Making Connections: Theory and Practice of Using Visual Methods to Aid Children’s Participation in Educational Research BERA 2014 presentation, Karen Laing, Newcastle University

1. Making Connections: Theory
and Practice of Using Visual
Methods to Aid Children’s
Participation in Educational
Research

2. Central questions for researchers using
visual methods with children and young people
• What methods are available?
• How do they differ from traditional (verbal)
methods?
• What do they add?

3. Where do visual research methods fit…?
Within the ‘two paradigm’ view of research, visual methods are usually
located in constructivist/interpretivist paradigm (for good discussion
see Spencer, 2011: 36-58)
BUT
• Do visual methods entail subjective research?
• Does this mean the data has to be qualitative (not quantitative)…?
Constructivism
Interpretivism
Qualitative
methodology
Realism
Quantitative
methodology
Positivism

4. Using visual research methods
• Choosing a suitable method (for your research question;
for your participants)
• Why use visual methods (rather than ‘traditional’
interviews or questionnaires)?
• What sort of data is produced?
• Qualitative or quantitative?
• How should it be analysed?
visual methods can become
“an end in themselves” (Banks 2001; Harper 2002)
producing observations
“that beg for greater theoretical and substantive
significance” (Harper 2002)

5. Relyingless on verbalskills…encouraging
participation…empoweringparticipants
• Traditional interviewing leads to “overt privileging” of verbal
interaction (Prosser, 2007: 15)
• “visual methods offered a means of encouraging such students
to participate without having to rely on written or spoken
words” (Allen, 2009: 551).
• “There is a need...of bridging the gap between the worlds of
the researcher and the researched. Photo elicitation may
overcome the difficulties posed by in-depth interview because
it is anchored in an image that is understood, at least in part,
by both parties” (Harper, 2002: 20)

6. Types of visual data
• Representational practices
• Researcher found
• Researcher generated
• Participant generated
(Prosser, 1998)
Research
found
Research
generated

7. Research generated images: validity
How to consider the context...?
(Woolner et al, 2012 a&b)

8. Validity: considering the context of drawings
‘Being thrown down the
banking’
Sewell (2011: 183)
How the carpet space is used -
Reception child
McCarter & Woolner (2011)
‘Given the history of critique within the western tradition
of…art history, visual studies and philosophy, some problems
in the interpretation of visual material by young people could
have been anticipated’ (Piper & Frankham, 2007: 375)

9. Validity: considering the context of
photography
• Taken by researcher or participant..?
• ‘The images produced needed to be
understood not simply as authentic
representations of self but as a product of
the task that was set and how this was
framed’ (Croghan et al., 2008: 348)
‘the debates among theoreticians of photography find echoes
(though often rather faint and unclear) in the social science
literature discussing photography as a research tool’
(Rose, 2012: 299)

10. Considering context…developing
shared understandings
Examples:
Photo of (empty) field where child
‘liked to stop and talk to the horses’
(Barker & Smith, 2012:97)
‘Creative image-based work’ as
means for students to be ‘genuine
participants’
(Leitch & Mitchell, 2007: 57)
‘backyard trampolines were often
featured in children’s photographs
but never in mapping or interviews’
(Darbyshire et al., 2005: 424)
Ways forward:
‘researcher-led content
analysis…may well be highly
misleading’
‘individual follow-up research
conversations focusing on their
drawn images’
‘multiple methods’…to increase
‘opportunity to choose’ and provide
‘different yet complementary
information’

11. Developing shared understandings:
Visually mediated encounters
• Using visual and spatial
activities allows participants
to ‘set the agenda, to decide
what is important, and to
work at their pace’ (Prosser,
2007:24).
• Can include the verbalised views
of the participant as well as their
visualised ideas (for arguments
about why this is more valid, see
Leitch & Mitchell,2007; Lodge,
2007; Bagnoli, 2009 and, in
particular: Croghan et al., 2008)

12. What is different about visually
mediated encounters?
• “photographs can jolt subjects into a new awareness of
their social existence” (Harper, 2002: 21).
• “the method gave us access to a wider range of voices
than might have been obtained through interview alone
[…..] in some cases the voices that emerged through the
scrapbooks were very different to those in interview”
(Bragg and Buckingham, 2008: 121 - comments on teenagers
creating scrapbooks)

13. Benefits we have noticed in practice
• Immediacy
• Inclusivity
• Empowering participants
• ‘Something to look at’
• Iterative aspects of research
• Spatial aspect to clarifying ideas

14. Your turn!
Try out:
• Diamond ranking
• Photo-elicitation and beyond
• Participatory Toolbox

15. Analysing the data from visually
mediated encounters with
children and young people

16. The ‘two paradigm’ view of research
Where do visual methods fit…?
• Do visual methods entail subjective research?
• Does this mean the data has to be qualitative (not quantitative)…?
Constructivism
Interpretivism
Qualitative
methodology
Realism
Quantitative
methodology
Positivism

17. Do visual methods entail subjective
research?
Visual methods can help fulfil a range of aims and purposes.
Here is a proposed typology for research using video:
Hadfield, M. and Haw, K. (2012) Video: Modalities and Methodologies International
Journal of Research & Method in Education 35(3): 311-324
extraction Support
reflection
Projection
&
provocation
participation ‘voice’
objective
subjective

18. Do visual methods entail
qualitative data and analysis…?
• In practice, a visually mediated encounter may produce both
verbal and visual data to be analysed quantitatively and
qualitatively. Does this suggest the limitations of the ‘two
paradigm’ model of research?
verbal data
qualitative analysis
quantitative analysis
visual data
numerical data

19. Diamond ranking: looking at
comments
• Annotations can range from
very specific (“no locks on
toilet doors”) to more
general (see below)

20. Diamond ranking: reporting
ranks
Can show overall preferences or
compare responses across groups of
participants
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
School W students Nov 2008
top
high
middle
low
bottom
Photograph
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
picture
2picture
6picture
7picture
9
picture
10
picture11
picture12
picture13
picture14
frequency
top
top two
bottom two
bottom
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
School W Staff Nov 2008
top
high
middle
low
bottom
Photograph

21. Photo choices
‘she showed us how to
cooperate with each
other - we all joined in
together’
‘students are engaged, even in the
background’
‘people working together.. but a look of
enlightenment from one pupil as if
they’ve had a Eureka moment’
‘they’re organising where they
have to go’

22. Photo choices: reporting
preferences
Can show preferences for images from different days or images chosen by
groups and individuals
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 48 49 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 50 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
frequency
photo number
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 48 49 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 50 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
frequency
photo number
group choices individual choices

23. Mapping a day: considering
individual responses
• Student
• Administration staff
• Teacher

24. Mapping a day : comparing
staff and student responses
• student • staff

25. Mapping a day: comparing staff
and student responses
Students Staff
like don’t like like don’t like
Classrooms 45 24 15 22
Library 6 0 3 0
Food (cookery) room 8 0 3 0
Corridors, staircases 2 33 5 22
Outdoors 12 20 0 10
Dining room 4 7 2 1
Hall 3 5 3 1
Sports hall, gym,
pool
28 9 3 1
Staffroom 0 0 2 2
Student reception,
foyer
3 2 4 7
Garden 2 15 4 2
Student toilets 0 18 0 6

26. A return to the epistemological
issues…
• Does seeing the ‘two paradigms’ of research as a continuum
help?
• Subjective----Objective or Qualitative----Quantitative?
• Are these continua one and the same…?
• Some research still doesn’t fit as it doesn’t sit on one position:
• ‘multi-modal’ video research
• E.g.s of ‘subjective quantitative’ research and objective
‘qualitative research’

27. Is there a different way to conceptualise
educational research?
• Pragmatism is suggested as alternative research paradigm
• Many mixed methods researchers consider that they work within the
pragmatic paradigm – may we join them?
• Paradigms are about practices not just philosophical positions: ‘Kuhn actually
expressed a preference for a version of research paradigms much more clearly
rooted in research practice and research communities’ (Denscombe, 2008: 7)
Pragmatism
Mixed
methods
Communities of
Practice
Visual
methods

28. Allen, L. (2009) ’Snapped’: researching the sexual cultures of schools using visual methods International Journal Of Qualitative Methods in
Education 22(5): 549-561
Barker, J. & Smith, F. (2012) What’s in focus? A critical discussion of photography, children and young people International Journal of
Social Research Methodology 15(2):91-103
Cremin, H., Mason, C. & Busher, H. (2011) Problematising pupil voice using visual methods: findings from a study of engaged and
disaffected pupils in an urban secondary school British Educational Research Journal 37(4): 585-603
Croghan, R., Griffin, C., Hunter, J. & Phoenix, A. (2008) Young People’s Constructions of Self: Notes on the Use and Analysis of the Photo-
Elicitation Methods. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11(4): 345-356
Darbyshire, P., Macdougall, C. and Schiller, W. (2005) Multiple methods in qualitative research with children: more insight or just more?
Qualitative Research 5(4):417-436
Denscombe, M. (2008) Communities of Practice: a research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research 2(3)270-283
Leitch, R. and Mitchell, S. (2007) Caged birds and cloning machines: how student imagery ‘speaks’ to us about cultures of schooling and
student participation. Improving Schools 10(1): 53
McCarter, S. and Woolner, P. (2011) How listening to student voice can enable teachers to reflect on and adjust their use of physical
space. Educational and Child Psychology, 28(1) 20-32
Piper, H. & Frankham, J. (2007) Seeing Voices and Hearing Pictures: Image as discourse and the framing of image-based research.
Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education 28(3): 373-387
Prosser, J., Ed. (1998). Image-based Research. London, RoutledgeFalmer. .
Rose, G (2012) Visual Methodologies. London: Sage
Sewell, K. (2011) Research sensitive issues: a critical appraisal of ‘draw-and-write’ as a data collection technique in eliciting children’s
perceptions International Journal of Research and Methods in Education 34(2): 175-191
Spencer, S. (2011) Visual Methods in the Social Sciences: Awakening Visions. London: Routledge
Wall, K. and S. Higgins (2006). Facilitating Metacognitive talk: a research and learning tool. International Journal of Research and Methods
in Education 29(1): 39-53.
Wall, K., Higgins, S. and Packard, E. (2007) Talking about Learning: using templates to find out pupils views, Plymouth: Southgate
Publishers
Woolner, P., Hall, E., Wall, K. and Dennison, D. (2007) Getting together to improve the school environment: user consultation,
participatory design and student voice. Improving Schools 10(3): 233-248.
Woolner, P., Hall, E., Clark, J., Tiplady, L., Thomas, U. and Wall, K. (2010). Pictures are necessary but not sufficient: using a range of visual
methods to engage users about school design. Learning Environments Research 13(1): 1-22
Woolner, P., Clark, J., Laing, K., Thomas, U. & Tiplady, L. (2012a). Changing Spaces: Preparing Students and Teachers for a New Learning
Environment. Children, Youth and Environments 22(1): 52-74.
Woolner, P., McCarter, S., Wall, K. & Higgins, S. (2012b) Changed learning through changed space: When can a participatory approach to
the learning environment challenge preconceptions and alter practice? Improving Schools 15(1): 45-59
REFERENCES

29. Discussion
Theory and practice of using visual methods to aid
children’s participation in educational research

30. Making connections…..?
• Do visual methods enable research with children
to be more participatory?
• If they do, why is this…
• Immediacy
• Inclusivity
• Empowering participants
• ‘Something to look at’
• Iterative aspects of research
• Spatial aspect to clarifying ideas