Advertisement

Designs on Narrative: A Design-Based Method to Elicit Young People’s Narratives About Electronic Image-Sharing Issues and Interventions

  • Dianne V. HawkEmail author
  • Patricia Cardoso
  • Donna Cross
  • Joelie Mandzufas
Chapter

Abstract

Young people’s perspectives on their electronic image-sharing practices, its consequences and ‘solutions’, are needed to create effective and sustainable interventions to address negative outcomes of this behaviour, such as when images are used to facilitate cyberbullying. The aim of this chapter is to describe and reflect upon the structure and process of a qualitative design-based narrative knowledge production method piloted as part of a larger mixed-methods investigation into young people’s electronic image-sharing experiences. The method: Sixty-eight Year 8/9 students in Perth, Australia, worked in groups to complete an adapted Design Thinking process, designing mobile apps that embodied their recommendations for addressing the electronic image-sharing issues they deemed most important. While the scale of the project demanded expertise in terms of structuring, training and implementation, the narrative structure innate to the Design Thinking process offered an integrated picture of electronic image-sharing problems and their related solutions from young people’s perspectives.

References

  1. Andrews, M., Squire, C., & Tamboukou, M. (2013). Introduction: What is narrative research? In C. Squire, M. Andrews, & M. Tamboukou (Eds.), Doing narrative research (pp. 1–26). SAGE Publications, Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). (2016). Aussie teens and kids online. Research snapshot. Retrieved from https://www.acma.gov.au.
  3. Australian Public Service Commission. (2007). Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective. Commonwealth of Australia.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849776530.
  4. Barnes, A., Cross, D., Knight, S., Patterson, L., Burkett, M., Cardoso, P., … Hawk, D. (in submission). Digital image-sharing among young people: A review. Adolescent Research Review.Google Scholar
  5. Beacham, C., & Shambaugh, N. (2011). Contemporary uses of design thinking across society, work, and the individual. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 5(5), 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bold, C. (2012). Collecting narrative data. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, K., Quayle, E., Jonsson, L., & Svedin, C. G. (2016). Adolescents and self-taken sexual images: A review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 706–716.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cross, D., Barnes, A., Cardoso, P., Hadwen, K., Shaw, T., Campbell, M., & Slee, P. (2018). Cyber-friendly schools. In M. Campbell & S. Bauman (Eds.), Reducing cyberbullying in schools (pp. 95–108). London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuadrado-gordillo, I., & Fernández-antelo, I. (2016). Adolescents’ perception of the characterizing dimensions of cyberbullying: Differentiation between bullies’ and victims’ perceptions. 55, 653–663.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Fina, A. (2013). Positioning level 3: Connecting local identity displays to macro social processes. Narrative Inquiry, 23(1).Google Scholar
  13. Georgakopoulou, A. (2007). Small stories, interaction and identities.Google Scholar
  14. Groundwater-Smith, S., Dockett, S., & Bottrell, D. (2015). Participatory research with children and young people. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris, J., Brown, V. A., & Russell, J. (2010). Tackling wicked problems: Through the transdisciplinary imagination (T. and Francis ed.). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  16. Higginbottom, G., & Liamputtong, P. (2015). Participatory qualitative research methodologies in health. Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146.  https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306.  https://doi.org/10.2752/175470811X13071166525216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kreiswirth, M. (2000). Merely telling stories? Narrative and knowledge in the human sciences. Poetics Today, 21(2), 293–318.  https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-21-2-293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kueh, C., & Thom, R. (2018). Visual tools for developing student capacity for cross-disciplinary collaboration, innovation and entrepreneurship. In S. Griffith, K. Carruthers, & M. Bliemel (Eds.), Visual tools for developing student capacity for cross-disciplinary collaboration, innovation and entrepreneurship. Champaign: Common Ground Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–1265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., & Calussi, P. (2011). The measurement of cyberbullying: Dimensional structure and relative item severity and discrimination. 14(5).  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller-Day, M., & Hecht, M. L. (2013). Narrative means to preventative ends: A narrative engagement framework for designing prevention interventions. Health Communication, 28(7), 657–670.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.762861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2016). Design thinking in policymaking processes: Opportunities and challenges. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(3), 391–402.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitchell, A., Patrick, K., Heywood, W., Blackman, P., & Pitts, M. (2014). 5th National Survey of Australian Secondary Students and Sexual Health 2013, (ARCSHS Monograph Series No.97). Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  27. Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Social and technological motivations for online photo sharing online photo sharing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(4), 624–642.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1234478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Page, R., Harper, R., & Frobenius, M. (2013). From small stories to networked narrative: The evolution of personal narratives in Facebook status updas. Narrative Inquiry, 23(1), 192–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Piwek, L., & Joinson, A. (2016). Computers in human behavior “What do they snapchat about?” Patterns of use in time-limited instant messaging service. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 358–367.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reed, K. P., Cooper, R. L., Nugent, W. R., Russell, K., Reed, K. P., Cooper, R. L., …, Russell, K. (2016). Cyberbullying: A literature review of its relationship to adolescent depression and current intervention strategies. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 26(1), 37–45.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2015.1059165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roberts, N. (2000). Coping with wicked problems. California: Monterey.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils, 4, 376–385.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Staude-Müller, F., Hansen, B., & Voss, M. (2012). How stressful is online victimization? Effects of victim â€TMs personality and properties of the incident. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 260–274.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.643170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Technology Strategy Board, & UK Design Council. (2005). Design methods for developing services.Google Scholar
  36. Telethon Kids Institute. (2016). Students leading change to reduce sexting-related harm to young people. Final Report to Healthyway, Perth, Western Australia.Google Scholar
  37. Tsitsika, A., Janikian, M., Schoenmakers, T. M., & Wo, S. (2014). Internet addictive behavior in adolescence: A cross-sectional study in seven European countries. 17(8).  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. UK Design Council. (2007). A study of the design process. UK Design Council.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ware, C. (2008). Visual thinking for design. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wood, M. A., Bukowski, W. M., & Lis, E. (2016). The digital self: How social media serves as a setting that shapes youth’s emotional experiences. Adolescent Research Review, 1, 163–173.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-015-0014-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dianne V. Hawk
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patricia Cardoso
    • 1
  • Donna Cross
    • 2
  • Joelie Mandzufas
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Medical and Health SciencesEdith Cowan UniversityJoondalupAustralia
  2. 2.Northern Entrance, Perth Children’s HospitalNedlandsAustralia

Personalised recommendations