Advertisement

Auto-driven Photo-Elicitation Interviews with Young Deaf People

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores the suitability of auto-driven photo-elicitation interviews in qualitative research with young deaf participants. Deaf people are often called ‘people of the eye’, with much cultural and biological research supporting the view that they have a uniquely visual experience of life (Bahan in Memoir upon the formation of a visual variety of the human race, 2004; Bavelier et al. in Trends in Cognitive Science 10(11):512–518, 2006; Thoutenhoofd in See deaf: on sight in deafness, 2011). However, it is also the case that educators are failing to take advantage of this visual way of experiencing the world, and as such deaf young people are leaving school with poor language skills in both spoken/written and signed modalities, placing limits on their ability to communicate and express themselves (Knoors and Marschark in Teaching deaf learners. Oxford University Press, London, 2014). Meaningful research with deaf people requires an understanding of the following; (1) the visual nature of being deaf; (2) the importance of using visual research methods so that research performed with deaf people benefits from this unique visucentrism; and (3) how to empower deaf young people, a traditionally oppressed minority, within the research situation. This study found that visual methods, such as photo-elicitation, ease communication difficulties within the interview process for deaf participant(s) as well as for the researcher particularly when mixed communication methods (i.e. a mixture of spoken and sign language) are used, as photographs are a tangible reference point (Marquez-Zenkov in Visual Studies 22(2):138–154, 2007). Auto-driven photo-elicitation interviews can also equalise power relations within the interview dyad by allowing the research participant to take the lead, a consideration of particular importance when working with people from traditionally oppressed communities, such as the deaf community. Finally, the use of visually motivated research not only supports communication in interviews with young deaf people, but also offers a uniquely appropriate method to understand deaf ontologies, or ways of being (O’Brien and Kusters in Innovations in deaf studies: the role of deaf scholars. Oxford University Press, London, 2017).

References

  1. Aldridge, J. (2014). Working with vulnerable groups in social research: Dilemmas by default and design. Qualitative Research, 14(1), 112–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, L. (2008). Young people’s ‘agency’ in sexuality research using visual methods. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(6), 565–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aston, J., Dewson, S., Loukas, G., & Dyson, A. (2005). Post-16 transitions: A longitudinal study of young people with special educational needs. Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
  4. Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bahan, B. (2004). Memoir upon the formation of a visual variety of the human race. In B. K. Eldredge, D. Stringham & M. M. Wilding-Diaz (Eds.), Deaf studies today: A kaleidoscope of knowledge, learning and understanding: 2004 conference proceedings. Orem: Utah Valley State College.Google Scholar
  6. Bavelier, D., Dye, M. W. G., & Hauser, P. C. (2006). Do deaf individuals see better? Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(11), 512–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bélanger, N. N., & Rayner, K. (2015). What eye movements reveal about deaf readers. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 226–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1996). Photography: A middle-brow art. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1999). The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Branson, J., & Miller, D. (2002). Damned for their difference: The cultural construction of deaf people as disabled. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cigman, R. (2007). Editorial introduction. In R. Cigman (Ed.), Included or excluded? The challenge of the mainstream for some SEN children. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, A. (2013). Haunted by images? Ethical moments and anxieties in visual research. Methodological Innovations Online, 8(2), 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, T. (2008). ‘We’re over-researched here!’ Exploring accounts of research fatigue within qualitative research engagements. Sociology, 42(5), 953–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark-Ibáñez, M. (2004). Framing the social world with photo-elicitation interviews. American Behavioural Scientist, 47(12), 1507–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collier, J., Jr., & Collier, M. (1986). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  16. Department for Education. (2014). Education, Health and Care plans. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/346221/Education_health_and_care_plans.pdf. Accessed July 7, 16.
  17. DEX. (2003). Between a rock and a hard place. Wakefield: Deaf Ex-Mainstreamers Group.Google Scholar
  18. Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heisley, D. D., & Levy, S. J. (1991). Autodriving: A photoelicitation technique. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. (2012). Oversight of special education for young people aged 16-25: Seventieth report of session 2010-2012. London: TSO Ltd.Google Scholar
  21. Ingold, T. (2011). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan, I. (2008). Being ‘seen’ and being ‘heard’: Engaging with students on the margins of education through participatory photography. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Doing visual research with children and young people. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Knoors, H., & Marschark, M. (2014). Teaching deaf learners. London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kusters, A. (2015). Ishaare: Gestures and Signs in Mumbai. https://vimeo.com/142245339. Last accessed July 7, 16.
  25. Kusters, A., De Meulder, M., & O’Brien, D. (2017). Innovations in deaf studies: The role of deaf scholars. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  27. Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding deaf culture: In search of Deafhood. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  28. Ladd, P. (1991). Making plans for Nigel: The erosion of identity by mainstreaming. In G. Taylor & J. Bishop (Eds.), Being deaf: The experience of deafness. London: Printer Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Marquez-Zenkov, K. (2007). Through city students’ eyes: Urban students’ beliefs about school’s purposes, supports, and impediments. Visual Studies, 22(2), 138–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marschark, M., Spencer, L. J., Durkin, A., Borgna, G., Convertino, C., Machmer, E., et al. (2015). Understanding language, hearing status and visual-spatial skills. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 20(4), 310–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mason, C. (1991). School experiences. In G. Taylor & J. Bishop (Eds.), Being deaf: The experience of deafness. London: Printer Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Meo, A. I. (2010). Picturing students’ habitus: The advantage and limitation of photo-elicitation interviewing in a qualitative study in the city of Buenos Aires. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(2), 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller, K. (2015). Dear critics: Addressing concerns and justifying the benefits of photography as a research method. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(3), Art. 27.Google Scholar
  34. Newbury, J., & Hoskins, M. (2010). Relational enquiry: Generating knowledge with adolescent girls who use crystal meth. Qualitative Enquiry, 16(8), 642–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Brien, D. (2012). d/Deaf young people’s experiences of transition planning in England: Using auto-driven photo-elicitation interviews and critical discourse analysis to explore experiences of policy and practice (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  36. O’Brien, D. (2013). Visual research with young d/Deaf people—An investigation of the transitional experiences of d/Deaf young people from mainstream schools using auto-driven photo-elicitation interviews. Graduate Journal of Social Science, 10(2), 152–175.Google Scholar
  37. O’Brien, D. (2015). Transition planning for d/Deaf young people from mainstream schools: Professionals’ views on the implementation of policy. Disability and Society, 30(2), 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Brien, D., & Kusters, A. (2017). Visual methods in deaf studies: Using photography and filmmaking in research with deaf people. In A. Kusters, M. De Meulder, & D. O’Brien (Eds.), Innovations in deaf studies: The role of deaf scholars. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. O’Reilly, K. (2005). Ethnographic methods. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Padgett, D. K., Smith, B. T., Derejiko, K.-S., Henwood, B. F., & Tiderington, E. (2013). A picture is worth…? Photo elicitation interviewing with formerly homeless adults. Qualitative Health Research, 23(11), 1435–1444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parasnis, I. (2012). Cultural and language diversity and the deaf experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pauwels, L. (2010). Visual sociology reframed: An analytical synthesis and discussion of visual methods in social and cultural research. Sociological Methods and Research, 28(4), 545–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Powers, S. (2003). Influences of student and family factors on academic outcomes of mainstream secondary school deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(1), 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Powers, S., Gregory, S., Lynas, W., McCracken, W., Watson, I., Boulton, A., et al. (1999). A review of good practice in deaf education. London: Royal National Institute for Deaf People.Google Scholar
  45. Prosser, J., Clark, A., & Wiles, R. (2008). Visual research ethics at the crossroads. Realities Working Paper 10. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/535/1/10-2008-11-realities-prosseretal.pdf. Last accessed August 11, 16.
  46. Rée, J. (2000). I see a voice: A philosophical history of language, deafness and the senses. London: Flamingo.Google Scholar
  47. Rose, G. (2012). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  48. Rose, G. (2014). On the relation between ‘visual research methods’ and contemporary visual culture. The Sociological Review, 62, 24–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sacks, O. (2012). Seeing voices: A journey into the world of the deaf. London: Picador.Google Scholar
  51. Salter, J., Pearson, S. E., & Swanwick, R. A. (2015). Teaching assistants’ perspectives of deaf students’ learning experiences in mainstream secondary classrooms. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress on the Education of the Deaf.Google Scholar
  52. Samuels, J. (2004). Breaking the ethnographer’s frames: Reflections on the use of photo elicitation in understanding Sri Lankan monastic culture. American Behavioural Scientist, 47(3), 1528–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sheridan, M. A. (2008). Deaf adolescents: Inner lives and lifeworld development. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Sheridan, M. (2001). Inner lives of deaf children: Interviews and analysis. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sutherland, H. (2008). Deaf children’s perceptions of sign bilingual education (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  56. Sutherland, H., & Young, A. (2007). ‘Hate English! Why?…’ Signs and English from deaf children’s perception results from a preliminary study of deaf children’s experiences of sign bilingual education. Deafness and Education International, 9(4), 197–213.Google Scholar
  57. Sutherland, H., & Young, A. (2014). Research with deaf children and not on them: A study of method and process. Children and Society, 28(5), 366–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sweetman, P. (2009). Revealing habitus, illuminating practice: Bourdieu, photography and visual methods. The Sociological Review, 57(3), 491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Temple, B., & Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative Research, 4(2), 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thoutenhoofd, E. D. (2011). See deaf: On sight in deafness. https://www.academia.edu/527261/See_deaf_On_sight_in_deafness. Last accessed July 7, 16.
  61. Warnock, M. (2005). Special educational needs: A new look. Impact: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.Google Scholar
  62. Wauters, L. N., & Knoors, H. (2008). Social integration of deaf children in inclusive settings. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(1), 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wiles, R., Prosser, J. Bagnoli, A., Clark, A., Davies, K., Holland, S., et al. (2008). Visual ethics: Ethical issues in visual research. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/421/. Last accessed July 7, 16.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.York St John UniversityYorkUK

Personalised recommendations