to ‘enable us to hear and understand how people make meaning themselves or construct what matters to them’ (p. 382). They propose a three-stage process in which participants collectively (1) select the photographs that best reflect community needs and thoughts, (2) contextualise or build different meanings and (3) codify or identify topics, themes and theories. In our review, 12 of 65 studies carry out a participatory analysis, though only Moya et al. (2014) and De Castro et al. (2014) follow the three-stage process proposed by Wang & Burris (1997). Others, such as Rosado et al. (2020) and Lögdberg et al. (2020), do not provide for participant collaboration in the last phase (coding), but they do in the other phases. Similarly, in 17 Rhodes et al. (2009), although supplementary meetings are dedicated to ‘revising, further developing, approving and interpreting these themes’ (p. 22), the codes derived from participants are initially defined by the researchers. One example of this limitation being overcome is in Gómez & Castañeda’s (2018) research, where ‘participants identified their main health concerns and strengths by using affinity diagrams, an inductive method for groups to visualise and organise their ideas and thoughts … their shared and collective concerns led to draft solutions and policy recommendations’ (p. 500–501). Finally, as photovoice is oriented towards social change, it is important to emphasise that community and advocacy actions were conducted in 57% of the papers. The most commonly implemented strategies are community forums, photographic exhibitions, participation in scientific events and preparation of recommendation documents. Additionally, dissemination efforts include articles in the non-academic press, journalistic notes, radio interviews and videos. Empowerment Empowerment results were analysed with consideration of the impact of photovoice at three levels: (1) intrapersonal, (2) interpersonal and (3) citizenship. Below are the results according to level, along with examples of the analysed articles as good practices (Figure 5). 18 First, indicators of intrapersonal empowerment are found in 85% of the studies. Participants became aware that their problems had a collective dimension: ‘one participant stated that she felt “relieved” … knowing she was not alone and among others that shared her experience as a DACAmented individual’ (Gómez & Castañeda, 2019, p. 6). The process also generated self-confidence in participants: ‘the process of participating in design workshops helped them to develop their self-esteem and a strong sense of confidence and competence’ (Kwok & Ku, 2008, p. 279). Consequently, the participants gained confidence in themselves as valid interlocutors: ‘I am an expert of my own life. You [practitioners and researchers] may know a bit, but I can tell you what is going on with me better than you may think’ (Rhodes et al., 2009, p. 30). Furthermore, the participants evaluated limitations and potentialities of their own community, developing self-criticism and change intentions. Moreover, they connected the impact of policies on their everyday lives and how change can be brought about through collective action: ‘We need community awareness and action to address homelessness … governments should ensure federal, state and local funds to support positive efforts to end homelessness’ (Moya et al., 2017, p. 5). In this vein, Kwok and Ku (2008) mention that ‘through photovoice, the women began to concern themselves 19 with issues affecting their livelihood, to understand the problems of Hong Kong’s housing policy, and to become aware of their rights as citizens’ (p. 279). Second, the interpersonal level of empowerment was identified in 71% of the cases, through the construction of support networks, as well as negotiation and communication skills and teamwork. For instance, Kwok and Ku (2008) note that ‘this project helped to establish relationships among these newly arrived women, strengthening their social cohesion … they circulated resources and information, and mutually supported each other in everyday life [and] began to form an informal support network’ (p. 279). Finding support networks and meeting spaces reinforced cultural identities and practices, while promoting participation in host societies (Garrido & Cubero, 2019). Furthermore, on the subject of skills acquired during the process, Rhodes et al. (2015) state that participants ‘developed skills in leadership; public speaking, partnerships development; harnessing relationships with media; negotiation and group decision-making; and community engagement, organisation and mobilisation’ (p. 93). For the third, citizenship level, we created two sublevels: (1) a community sublevel with short-term effects and (2) a sociopolitical sublevel with medium/longterm effects. In 54% of the studies, an impact on the community is observed. Sensitisation and dissemination activities in community forums or presentations to decision-makers are the most common actions (in 28% of the studies), which have a positive impact on communities’ visibility (Chapman et al., 2013). Other community actions promoted (in 26% of the studies) focus on attaining resources or services, problem-solving or advocating for community rights. For example, Schwartz et al. (2007) developed multimedia resources on family planning for community dissemination and organised a cultural training day for health agents. In addition, 20 Murray et al. (2015) express that participants ‘[made] a list of local physical activity [and developed] videos featuring cultural dances and exercises from various East African communities’ (p. 7). Actions regarding the sociopolitical sublevel are found in 25% of the papers. In Fleming et al. (2017), a group was formed and carried out several interventions beyond the photovoice process, such as recreational spaces for young people, an environmental defence committee and substance abuse prevention campaigns. Similarly, in Moya et al. (2014), participants became health promoters, observing the need ‘to train service providers and other public health authorities to better understand the prevalence of IPV among women’ (p. 890) and demanding greater cultural competence in health plans. By way of conclusion, Moya et al. (2013) state that photovoice ‘empower[s] women to talk, inform, support and manage their own necessities with policy-makers’ (p. 5). Finally, it should be noted that 97% of the studies that reach the citizenship level of empowerment also promote individual awareness-raising (intrapersonal empowerment), strengthening of networks and development of capacity to action (interpersonal empowerment). Furthermore, most of them establish community networks (except two studies) and implement four or more group meetings (except three studies). Additionally, community actions are carried out in 8 of the 12 studies that apply participatory analysis. Discussion This paper examines literature on the use of photovoice with migrants and refugees published between 2000 and 2020. It contextualises, describes and analyses the impact of photovoice on migrant empowerment. Our results highlight the flexibility of this method for developing PAR with diverse populations and yield some interesting results regarding theoretical and practical implications. 21 Key Elements for Promoting Migrant and Refugee Empowerment Through Photovoice Our results indicate that photovoice is a flexible technique (especially in terms of topics and participants), but certain requirements must be met when the aim is to promote empowerment. The first is to include the three phases of photovoice, assigning special importance to group discussions, which facilitate participant bonding and collective analysis of community concerns (Wang & Burris, 1997). We therefore assert that photovoice is inherently a collective process, emphasising that individual interviews alone lack the conditions necessary to foster empowerment. The second requirement is the development of community partnerships, which are found in 86% of the studies in a variety of forms (e.g., NGOs, community-based organisations, educational settings, faith-based organisations and governmental institutions). To this end, Wang and Burris (1997) and Liebenberg (2018) emphasise the importance of establishing local partnerships in the implementation of photovoice at various levels to achieve long-term impacts and truly empowering processes. These studies seem to work along these lines, but just a few develop an in-depth advocacy strategy through community partnerships (e.g., Moya et al, 2014). Future photovoice research should consider strategically mapping and actively cultivating strong and enduring relationships with grassroots community organisations to establish the necessary foundations for empowerment. Third, active participation must be promoted at all stages of research (e.g., participatory analysis, advocacy actions, etc.). This seems to be connected to citizenship empowerment (Evans-Agnew & Rosemberg, 2016; Hannes & Parylo, 2014). However, only 12 of 65 studies explicitly state that they carried out a participatory analysis of the photonarratives and 25% promote sociopolitical actions with medium/long-term effects. 22 According to Johnston (2016), ‘despite the central focus on social action and policy change, there is a vagueness in addressing how to enact social action plans’ (p. 5). These results are in line with other studies which highlight the difficulties of accessing policy-making spaces and the need to pay attention to long-term evaluations to verify whether changes have been achieved at policy level (Catalani & Minkler, 2010; Hergenrather, et al., 2009). A Call for Post/De/Anticolonial Feminist Frameworks In a context marked by oppression and violence against migrant and refugee communities, science has a duty to contribute to the protection of human rights and promote social justice (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2011). PAR methods, such as photovoice, can effectively promote empowerment of oppressed communities (Cubero & Garrido, 2023; Reid & Frisby, 2017). Nonetheless, these methods alone will not lead to empowerment (Catalani & Minkler, 2010; Hergenrather et al., 2009) and our findings suggest that specific contextual, epistemological and methodological considerations must be carefully made. Photovoice has been defined as a feminist and/or de/anticolonial practice (Cornell et al., 2019; Fricas, 2022) that questions the patriarchal and positivist Western gaze that prevails in science. In light of this, our review highlights the significant representation of women researchers in photovoice projects (72%), prompting questions about the nature, methods and purposes of contemporary women’s research. Nevertheless, it would be essentialist to state that the simple fact that women do science already means that they conduct feminist research. Hence, future research should delve deeper into whether photovoice is genuinely a FPAR (Reid & Frisby, 2008). In addition, our data raises concerns about the decolonial basis of the analysed studies. Most of them were produced in countries of the Global North (e.g. the USA, 23 Canada, Australia). While acknowledging the particularities of each territory, it is noteworthy that 40% of the studies conducted in countries of the Global South involve US universities. These results indicate the need to continue to problematise science as a field of power (Haraway, 1988) that establishes hierarchies between centres and peripheries, both territorially and epistemically (Medina, 2013). The availability of funds, the rules imposed by high-impact journals and the undervaluation of specific scientific productions generated by the coloniality of knowledge (Quijano, 1992) may be factors influencing these results. Moreover, only 3 out of 65 studies include critical post/de/anticolonial or feminist approaches in their frameworks. This statement is alarming when it comes to PAR with migrant or refugee communities in host societies, where power relations privilege researchers and may impact knowledge production (Cornell et al., 2019; Cubero & Garrido, 2023; Deliovsky, 2017). With this in mind, researchers must recognise these power imbalances, being careful not to force participants’ involvement or overexpose them (Evans-Agnew & Rosemberg, 2016). If this happens, photovoice may be more damaging than beneficial (Hannes & Parylo, 2014). Additionally, we call upon authors to critically revise their sexist, racist and colonial bias, which could be manifested in language. For example, it is common to read that photovoice ‘empower[s] the marginalised by giving them a voice’ (Logan & Murdie, 2014, p. 102), as if these communities do not already have one, contrary to PAR assumptions and empowering methodologies. Evidently, the examination of researchers’ positions and reflexivity is an important aspect to be discussed at length in PAR (Reid & Frisby, 2017). The research carried out by Oliveira (2016), Higginbottom et al. (2011) and Merino et al. (2019) constitutes noteworthy efforts to address the intricacies of power dynamics, 24 intersectionality and decolonisation within participatory research. In accordance with Fricas (2022) and her proposal of anticolonial photovoice, we consider that ‘breaking down power dynamics is an ongoing struggle’ which has to be carefully accompanied by a ‘constant vigilance to ethical, methodological, and representational issues’ (p. 4). Current migrations are embedded in complex sociohistorical colonial relations that should be unveiled in photovoice research to build it as a space where we collectively create conditions for empowerment, agency and resistance (Howarth et al., 2014). We recommend that researchers reflect on and share these challenges, with humility and constant dialogue with participant co-researchers throughout the process. Limitations and Future Research There are some limitations that should be considered when examining the findings from this study. We encountered difficulties in analysing certain studies due to unclear descriptions. Therefore, we highlight the need for improved clarity in future research, particularly in photovoice design and analysis. Our Appendix may serve as a systematic model for future papers. Furthermore, our analysis of migrant empowerment is based on a model that interprets it in terms of "level" but not "quality". Future research could use alternative models to complement our results and achieve a more substantive understanding of empowerment. Also, our analysis of the country and gender of researchers is descriptive, and the findings require further examination. We have classified researchers as male or female based on their names, which oversimplifies gender. Additionally, examining the global North–South divide requires a more nuanced approach due to the intricate layers and disparities within the same geographical area, particularly those near borders. 31 Oliveira, E. (2016). Empowering, invasive or a little bit of both? A reflection on the use of visual and narrative methods in research with migrant sex workers in South Africa, Visual Studies, 31(3), 260–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2016.1210992 Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann T. C., Mulrow C. D., et al. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160 Prilleltensky, I. (2008). The role of power in wellness, oppression, and liberation: The promise of psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(2), 116–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20225 Quijano, A. (2007). Coloniality and modernity/rationality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 168–178. Reid, C., & Frisby, W. (2008). Continuing the journey: Articulating dimensions of feminist participatory action research (FPAR). In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds), Sage handbook of action research (pp. 93–105). Sage. Rhodes, S. D., Alonzo, J., Mann, L., Simán, F. M., Garcia, M., Abraham, C., & Sun, C. J. (2015). Using photovoice, Latina transgender women identify priorities in a new immigrant-destination state. International Journal of Transgenderism, 16(2), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2015.1075928 Solano, G., & Huddleston, T. (2020). Migrant integration policy index 2020. CIDOB and MPG. Thambinathan, V., & Kinsella, E. A. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies in qualitative research: creating spaces for transformative praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211014766 Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Balcazar, F., Miranda, D. E., Velazquez, T., Arcidiacono, C., & García-Ramirez, M. (2022). Promoting justice through community-based research: International case studies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 69(3-4), 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12584 Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1994). Empowerment through photo novella: Portraits of participation. Health Education Quarterly, 21(2), 171–186. 32 Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400309 Wang, C. (1999). Photovoice: A participatory action research strategy applied to women’s health. Journal of Women’s Health, 8(2), 185–192. Declaration of interest statement No conflict of interest exists and we confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors. Funding details This paper has been possible thanks to the funding of the Secretaria d’Universitats i Recerca del Departament d’Empresa i Coneixement de la Generalitat de Catalunya, the European Union (UE) and the European Social Fund (ESF) (RTI2018-093627-B-I0), through the Grants for the recruitment of new pre-doctoral research staff of the first author of this paper.