"Child-centred research shows a respect for children and promotes their entitlements to be considered as persons of value and persons with rights" so say the authors. Doing research, bearing the above in mind, focuses on using drawings as data in child-centred psychological research. The use of drawings eliminated the need for children having literacy skills, verbal skill or both. The 151 Street Children of Kolkata (Calcutta) India were the primary sources for the study. Pictures, unlike interviews, would give a truer approach to what the researchers were looking for.
The authors state that there are "two distinct ways of approaching the analysis of children's drawings: one which is broadly projective and another which focuses on content not on interpretation". The authors chose the latter. Both qualitative and quantitative elements can be seen in their work. They used children's career aspirations to see what children wanted to become as adults in one part of the study. Questionnaires had often been used but many skills both in literacy and verbal provided difficulties using this method. An alternative to the shortcomings of that method would be to use drawings. By using the Street Children of Kolkata in providing their views through drawing, the researchers found that drawings "allowed participants to express ideals about personal attributes, broad contributions to society or, indeed, anything else they deem valuable in the sort of person they want to be when they grow up". Children drew 22 different occupations--the most common being teachers (31.8%) and doctors (19.2%).
Drawings as a survey method required little instruction, avoided the necessity of translation and allowed children on limited literary skills to participate. Drawings were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively to provide both descriptive and statistical data. As well, the children enjoyed the experience.
Drawings were also deemed to be suitable for cross-cultural research as well as child-centred research. The authors concluded: "A creative, pragmatic approach like drawing can be used to review old questions and to explore new questions, the only limits being the creativity and the imagination of the researcher".
It seems to be that this type of research does free those being "researched" from having to be articulate or literate. It was a great way to discover what those children revealed through their drawings. However, it doesn't provide the researcher form having the benefit of knowing more about the drawing than what is visible...what the child has omitted from the drawing perhaps.
Possibly the analysis methods of this study might rely on the interpretation of what the researcher may see in the drawing without the benefit of the child's word to describe the drawing (even though content was what mattered). It might be more difficult to categorize drawings than if interviews were available. the analysis might be skewed depending of the researcher's point-of-view, attitude or filters. But I found it a thought-provoking article about how dependent we often for verbal skills in research methods related to children..
Hi Jennette,
ReplyDeleteThis week, our group has readings on visual research approaches. YuXi read about “walking with video” and I read about a researcher using photography. Your reading was similar to mine in that it was child-centered; as you say, the use of drawings, or photographs (and notebooks) in my reading, eliminated the need for children to have literacy skills, verbal skill or both. Instead, the studies used creative expression as a way to gather data; though the children in my reading did support their photographs with explanations in their notebooks, the photos themselves were the “loudest” part of their voice. I agree with you when you mention that this kind of research gives “a truer approach to what the researchers were looking for”; the data is raw, unfiltered, honest, and deeply personal.
I understand that the authors of your piece chose to approach the drawings looking at “content not on interpretation”. But, as you mention, “it doesn't provide the researcher from having the benefit of knowing more about the drawing than what is visible...what the child has omitted from the drawing perhaps” – perhaps a short follow-up interview might have shed more light on the content and enabled the researchers to categorize the drawings more accurately; I wonder if they could identify the profession depicted in each of the drawings. Could they in each case distinguish between a teacher / doctor or identify what kind of teacher or doctor? The kids may well have had a more specific type of career in mind when they drew the pictures but were unable to make this clear. This indeed shows how “dependent we are on verbal skills in research methods related to children”.
The use of drawings, in contrast to questionnaires (and interviewing, perhaps), allowed all of the children to engage with the study, regardless of literacy / verbal skills and also, as you mention, the approach was FUN! Perhaps this is one of the advantages of this type of research; it feels less clinical (more “real”?) for the subjects; it seeks to enable their voice to be heard through a medium which mitigates the challenges associated with a limited ability to express themselves in writing and speech.
Hi Jennette,
ReplyDeleteI also think that the topic of Kerian and your articles are quite similar, and I agree what you said this research method shows respect and consideration to their thoughts, which is an obsolute merit. But I have to say that I was quite surprised that no post-interview was not used to help the interpretation of children's picture which is quite conflict with the purpose of this methodology——understanding children's thoughts from their perspectives, as the researcher had to interpret these pictures from his/her point of view. I was wondering is this methodology always especially effective when used for research about children? When adopted in adult research, does this age specific advantage still exist?
Yuxi
Very interesting discussion!
ReplyDelete