Recognition of the complexity of the world raises questions about new theories, methods, and capabilities for evaluation practice. Approaches originating in the systems sciences show promise; however, many require specialized expertise and resources. This article explores rich pictures as an accessible, low-resource method for facilitating sensemaking amid complexity. The method involves the free-hand drawing of a situation to richly illustrate what is happening and why using images, lines, and few words. The process and product are akin to elaborate childhood doodles, yet are remarkably powerful conveyors of tacit knowledge and issues, differing perspectives, and action possibilities. Drawing together methodological guidance, sensemaking theory, and an application with STEM higher education faculty, this article shows how rich pictures support sensemaking amid complexity and identifies potential applications and directions for research on the method.
AltschuldJ. W.WatkinsR. (2014). A primer on needs assessment: More than 40 years of research and practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 2014(144), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20099
2.
ArchibaldT. (2020). What’s the problem represented to be? Problem definition critique as a tool for evaluative thinking. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018824043
3.
Barbrook-JohnsonP.PennA. (2021). Participatory systems mapping for complex energy policy evaluation. Evaluation, 27(1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389020976153
4.
Barbrook-JohnsonP.SchimpfC.CastellaniB. (2019). Reflections on the use of complexity-appropriate computational modeling for public policy evaluation in the UK. Journal on Policy and Complex Systems, 5(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.18278/jpcs.5.1.4
5.
BellS.BergT.MorseS. (2015). Rich pictures: Sustainable development and stakeholders—the benefits of content analysis. Sustainable Development, 24(2), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1614
6.
BellS.BergT.MorseS. (2016). Rich pictures: Encouraging resilient communities. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
7.
BellS.BergT.MorseS. (2019). Towards an understanding of rich picture interpretation. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 32(6), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-018-9476-5
8.
BellS.MorseS. (2013a). How people use rich pictures to help them think and act. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 26(4), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-012-9236-x
9.
BellS.MorseS. (2013b). Rich pictures: A means to explore the “sustainable mind”?Sustainable Development, 21(1), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.497
BergT.BellS.MorseS. (2019). Using rich pictures outside of soft systems methodology: A case study analysis. International Journal of System of Systems Engineering, 9(3), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSE.2019.102815
12.
BergT.PooleyR. (2013a). Contemporary iconography for rich picture construction. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2121
13.
BergT.PooleyR. (2013b). Rich pictures: Collaborative communication through icons. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 26(4), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-012-9238-8
14.
BergT.SharpeA.AitkinE. (2018). Females in computing: Understanding stereotypes through collaborative picturing. Computers and Education, 126(March), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.007
15.
BootonC. M. (2018). Using rich pictures to verify, contradict, or enhance verbal data. Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2835–2849. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3279
16.
BoultonJ. G.AllenP. M.BowmanC. (2015). Embracing complexity: Strategic perspectives for an age of turbulence (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.
17.
CarawayB. R.KinnearP. (2022). Chapter 1: See and see again: Mapping the fractures in visual culture. In BowenT.CarawayB. R. (Eds.), Visual futures: Exploring the past, present, and divergent possibilities of visual practice (pp. 1–10). Intellect Books.
18.
ChappellS. V.Cahnmann-TaylorM. (2013). No child left with crayons: The imperative of arts-based education and research with language “minority” and other minoritized communities. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12461615
ChecklandP. B.HaynesM. G. (1994). Varieties of systems thinking: The case of soft systems methodology. System Dynamics Review, 10(2–3), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260100207
21.
ChecklandP. B.PoulterJ. (2006). Learning for action: A short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers, and students. John Wiley.
22.
ChecklandP. B.PoulterJ. (2020). Chapter 5: Soft systems methodology. In ReynoldsM.HolwellS. (Eds.), Systems approaches to making change: A practical guide (pp. 201–253). Open University.
23.
ChiltonG.LeavyP. (2014). Arts-based research practice: Merging social research and the creative arts. In LeavyP. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 403–422). Oxford University Press.
24.
ConnerR. F.FitzpatrickJ. L.RogD. J. (2012). A first step forward: Context assessment. New Directions for Evaluation, 2012(135), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20029
25.
ConteK. P.DavidsonS. (2020). Using a “rich picture” to facilitate systems thinking in research coproduction. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0514-2
26.
CoxG. J. (2010). Defining innovation: Using soft systems methodology to approach the complexity of innovation in educational technology. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 6(1), 5–13.
27.
CristanchoS. M.HelmichE. (2019). Rich pictures: A companion method for qualitative research in medical education. Medical Education, 53(9), 916–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13890
28.
CrowleyK.HeadB. (2017). The enduring challenge of “wicked problems”: Revisiting Rittel and Webber. Policy Sciences, 50, 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9302-4
29.
DalkinS.LhussierM.WilliamsL.BurtonC. R.Rycroft-MaloneJ. (2018). Exploring the use of soft systems methodology with realist approaches: A novel way to map programme complexity and develop and refine programme theory. Evaluation, 24(1), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389017749036
30.
DartJ.DaviesR. (2003). A dialogical, story-based evaluation tool: The most significant change technique. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400302400202
31.
DonaldsonS. I.GoolerL. E.ScrivenM. (2002). Strategies for managing evaluation anxiety: Toward a psychology of program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(3), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400202300303
32.
FullanaJ.PalliseraM.VilàM. (2014). 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(6), 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2013.832049
33.
GalmanS. A. C. (2009). The truthful messenger: Visual methods and representation in qualitative research in education. Qualitative Research, 9(2), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794108099321
34.
GatesE. F. (2016). Making sense of the emerging conversation in evaluation about systems thinking and complexity science. Evaluation and Program Planning, 59, 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.08.004
GatesE. F.WaltonM.VidueiraP.McNallM. (2021). Introducing systems- and complexity-informed evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 170, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20466
37.
GioiaD. A.ChittipeddiK. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604
38.
GleggS. M. N. (2019). Facilitating interviews in qualitative research with visual tools: A typology. Qualitative Health Research, 29(2), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318786485
39.
HanafizadehP.MehrabiounM. (2018). Application of SSM in tackling problematical situations from academicians’ viewpoints. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 31(2), 179–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-017-9422-y
40.
HolwellS. (2004). Themes, iteration, and recoverability in action research. In KaplanB.TruexD. P.WastellD.Wood-HarperA. T., & DeGrossJ. I. (Eds.), Information systems research: Relevant theory and informed practice (pp. 353–362). Springer US.
41.
HoodS.HopsonR. K.KirkhartK. E. (2015). Culturally responsive evaluation. In Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 281–317). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
42.
HoughtonL. (2013). Why can’t we all just accommodate: A soft systems methodology application on disagreeing stakeholders. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30(4), 430–443. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2136
43.
JacksonM. C. (2019). Soft systems methodology. In Critical systems thinking and the management of complexity (pp. 397–442). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
44.
KallemeynL. M.HallJ. N.GatesE. (2020). Exploring the relevance of complexity theory for mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(3), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819872423
45.
KhazraeeE.GassonS. (2015). Epistemic objects and embeddedness: Knowledge construction and narratives in research networks of practice. Information Society, 31(2), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2015.998104
46.
KishK.BunchM. J.XuB. J. (2016). Soft systems methodologies in action: Environment, health & Shanghai’s elderly. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 29(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-015-9353-4
47.
KnowlesJ. G.ColeA. L. (2008). Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues. Sage Publications.
48.
LewisP. J. (1992). Rich picture building in the soft systems methodology. European Journal of Information Systems, 1(5), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.1992.7
49.
LomaxH. (2012). Contested voices? Methodological tensions in creative visual research with children. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2012.649408
50.
MacintyreR. (2020). Rich pictures: Non visual use of visual tools. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 7(3), 360–369. https://doi.org/10.18646/2056.73.20-026
51.
MaitlisS.ChristiansonM. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.873177
52.
MargolisE.ZunjarwadR. (2018). Visual research. In The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 600–626). Sage Publications.
53.
MidgleyG. (1992). Pluralism and the legitimation of systems science. Systems Practice, 5(2), 147–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01059938
54.
MidgleyG. (2007). Systems thinking for evaluation. In WilliamsB.ImamI. (Eds.), Systems concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology (pp. 11–34). EdgePress of Inverness.
55.
MidgleyG. (2016). Four domains of complexity. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 18(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.emerg/10.17357.6ffd4f1cee07b1eab0d5e11f6522261b
MillerR. L. (2016). On messes, systems thinking, and evaluation: A response to Patton. American Journal of Evaluation, 37(2), 266–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214015626294
58.
MingersJ. (2000). An idea ahead of its time: The history and development of soft systems methodology. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 13(6), 23. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026475428221
59.
MorellJ. A. (2018). Systematic iteration between model and methodology: A proposed approach to evaluating unintended consequences. Evaluation and Program Planning, 68, 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.09.006
OECD (2010). Quality standards for development evaluation, DAC guidelines and reference series. OECD Publishing.
62.
PainH. (2012). A literature review to evaluate the choice and use of visual methods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(4), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691201100401
63.
PattonM. Q. (2016). What is essential in developmental evaluation? On integrity, fidelity, adultery, abstinence, impotence, long-term commitment, integrity, and sensitivity in implementing evaluation models. American Journal of Evaluation, 37(2), 250–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214015626295
64.
PicciottoR. (2020). Towards a complexity framework for transformative evaluation. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 16(35), 54–76. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v16i35.643
65.
PodemsD. (2019). Being an evaluator: Your practical guide to evaluation. Guilford Press.
RamageM.ShippK. (2009). Chapter 12: Peter checkland. In RamageM.ShippK. (Eds.), Systems thinkers (1st ed., pp. 131–138). Open University.
68.
ReynoldsM.GatesE.HummelbrunnerR.WilliamsB.MarraM. (2016). Towards systemic evaluation. Systems Research & Behavioural Science, 33(5), 662–673. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sres.2423 IF=1.052 https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2423
69.
RhodesT.FitzgeraldJ. (2006). Visual data in addictions research: Seeing comes before words? [Editorial]. Addiction Research & Theory, 14(4), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066350600826180
70.
RittelH. W. J.WebberM. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
71.
RossiP. H.LipseyM. W.HenryG. T. (2019). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (8th ed.). Sage.
72.
SantangeloJ.HobbieL.LeeJ.PullinM.Villa-CuestaE.HyslopA. (2021). The (STEM)2 network: A multi-institution, multidisciplinary approach to transforming undergraduate STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00262-z
73.
ShongweM. I. (2018). A systems thinking approach to investigating complex sugarcane supply and processing systems: Integrating rich pictures and Bayesian networks. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 31(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-017-9418-7
Taschereau MamersD. (2022). Afterword: To visualize the future is political work. In BowenT.CarawayB. R. (Eds.), Visual futures: Exploring the past, present, and divergent possibilities of visual practice (pp. 158–168). Intellect Books.
76.
TrevisanM. S.WalserT. M. (2015). Evaluability assessment: Improving evaluation quality and use. Sage.
77.
TsoukasH. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0435
78.
UfuaD. E.AdebayoA. O. I. (2019). Exploring the potency of rich pictures in a systemic lean intervention process. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 32(6), 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-019-9479-x
79.
UlrichW.ReynoldsM. (2010). Critical systems heuristics. In ReynoldsM.HolwellS. (Eds.), Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 243–292). Springer.
80.
vanderVaartG.HovenB.HuigenP. P. P. (2018). Creative and arts-based research methods in academic research. Lessons from a Participatory Research Project in the Netherlands Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-19.2.2961
81.
WalkerD.SteinfortP.MaqsoodT. (2014). Stakeholder voices through rich pictures. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 7(3), 342–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-10-2013-0050
82.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.
83.
WeickK. E. (2003). Sense and reliability. A conversation with celebrated psychologist Karl E. Weick. Interview by Diane L. Coutu. Harvard Business Review, 81(4), 84–90. 123.
84.
WeickK. E.SutcliffeK. M.ObstfeldD. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
WilliamsB.HummelbrunnerR. (2009). Systems concepts in action: A practitioner‘s toolkit. Stanford University Press.
87.
Wilson-GrauR. (2019). Outcome Harvesting: Principles, steps, and evaluation applications. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
