The paper Using children’s drawing as data in child-centred research used the drawing as data when doing the child-centred research. The research emphasized on the merits of this method and how to analyze the data, and the researcher also used existing literatures to complete the study. The participants of the study were street children with no literacy. They were asked to draw their future careers in the study.
What does the particular visual research method offers and what it doesn't offer?
Firstly, they allow cross-cultural research, since the visual research does not need translation of different languages. Secondly, they are flexible enough to facilitate the broad variation that emerged in the example described. Thirdly, it could combine quantitative and qualitative methods together. Finally, both researchers and practitioners could know more about the participants.
However, visual research could not solve that severe problems of reliability. Taking this drawing research as an example, researchers could not examine whether children draw by their child’s personality or emotional state. In addition, it also needs some additional tools to complete the research such as the interview and questionnaire.
How does this method compare to interviewing both in terms of collection strategies and analysis methods?
The analysis of visual research combine qualitative and quantitative research together to get more accurate results of the research. Interviewing is mostly based on qualitative methods. Since the visual is quite rely on the topic, the comparison of each data could be easier.
As for collection strategies, interviewing is more like collect data person by person, visual research is like collect all the data at the same time. Interviewing actually lets researchers engage into interviewee’s life, and visual research let researchers use the visual item as a tool to find the results they want.
Hi Crystal!
ReplyDeleteSounds like a very interesting method. I can completely see how this method is universal/ cross-cultural because translation between languages is required. I wonder though how subjectivity in interpreting the drawing is managed. I feel like there is possibility that someone may interpret the drawing one way compared to another.
I also appreciate how you brought up the potential need for additional tools. I can see a lot of value in this kind of research evidence, especially when supplemented with interviews or other information. Based on my reading and what your comments are from your reading, I'm thinking getting different perspectives of the same research can really help understand the experience better. The interview can provide the participant's verbal interpretation of the topic and generally feels more formal, while drawing may highlight a more of introspective approach to learning the experience and may allow the participant to be more vulnerable to the experience (as I feel drawing could be a more personal experience).
Thanks!
Naureen