IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v21y2016i1p1-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Children's Engagements with Visual Methods through Qualitative Research in the Primary School as ‘Art that Didn't Work’

Author

Listed:
  • Lexie Scherer

Abstract

This article considers the implications of using visual methods in research with primary school aged children. The research explored the meanings children made of reading at school. Visual methods, through drawing, were part of the research design. The children resisted drawing in a range of ways, including ripping pages out of books and leaving pages blank, or they used drawing to make meaning of their lives outside the context of the research topic, in particular indicating an adherence to normative gender identities. Through initial analysis these methods were framed as ‘art that didn't work’. It was only through treating everything as data- thinking about silences and absences, as well as what the children did draw, that it was possible to reposition the data as useful for understanding the impact of drawing as a method. The article argues that whilst in previous research, visual methods have often been hailed as straightforwardly positive for working with children: they increase participation, access to research, and promote pupil voice; in this research a far more complex set of power relations emerged around drawing. Findings indicate drawing does not work as a method to enhance children's participation in the research process. While the paper is methodological in nature, it also contributes to our knowledge of children's agency, and agency as resistance. The article disrupts assumptions that such methods are ‘good’ at providing a mouthpiece for vulnerable groups such as children, to explore their identities.

Suggested Citation

  • Lexie Scherer, 2016. "Children's Engagements with Visual Methods through Qualitative Research in the Primary School as ‘Art that Didn't Work’," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 21(1), pages 1-16, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:21:y:2016:i:1:p:1-16
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.3805
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.3805
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.3805?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:21:y:2016:i:1:p:1-16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.