Living with Themselves, Creating Themselves

  • Chow Yiu Fai
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Globalization, Culture and Society book series (PSGCS)


This chapter is an attempt at self-representation. More empirically, since the women in this inquiry are working in the creative fields and have a vested interest in creative practices, it seems to be an opportune occasion whereby their creativity can be mobilized as part of the inquiry. Inspired by visual methodology in general, and image-elicitation techniques in particular, the subjects were invited to produce visual materials that best represent themselves as single women in Shanghai. These “cultural probing” materials are used in two ways. First, they are documented as materials generated directly by the subjects. They offer readers immediate glimpses of the worlds they are living in. Second, the materials are used for discussions between the subjects and the investigator. The self-generated images lend themselves to opening up areas for examination otherwise unexamined, overlooked, and finally, erased from any understanding of their lives.


  1. Agee, James. Let Us Now Praise Famous Men: Three Tenant Families. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1941.Google Scholar
  2. Ali, Alisha, Emily Sharp, and Shira Meged. “Youth Empowerment and the Digital Representation of Self: Lessons from the PhotoCLUB Project.” Journal of Art for Life 7, no. 1 (2016).Google Scholar
  3. Banks, Marcus. Visual Methods in Social Research. London: Sage, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. Bateson, Gregory, and Margaret Mead. Balinese Character, a Photographic Analysis. New York: The New York academy of sciences, 1942.Google Scholar
  5. Buckingham, David. “`Creative’ Visual Methods in Media Research: Possibilities, Problems and Proposals.” Media, Culture & Society 31, no. 4 (2009): 633–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, Jiang, Hailong Ren, and Qiguang Yang. “A Virtual Gender Asylum? The Social Media Profile Picture, Young Chinese Women’s Self-Empowerment, and the Emergence of a Chinese Digital Feminism.” International Journal of Cultural Studies, 2016, 1–16.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, Andrew, and Lisa Morriss. “The Use of Visual Methodologies in Social Work Research over the Last Decade: A Narrative Review and Some Questions for the Future.” Qualitative Social Work 16, no. 1 (2017): 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cruz, Edgar Gómez, and Helen Thornham. “Selfies beyond Self-Representation: The (Theoretical) f(r)Ictions of a Practice.” Journal of Aesthetics & Culture 7, no. 1 (2015): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elias, Ana Sofia, and Rosalind Gill. “Beauty Surveillance: The Digital Self-Monitoring Cultures of Neoliberalism.” European Journal of Cultural Studies, 2017, 1–19.Google Scholar
  10. Emmons, Betsy, and Richard Mocarski. “She Poses, He Performs: A Visual Content Analysis of Male and Female Professional Athlete Facebook Profile Photos.” Visual Communication Quarterly 21, no. 3 (2014): 125–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fox, Jesse, and Margaret C. Rooney. “The Dark Triad and Trait Self-Objectification as Predictors of Men’s Use and Self-Presentation Behaviors on Social Networking Sites.” Personality and Individual Differences 76, no. Supplement C (2015): 161–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fullana, Judit, Maria Pallisera, and Montserrat Vilà. “Advancing towards Inclusive Social Research: Visual Methods as Opportunities for People with Severe Mental Illness to Participate in Research.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 17, no. 6 (2014): 723–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gattegno, Caleb. Towards a Visual Culture. New York: Dutton, 1969.Google Scholar
  14. Gauntlett, David. Creative Explorations: New Approaches to Identities and Audiences. London: Routledge, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerbaudo, Paolo. “Protest Avatars as Memetic Signifiers: Political Profile Pictures and the Construction of Collective Identity on Social Media in the 2011 Protest Wave.” Information, Communication & Society 18, no. 8 (2015): 916–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hasler, Béatrice S., and Doron A. Friedman. “Sociocultural Conventions in Avatar-Mediated Nonverbal Communication: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Virtual Proxemics.” Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 41, no. 3 (2012): 238–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ibrahim, Yasmin. “Self-Representation and the Disaster Event: Self-Imaging, Morality and Immortality.” Journal of Media Practice 16, no. 3 (2015): 211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Kloet, Jeroen, and Anthony Y. H. Fung. Youth Cultures in China. Cambridge: Polity, 2017.Google Scholar
  19. Knowles, Caroline, and Paul Sweetman. “Introduction.” In Picturing the Social Landscape: Visual Methods and the Sociological Imagination, edited by Caroline Knowles and Paul Sweetman, 1–17. Routledge, 2004.Google Scholar
  20. Lian, Hongping. “The Resistance of Land-Lost Farmers in China.” Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 36, no. 3 (2014): 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liebenberg, Linda. “The Visual Image as Discussion Point: Increasing Validity in Boundary Crossing Research.” Qualitative Research 9, no. 4 (2009): 441–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindstrom, Martin. BrandChild: Remarkable Insights into the Minds of Today’s Global Kids and Their Relationship with Brands. London: Kogan Page, 2004.Google Scholar
  23. Liu, Tzu-kai. “Minority Youth, Mobile Phones and Language Use: Wa Migrant Workers’ Engagements with Networked Sociality and Mobile Communication in Urban China.” Asian Ethnicity 16, no. 3 (2015): 334–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lu, Ye, and Yajie Chu. “Media Use, Social Cohesion, and Cultural Citizenship: An Analysis of a Chinese Metropolis.” Chinese Journal of Communication 5, no. 4 (2012): 365–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mannay, Dawn. “Making the Familiar Strange: Can Visual Research Methods Render the Familiar Setting More Perceptible?” Qualitative Research 10, no. 1 (2010): 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNeal, James U. The Kids Market: Myths and Realities. New York: Paramount, 1999.Google Scholar
  27. Meager, Nigel. “Children Make Observational Films—Exploring a Participatory Visual Method for Art Education.” International Journal of Education Through Art 13, no. 1 (2017): 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitchell, Claudia. Doing Visual Research. London: Sage, 2011.Google Scholar
  29. Murray, Derek Conrad. “Notes to Self: The Visual Culture of Selfies in the Age of Social Media.” Consumption Markets & Culture 18, no. 6 (2015): 490–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oberst, Ursula, Andrés Chamarro, and Vanessa Renau. “Gender Stereotypes 2.0: Self-Representations of Adolescents on Facebook.” Estereotipos de Género 2.0: Auto-Representaciones de Adolescentes En Facebook. 24, no. 48 (2016): 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Palmer, Victoria J., Christopher Dowrick, and Jane M. Gunn. “Mandalas as a Visual Research Method for Understanding Primary Care for Depression.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 17, no. 5 (2014): 527–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pauwels, Luc. Reframing Visual Social Science: Towards a More Visual Sociology and Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pauwels, Luc. “Visual Sociology Reframed: An Analytical Synthesis and Discussion of Visual Methods in Social and Cultural Research.” Sociological Methods & Research 38, no. 4 (2010): 545–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pink, Sarah. Doing Visual Ethnography. 3rd Edition. London: SAGE, 2013.Google Scholar
  35. Rasmussen, Kim, and Søren Smidt. “Children in the Neighbourhood: The Neighbourhood in the Children.” In Children in the City: Home Neighbourhood and Community, edited by Pia Christensen and Margaret O’Brien, 82–100. London: Routledge, 2003.Google Scholar
  36. Rose, Gillian. “On the Relation between ‘Visual Research Methods’ and Contemporary Visual Culture.” The Sociological Review 62, no. 1 (2014): 24–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rose, Gillian. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials. London: Sage, 2012.Google Scholar
  38. de Vries, Dian A., and Jochen Peter. “Women on Display: The Effect of Portraying the Self Online on Women’s Self-Objectification.” Computers in Human Behavior 29, no. 4 (2013): 1483–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wherton, Joseph, Paul Sugarhood, Rob Procter, Mark Rouncefield, Guy Dewsbury, Sue Hinder, and Trisha Greenhalgh. “Designing Assisted Living Technologies ‘in the Wild’: Preliminary Experiences with Cultural Probe Methodology.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 12 (2012): 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. White, Allen, Naomi Bushin, Fina Carpena-Méndez, and Caitríona Ní Laoire. “Using Visual Methodologies to Explore Contemporary Irish Childhoods.” Qualitative Research 10, no. 2 (2010): 143–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wong, Lok Yee. “The Poetics and Politics of Hong Kong Wenyi Qingnian.” MPhil thesis, Hong Kong Baptist University, 2017.Google Scholar
  42. Zhong, Zhi-Jin, and Mike Zhengyu Yao. “Gaming Motivations, Avatar-Self Identification and Symptoms of Online Game Addiction.” Asian Journal of Communication 23, no. 5 (2013): 555–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chow Yiu Fai
    • 1
  1. 1.Hong Kong Baptist UniversityKowloon TongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations