Advertisement

Self-portraits and Maps as a Window on Participants’ Worlds

  • Anna Bagnoli
Reference work entry

Abstract

Visual and arts-based methods can be extremely beneficial to research investigating people’s lives, subjectivities, and identities. Well suited to a participatory style of research, these methods work as an excellent support to an open style of interviewing and can help seeing the world from participants’ own perspective, thus providing an insight into their own interpretation of their worlds. This chapter will review the use of two visual methods that I applied in the context of interviews in different research projects: a self-portrait with which I asked for a self-presentation narrative, and a map with which I encouraged participants to reflect on significant relationships in their lives. The use of visual methods as a support to interviewing can facilitate participants to think laterally and be more creative in their answers, and also enable them to take the lead in the interview and establish their own priorities. Simple drawing tasks and other creative arts-based methods can encourage reflection and help covering emotional and sensitive issues that might otherwise remain silent or underexplored. These methods also work well to make participants feel more at ease during an interview. The chapter will provide suggestions on how these methods could best be employed in a research study.

Keywords

Self-portrait Relational map Visual methods Arts-based methods Participatory research 

References

  1. Back L. Live sociology: social research and its futures. Sociol Rev. 2012;60:18–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagnoli A. Researching identities with multi-method autobiographies. Sociol Res Online. 2004;9(2). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/2/bagnoli.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagnoli A. Beyond the standard interview: the use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods. Qual Res. 2009;9(5):547–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagnoli A. Making sense of mixed method narratives: young people’s identities, life-plans and time orientations. In: Heath S, Walker C, editors. Innovations in youth research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012. p. 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bagnoli A, Clark A. Focus groups with young people: a participatory approach to research planning. J Youth Stud. 2010;13(1):101–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2014.Google Scholar
  7. Harper D. Visual sociology. London: Routledge; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heath S, Walker C, editors. Innovations in youth research. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012.Google Scholar
  9. Hesse-Biber SN, Piatelli D. The synergistic practice of theory and method. In: Hesse-Biber SN, editor. Hanbook of feminist research: theory and praxis. London: SAGE; 2010. p. 176–86.Google Scholar
  10. Josselson R. The space between us. Exploring the dimensions of human relationships. London: SAGE; 1996.Google Scholar
  11. Knowles JG, Cole AL, editors. Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: perspectives, methodologies, examples and issues. London: SAGE; 2008.Google Scholar
  12. Law J. After method: mess in social science research. London: Routledge; 2004.Google Scholar
  13. Leavy P. Method meets art: arts-based research practice. London: the Guildford Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  14. Lewins A, Silver C. Using software in qualitative research. A step by step guide. London: SAGE; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  16. Luttrell W. ‘A camera is a big responsibility’: a lens for analysing children’s visual voices. Vis Stud. 2010;25(3):224–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mason J. Qualitative interviewing: asking, listening, and interpreting. In: May T, editor. Qualitative research in action. London: Sage; 2002a. p. 225–41.Google Scholar
  18. Mason J. Qualitative researching. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2002b.Google Scholar
  19. Pink S. Doing sensory ethnography. London: Sage; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Prosser J, Loxley A. Introducing visual methods. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper. 2008. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/420/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM%2D010.pdf.
  21. Rose G. Visual methodologies. An introduction to researching with visual materials. 3rd ed. London: Sage; 2012.Google Scholar
  22. Roseneil S. The ambivalences of angel’s “arrangement”: a psychosocial lens on the contemporary condition of personal life. Sociol Rev. 2006;54(4):847–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Savage M, Burrows R. The coming crisis of empirical sociology. Sociology. 2007;41(5):885–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wiles R, Prosser J, Bagnoli A, Clark A, Davies K, Holland S, Renold E. Visual ethics: ethical issues in visual research. NCRM Review Paper, NCRM/011. 2008. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/414/1/Report_on_Reflections_onTCB_Activities.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology, Wolfson CollegeUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations