I have chosen to explore this case study since it draws attention to, amongst other matters, the
complexities surrounding the accompaniment (or otherwise) of a verbal
discussion or a written record to visual methods (VMs).
This case study
“reflects on the use of visual methods in a study that sought to explore the
experiences of street working children in Peru (Bromley and Mackie, 2009)”. The
author Mackie reflects on two VM tasks: mapping and a card selection game. In
the card section game, there was no reliance on the children’s literacy or
verbal skills, meaning that all children who participated were “equally able to
express themselves”. Likewise, in the first section of the mapping game there
was no requirement for these skills; although for the second section, some oral
skills were required to give explain their respective mapping selections.
The strengths of using
VM in conducting research with children and young people include: that they are
perceived as being fun and enjoyable by children (Hill, 2006: 80, Punch, 2002: 331) and that they
are familiar to children in other contexts (for example, in school and in their
homes lives) (Mitchell, 2008: 61, Hill, 2006: 79).
Mackie stresses that another
much-cited strength of this approach: it does not depend on, at first glance,
the literacy or verbal skills of the participant(s). In this way, those may
have otherwise been excluded, are included, allowing their voice to be heard.
He is not alone in holding this view, for example (Mitchell, 2008: 62). But are their
voices being properly heard?
Not necessarily. Inexorably,
adults see children’s drawings through adults’ eyes (Coates and Coates, 2006; Punch, 2002). Therefore,
literature has also highlighted the importance of this additional communication
in ensuring that the product, say a drawing, as is accurately interpreted by
the adult researcher. White et al refer to the ‘draw and talk’ approach (White et al., 2010). This approach
is based on the premise that the richness of the data, and the full meaning of
the product, flows from not merely the ‘product’, the drawing, but also the process in which the product is
generated, and the talk which takes place during this process.
Whilst I am not saying
that Mackie and other scholars are necessarily not giving full appreciation to
this, it is something to bear in mind. Indeed, many researchers employing VMs
are already doing this. However, if this option to ‘double check’ that a
researcher has properly interpreted a drawing by supplementing this with a
verbal or written interaction, is not available, we should look hard to
consider how VMs can be used to ensure views are being accurately heard and
represented. Clearly, we do not want to pay mere lip service to the expression
of unheard views, or worse, misrepresent them.
No comments:
Post a Comment