Visual Research Methods

An Introduction for Library and Information Studies

Shailoo Bedi, Jenaya Webb, Shailoo Bedi, Jenaya Webb

• Publisher: Facet Publishing
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781783304561, 9781783304578
• eBook ISBN: 9781783305148
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Library & Information Science
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Visual research methods (VRM) comprise a collection of methods that incorporate visual elements such as maps, drawings, photographs, videos, as well as three-dimensional objects into the research process. In addition, VRM including photo-elicitation, photovoice, draw-and-write techniques, and cognitive mapping are being leveraged to great effect to explore information experiences to investigate some of the central questions in the field; expand theoretical discussions in LIS; and improve library services and spaces.

Visual Research Methods: An Introduction for Library and Information Studies is the first book to focus on visual methods in LIS, providing a comprehensive primer for students, educators, researchers and practitioners in the field. Contributed chapters in the book showcase examples of VRM in action and offer the insights, inspirations, and experiences of researchers and practitioners working with visual methods. Coverage includes:

- an introduction to visual research methods including a discussion of terminology

- an overview of the literature on VRM in libraries

- methodological framing including a discussion of theory and epistemology

- practical and ethical considerations for researchers embarking on VRM projects

- chapters showcasing VRM in action including drawing techniques, photographic techniques, and mixed methods

- six contributed chapters each showcasing the results of visual research methods, discussions of the techniques, and reflections on VRM for research in information studies.

This book will provide a strong methodological context for the adoption of visual research methods in LIS and feature examples of VRM 'in action.' It will prove to be a must-have reference for researchers, practitioners, instructors, and students who want to engage with visual research methods and to expand their methodological toolkit.

PART 1

A PRIMER ON VISUAL RESEARCH METHODS IN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION STUDIES

1

A Brief Introduction to Visual Research Methods in Library and Information Studies

Jenaya Webb and Shailoo Bedi

Introduction

Described simply, visual research methods are research techniques that use visual elements such as photographs, maps, video and other artistic media – drawings, paintings and sculptures – in the process of answering research questions. Although this definition seems simple, scholars undertaking using visual methods may easily become lost or disoriented in the diversity of visual options that abound or the inconsistencies across the literature in the terms we use to describe visual research methods (Hartel and Thomson, 2011; Pollak, 2017). Perhaps it is because of the wide range of visual research methods or the inconsistencies in how they are described and discussed, that LIS researchers and those across other disciplines can face challenges in ‘discovering visual research options and deciding which ones best suit their goals’ (Pollak, 2017, 99).

When we talk about visual research methods in this book, we are talking about methods in which the visual element (photo, film, drawing or otherwise) is part of the research process of gathering or generating research data. We are not talking about data visualization or the use of visuals (such as infographics) solely to present research results. Certainly, visual research methods might cross over with visualizations, even in the same study. For example, Elizabeth Tait’s chapter on 3D visualization (Chapter 4) covers data visualization, but as part of the participatory community research process itself. Though we recognize that visualizations are an important research dissemination tool in LIS and other fields, we do not address them here.

Anchored in the LIS literature, this chapter addresses definitions and terminology and presents several existing frameworks to help clarify and facilitate the discussion about visual research methods. We begin by addressing the question of method versus methodology, then briefly discuss terminology and guiding structures. We will outline the emergence of visual research methods in LIS, highlight some recent examples, and discuss the benefits and limitations of visual research methods that have been documented by researchers in the field. It is worth repeating here that we situate ourselves and this book within the qualitative paradigm. The works discussed here focus on social sciences approaches to visual methods. We also recognize that LIS practitioners are taking up visual methods in applied contexts to make service improvements, change library spaces, or better understand user experience with greater frequency. We hope this chapter provides a foundation to support researchers and practitioners considering using visual research methods.

Method or Methodology?

What is the difference between visual research as a method and visual research as a methodology? Researchers often conflate the terms ‘method’ and ‘methodology’, using the phrases ‘visual research’, ‘visual methods’, ‘visual approaches’, ‘visual methodologies’ and ‘visual techniques’ interchangeably. For clarity, the terms, their distinctions and their relationship to each other are worth discussing briefly here.

Methodology is a broad term that encompasses the ‘assumptions, principles and procedures in a particular approach to inquiry (that, in turn, governs the use of particular methods)’ (Schwandt, 2007). According to Mills, ‘methodology is the lens a researcher looks through when deciding on the type of methods they will use to answer this research question and how they will use these methods for best effect’ (2014, 3). Methodological considerations can include such things as the researcher’s epistemological orientation, which theories or theorists inspire them and decisions about whether to use qualitative or quantitative methods or a mixed-methods approach.

Method, on the other hand, describes a particular path through the research project from start to finish. It is the term for the particular protocol – steps and processes – used to gather, generate and interpret data that ultimately answers your research question(s). Decisions a researcher makes about which methods to use in a particular project include choosing which population to focus on and how to ask them questions. For a definition that conveys the distinction between method and methodology, we turn to deMarrais and Lapan: ‘Methods are the specific research tools we use in research projects to gain fuller understanding of phenomena. Examples of methods include surveys, interviews and participant observation’ (2004, 4).

Many different methods can be applied in many different research contexts to address a variety of research questions. Similarly, the same method can be applied in different ways and settings to obtain different information. The possible combinations really have few limits. This applies also to visual research methods, where a photographic method could be used in a quantitative study, where the resulting photographs act as quantifiable documentation, such as an inventory of items in a field site. A photographic method in a qualitative study, however, might involve using photos as interview prompts to explore how a research participant understands a particular experience. The creativity with which a researcher chooses which combination of methodology and methods to use determines to a great extent the outcome of the study.

Methods and methodology are woven tightly together in any research project. This book focuses primarily on the application of visual methods for social science contexts. However, in the next chapter, we discuss visual research methods as a methodology and offer a brief exploration of epistemologies and theories.

Terminology

There are many visual research methods in use across the social sciences and these methods are often described inconsistently in publications and other research outputs. Here, we present a short list of methods to establish a common understanding for readers of this book. There are other visual research methods, which we encourage readers to investigate on their own.

Cognitive Mapping

A cognitive map is ‘a graphical representation where nodes represent concepts, and links (arcs or lines) represent the perceived causal relationships between concepts’ (Thorpe and Holt, 2008). As with similar methods such as mind mapping or conceptual mapping, cognitive mapping involves asking research participants to draw a picture that reflects their thinking about a situation, issue, location, etc. The map can be discussed in an interview or focus group to elicit in-depth understandings of what aspects of the issue have significance for the user. See Chapter 6, in which Andy Priestner discusses cognitive mapping.

Content Analysis

Content analysis is a method that can be applied in quantitative and qualitative studies with textual and visual materials. In a qualitative study of a collection of photographs, for example, content analysis can be used to interpret the cultural meaning of images (Rose, 2012). To understand patterns or interpret meanings in a collection of images, a researcher can develop a coding structure like the type of coding structure used to code interview text. These codes would then be applied to each image in the collection. See Chapter 7, in which Angela Fritz discusses content analysis in an archival context.

Draw-and-Write Technique

The draw-and-write technique falls under the arts-informed visual research umbrella. Researchers using the draw-and-write technique ask participants to draw a concept or answer a question with a drawing (e.g. what is ‘information’?). The drawing activity is then followed by a prompt to write a brief explanation of the drawing. Jenna Hartel and Deborah Hicks’ chapter in this book (Chapter 3) provides an overview of this method. There are also many other types of drawing methods used in social science research. For examples see Doucette and Hoffmann (2019) or Chapter 8 in this book by Rebecca Noone.

Photo Elicitation

Photo elicitation is ‘based on the simple idea of inserting a photograph into a research interview’ (Harper, 2002). In other words, photographs are used as prompts to guide interviews as researchers and research participants develop shared interpretations of what is being depicted in the photographs. With photo elicitation, the photos used in the interview are sometimes taken by researchers and sometimes by research participants themselves, depending on which protocol the researcher selects. Photo elicitation was initially developed by Collier (1957) and has since been used extensively across the social sciences. There are many related interview strategies that use images or objects as interview prompts. These include object elicitation (see for example Chapter 5 by Whyte and Misquith), photo diaries (see Gabridge, Gaskell and Stout, 2008) and cultural probes (Chapter 6 by Andy Priestner).

Photo-narrative

Photo-narrative is ‘the use of photographic images to tell a story about an event or chronicle, or some aspect of a person’s life’ (Crane, 2012, 1195). We have noticed that the term photo-narrative is sometimes used interchangeably with terms like photovoice or photo essay. Böök and Mykkänen make one interesting distinction when they explain that they prefer to use the term photo-narrative because the term narrating implies ‘“storytelling” about things and experiences related to what has been photographed; it does not mean telling or describing only what can be seen in the picture – narrative has a plot’ (2014, 614). Bedi and Webb (2017a) describe a photo-narrative study at the University of Victoria.

Photovoice

Photovoice is the term used to describe a sub-type of photo elicitation where the participants take the photos. It was developed by researchers doing community action research and aims to give voice to marginalized and vulnerable social groups in the research process. It allows participants a longer period to create their collections of photographs and provides them flexibility about what to photograph within the themes of the study. Photovoice was developed by Wang and Burris (1994, 1997) and has been used in LIS by Julien, Given and Opryshko (2013) to explore students’ perceptions of information literacy in their academic experiences.

Guiding Frameworks

There is a long list of visual research methods that employ an equally long list of visual elements (drawing, photography, sculpture, video, maps) across qualitative and quantitative paradigms. In addition, as Pauwels points out, there is ‘little integration with respect to the findings and practices of visual methods, especially between the social sciences and the humanities and behavioral sciences’ (Pauwels, 2011, 4). Furthermore, Julien, Given and Opryshko (2013), Pauwels (2011) and Pollak (2017) have noted that authors often fail to document clearly their methods in their publications, presentations or other research outputs.

Consequently, it can be difficult for researchers new to visual methods, or even those with experience using visual methods who want to try a different approach, to understand the range of options available and select the appropriate method for their project. Fortunately, many scholars have proposed methodological structures to help researchers organize ideas around visual-methods-based thinking with regard to the types of images being used, how images are created, who creates them and who interprets them. These frameworks can ‘offer better insight into current possibilities and approaches and … stimulate new and more refined approaches to visual research’ (Pauwels, 2011, 5). In her influential textbook, Visual Methodologies (2012), cultural geographer Gillian Rose presents a framework built around three approaches to visual materials – ‘sites’ – to generate meaning:

■ the site of production, which is where the image is made, how it is made, by whom and when

■ the site of the image itself, which is its visual content and composition

■ the site of audiencing – how is the image interpreted, by whom and in what context (2012, 19).

In the first chapter of the co-edited SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods (Margolis and Pauwels, 2011), visual sociologist Luc Pauwels presents a framework to address the ‘disparity of visual approaches and their ambiguous labeling, the lack of oversight and the methodological and conceptual vagueness’ (2011, 5). It presents three themes that bring together the ‘interrelated aspects of the input, processing and output phases of a visual’ (2011, 5). Pauwels’ three themes address:

■ the origin and nature of the visuals – questions of who made the images, the content or subject of the images and the technique used to create the images

■ the research focus and design – the analytical focus and theoretical and methodological approaches

■ the format and purpose – the research output, end results and uses of the images.

Rose and Pauwels’ frameworks help scholars think through methodological considerations related to visual research methods with questions such as: Who will make the photos in my study? How will they be used and by whom? Who will interpret the results? How will the images be circulated and shared? There is an abundance of research handbooks and texts dedicated to visual research methods in the social sciences (Banks and Zeitlyn, 2015; Knowles and Sweetman, 2004; Margolis and Pauwels, 2011; Mitchell, 2011; Pink, 2007; Pink, 2012; Prosser and Loxley, 2008; Rose, 2012; Stanczak, 2007).

Furthermore, a framework has been developed for LIS researchers. In 2017, Angela Pollak published an article in the journal Library and Information Science Research titled ‘Visual Research in LIS: Complementary and Alternative Methods’ in which she presented a framework for understanding visual methods in the LIS community. To underpin it, Pollak began by conducting an extensive search of peer-reviewed articles in academic databases across LIS, the social sciences and the humanities. Her search confirmed what scholars in other disciplines have noted: that very little consensus exists about how methods should be used, how they are reported in the published literature and even the names of the methods themselves (Pollak, 2017). She writes, ‘the primary challenge of parsing visual research methods, then, appears to be a lack of overarching framework in which to situate individual methods’ (2017, 100). In her article, Pollak provides further details about her literature search strategy and offers a much broader description of visual methods for LIS than can be summarized here. She discusses the advantages and limitations of these methods for the field of LIS.

To address this challenge, Pollak presents a framework for visual methods for LIS, which (like others) identifies two main categories of visual methods: participatory and non-participatory methods. As the names suggest, participatory metho...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Figures and Tables
• Acknowledgments
• Contributors
• Introduction: An Invitation to Visual Research Methods
• Part 1: A Primer on Visual Research Methods in Library and Information Studies
• Part 2: Visual Research Methods in Action
• Author index
• Subject index