Advertisement

Generating Personal Stories on Negative Online Peer Interactions Through a Photo-Elicitation Method

  • Sara PabianEmail author
  • Sara Erreygers
Chapter

Abstract

The goal of this chapter is to evaluate the usability of photo-elicitation interviewing (PEI) to collect personal stories from adolescents about their experience of negative online peer interactions, such as cyberbullying. Within this field of research, most studies rely on quantitative data or qualitative data based on interviews and focus group discussions. In exploring the value of this alternative methodology, we first describe, based on previous research, the characteristics and use of PEI. In the second part, PEI’s usefulness is explored in terms of a study with 34 participants aged between 13 and 14 years old. The advantages and disadvantages of using this method are highlighted. The chapter concludes with concrete advice for future researchers wishing to use PEI within the field of negative online peer interactions.

References

  1. Allmark, P., Stevenson, K., & Stotzer, T. (2017, July 4–7). Having a voice and being heard: Photography and children’s communication through photovoice. In F. Martin & S. Jarvis (Eds.), Refereed proceedings of ANZCA2017 (Australian and New Zealand Communications Association Conference). Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  2. Bannink, F. (2006). Oplossingsgerichte vragen. Handboek oplossingsgerichte gespreksvoering [Handbook of solution-oriented coversations]. Amsterdam: Harcourt Assessment BV.Google Scholar
  3. Bignante, E. (2010). The use of photo-elicitation in field research. EchoGéo, 11.  https://doi.org/10.4000/echogeo.11622.
  4. Bridge, L. (2013). Seeing and telling households: A case for photo elicitation and graphic elicitation in qualitative research. Graduate Journal of Social Science, 10(2), 106–131.Google Scholar
  5. Cederholm, E. A. (2004). The use of photo-elicitation in tourism research—Framing the backpacker experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 4(3), 225–241.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250410003870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark-Ibáñez, M. (2004). Framing the social world with photo-elicitation interviews. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(12), 1507–1527.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764204266236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook, T., & Hess, E. (2007). What the camera sees and from whose perspective. Fun methodologies for engaging children in enlightening adults. Childhood, 14(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568207068562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curry, T. J. (1986). A visual method of studying sports: The photo-elicitation interview. Sociology of Sport Journal, 3(3), 204–216.  https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.3.3.204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Epstein, I., Stevens, B., McKeever, P., & Baruchel, S. (2006). Photo elicitation interview (PEI): Using photos to elicit children’s perspectives. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media & Society, 12(1), 109–125.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fang, W. L., & Ellwein, M. C. (1990). Photography and ethics in evaluation. Evaluation Review, 14(1), 100–107.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9001400107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860220137345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holliday, R. (2000). We’ve been framed: Visualising methodology. The Sociological Review, 48(4), 503–521.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hurworth, R. (2003). Photo-interviewing for research. Social Research Update, 40, 1–4.Google Scholar
  15. Hurworth, R., Clark, E., Martin, J., & Thomsen, S. (2005). The use of photo-interviewing: Three examples from health evaluation and research. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 4(1/2), 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kantrowitz-Gordon, I., & Vandermause, R. (2016). Metaphors of distress: Photo-elicitation enhances a discourse analysis of parents’ accounts. Qualitative Health Research, 26(8), 1031–1043.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315575729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loeffler, T. A. (2005). Looking deeply in: Using photo-elicitation to explore the meanings of outdoor education experiences. The Journal of Experiental Education, 27(3), 343–346.Google Scholar
  20. Maher, D. (2008). Cyberbullying: An ethnographic case study of one Australian upper primary school class. Youth Studies Australia, 27(4), 50–57.Google Scholar
  21. Marwick, A., & boyd, d. (2011). The drama! Teen conflict, gossip, and bullying in networked publics. Paper presented at Oxford Internet Institute’s “A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society” (pp. 1–25), Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  22. Meo, A. I. (2010). Picturing students’ habitus: The advantages and limitations of photo-elicitation interviewing in a qualitative study in the city of Buenos Aires. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(2), 149–171.  https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691000900203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miles, B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Ortega-Alcázar, I., & Dyck, I. (2012). Migrant narratives of health and well-being: Challenging “othering” processes through photo-elicitation interviews. Critical Social Policy, 32(1), 106–125.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018311425981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pabian, S., Erreygers, S., Vandebosch, H., Van Royen, K., Dare, J., Costello, L., … & Cross, D. (2018). “Arguments online, but in school we always act normal”: The embeddedness of early adolescent negative peer interactions within the whole of their offline and online peer interactions. Children and Youth Services Review.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pabian, S., & Vandebosch, H. (2016). Developmental trajectories of (cyber)bullying perpetration and social intelligence during early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 36(2), 145–170.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614556891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Radley, A., & Taylor, D. (2003). Images of recovery: A photo-elicitation study on the hospital ward. Qualitative Health Research, 13(1), 77–99.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732302239412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 26–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, E. F., Gidlow, B., & Steel, G. (2012). Engaging adolescent participants in academic research: The use of photo-elicitation interviews to evaluate school-based outdoor education programmes. Qualitative Research, 12(4), 367–387.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112443473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippet, N. (2008). Cyberbullying. Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. (2008). Online communication and adolescent relationships. The Future of Children, 18(1), 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499–503.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Walton, G., & Niblett, B. (2013). Investigating the problem of bullying through photo elicitation. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(5), 646–662.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2012.733810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang, C. C., & Redwood-Jones, Y. A. (2001). Photovoice ethics: Perspectives from Flint Photovoice. Health Education & Behavior, 28(5), 560–572.  https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810102800504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wegge, D., Vandebosch, H., Eggermont, S., Rossem, R. Van, & Walrave, M. (2016). Divergent perspectives: Exploring a multiple informant approach to cyberbullying victimization and perpetration. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 22(2), 235–251.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-015-9287-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wiles, R., Prosser, J., Bagnoli, A, Clark, A., Davies, K., Holland, S., & Renold, E. (2008). Visual ethics: Ethical issues in visual research (NCRM Working Paper). n/a. (Unpublished).Google Scholar
  38. Willis, P. (1980). Notes on method. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies 1972–79 (pp. 88–95). London (United Kingdom): University of Birmingham.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Research Foundation Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations