Drawing as a method of researching social representations

Abstract

This paper explores the possibilities of drawing as a method of researching social representations. The theory of social representations focuses on studying the forms, contents, and functions of socially shared common knowledge. In this paper, we (1) present the central premises of social representations theory, (2) elaborate drawing as a visual research method, and (3) synthesize how the drawing method may promote and diversify our understanding of social representations. We suggest that the drawing method is especially fruitful in the analysis of objectification process (how something abstract is made tangible); cognitive polyphasia (the idea of the simultaneous existence of diverse and contradicting social representations); and the different levels of analysis in which social representations become observable: ontogenesis (individual level), microgenesis (social interaction level), and sociogenesis (societal level). Through these insights, this paper advances the current understanding of the drawing method in qualitative social representations research.

Introduction

Since the end of the 20th century, qualitative research has witnessed a rapid increase in visual research methods (Leavy, 2018; McNiff, 2018). This can be explained by the ever-increasing role of the visual in our everyday lives, for instance, due to new forms of social media (Rose, 2014). This increase is also related to the material, visual, emotional, affective, and embodied shifts in the social sciences (Boxenbaum et al., 2018; Clough, 2007; Mitchell, 1994).

This paper focuses on a certain visual method, drawing, as a means of qualitative social representations research. We discuss drawing as a participant-driven method of data elicitation. Social representations theory is a theory of social knowledge according to which people use social representations to orientate themselves in the material and social world (Moscovici, 1973, 1984). From the very beginning of this theory, Moscovici (1984, 2008) recognized the role of the visual in the formation of social knowledge. However, within this particular theory, and social psychology in general, textual materials have dominated the research (Hakoköngäs, 2017; Martikainen, 2020), and the employment of visual materials is still relatively scarce (De Rosa, 2014). Despite this, influential contributions using visuals have been made (e.g., De Rosa, 1987; De Rosa and Farr, 2001; Milgram and Jodelet, 1976), and recent research on social representations has shown increasing interest in visual methods and materials (e.g., De Rosa, 2014; Hakoköngäs, 2017; Hakoköngäs and Sakki, 2016; Howarth, 2007; Martikainen, 2020; Moloney, 2007; Sakki, 2010).

Visual materials used for research purposes are diverse and include drawings, photographs, news images, cartoons, and visual environments. We chose drawing as the focus of the present paper for several reasons. First, we regard drawing as a practical and low-threshold approach to visual expression and the production of visual research material (Literat, 2013; Lyon, 2020; Turkmenoglu, 2012). By a “low-threshold method,” we mean that drawing does not necessitate complex technical skills or a wide array of tools and materials. Second, drawing is not currently used as much as photography in visual communication (Rose, 2014), and for this reason, drawing may provide an unusual lens for viewing everyday life as well as promote reflection on and awareness of everyday matters and routines (Mannay, 2010, 2016). Third, even though researchers have been far less inclined to use drawing with adults than with youth and children (Lyon, 2020), we suggest drawing is an inclusive method well-suited to research conducted among diverse groups of people of different ages. Fourth, we believe that the aspect of bodily engagement included in drawing may provide access to embodied layers of social representations (Martikainen, 2020). Fifth, with the exception of works by authors such as De Rosa (2014) and Martikainen (2019a, 2020), the characteristics and qualities of drawing have been scarcely discussed in social representations research. We believe elaborating on drawing as a means of visual expression will contribute to researchers’ awareness of the applicability of the method in social representations research.

To achieve this aim, we (1) describe the social representations theory, (2) elaborate drawing as a visual research method in general, and (3) synthesize how drawing may diversify the understanding of social representations. Even though some scholars have used the drawing method in social representations research, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to discuss the method more extensively from the perspective of the theory itself.

Theoretical premises of social representations

Shared and dynamic social representations

Moscovici (2008) founded the theory of social representations, which he referred to as the theory of social knowledge. His aim was to create a theoretical approach capable of elaborating the contents, expressions, and consequences of everyday social knowledge. The theory advocates the primacy of the social—rather than the individual—in the formation of knowledge and directs attention to communication and interaction between people. Instead of viewing objects and encounters as natural objects, social representations theory is interested in them as social objects in terms of ideas and meanings given to them and communicated through them (Martikainen, 2020). In this theory, communication and interaction are understood as social practices connecting individuals in a collective process of meaning making (Moscovici, 1984). Thus, from the perspective of this theory, knowledge does not exist in individual minds but collectively across the minds of a given group (Sammut, 2015).

According to Moscovici (1984), our relation to objects is mediated through representations. The concept of representation comes from two traditions: those of Jean Piaget and Émile Durkheim. Piaget’s developmental psychology regarded representations as individual creations that a person actively forms based on their contact with other people. Durkheim, in turn, regarded representations as collective, formed by institutions, and capable of predetermining individual representations (Sakki et al., 2017). Interpreting these traditions in a novel way, Moscovici (2008) labeled representations as social but not determining people’s thoughts and actions. Instead, social representations are dynamic and subject to change and reconstruction (Moscovici, 1984). Social representations can be modified, challenged, opposed, and reconstructed through social interaction and social practices (Howarth et al., 2013; Sakki et al., 2017).

Cognitive polyphasia

Social representations are not consistently shared by all members of a society, which clearly differentiates them from Durkheimian collective representations. In fact, societies, groups of people, and individual persons have numerous social representations about the same social object (Jovchelovitch, 2008; Moscovici, 1998). According to Moscovici (1994), the existence of different social representations forms a central motivation for interaction and communication: people learn from each other and want to know each other’s points of view. Multiple meanings (Moscovici, 1994) and negotiation of those meanings (Marková, 2003) highlight the dynamic quality of social representation, conceptualized as cognitive polyphasia (Jovchelovitch, 2008; Moscovici, 1998).

In addition to people’s different backgrounds and views, cognitive polyphasia may also result from social representations having different statuses (Martikainen, 2020). Hegemonic social representations conceptualize systems of ideas, values, and norms that are largely shared and accepted in the group. Deviating from them, polemic and emancipatory social representations conceptualize ideas, values, and norms shared by smaller groups of people. These can include views opposing hegemonic social representations, ideas and values related to minority groups of people, or novel and emerging ideas not widely shared by the public (Ben-Asher, 2003).

Social representations are constructed from certain points of view, and thus, they may be used to promote the interests of diverse groups of people. As Phoenix et al. (2017) suggested, social representations can be a means of deliberately influencing people and using power. Therefore, paying attention to cognitive polyphasia is important in research. For this reason, research methods such as drawing are necessary to recognize and trace hegemonic, polemic, and emancipated social representations.

The central concepts of social representation and levels of analysis

Moscovici (2001) used the concept of themata to refer to the foundational and highly figurative basis of social representations. According to Moscovici (2001: 30), “the patterned structure [of social representations] rests on an initial string of a few themata” that form the basis of a social representation. Themata are deep-rooted, cultural conceptions formed over a long period of time, and for this reason they are often largely taken for granted (Marková, 2003; Moscovici, 2001). Themata cannot be studied directly but rather through the symbolical expression of social representation (Moscovici, 2001).

Social representations are constructed, maintained, disseminated, and modified through three basic processes: anchoring, objectification, and naturalization (Hakoköngäs, 2017; Martikainen, 2020; Sakki, 2010). While these processes are intertwined, they each have their own characteristics and functions, and it is useful to separate them for analytic purposes (Sakki, 2010). Anchoring refers to the process whereby existing social representations are used to make sense of social phenomena (Moscovici, 1984). Social representations form a horizon of expectations through which social encounters are perceived. In addition to helping to make the unfamiliar familiar, anchoring may function as means of stigmatizing certain groups of people, objects, or phenomena by marginalizing them to the sphere of otherness (Kalampalikis and Haas, 2008).

Objectification refers to the process of externalization, whereby the abstract content of a social representation is expressed through symbolic (e.g., visual or verbal) forms. Social representations are abstract entities often operating beyond conscious awareness. In order to identify and study them, they must be externalized. Objectification is the process whereby the abstract contents of social representations are concretized (Moscovici, 1984). Objectification is a multilevel process consisting of stages of selection, schematization, and expression, through which the content of a social representation or, rather, some part of it is expressed in a tangible form (Jodelet, 2008; Sakki, 2010).

Naturalization is the third process of social representation, although some scholars regard it as the final stage of objectification (Jodelet, 2008). Naturalization conceptualizes the process in which certain social representations are repeated in diverse media, forms of communication, and social practices to the extent that their constructed nature is forgotten and they become taken for granted (Flick and Foster, 2010; Moscovici, 1984, 2008). These taken-for-granted social representations are often used beyond awareness and reflection (Moscovici, 1984).

Finally, the literature on social representations makes a distinction between three different levels from which social knowledge is approached. Ontogenesis refers to the ways social representations are activated and used at the individual level (i.e., when people make sense of social encounters or express them in their everyday practices). Microgenesis, in turn, conceptualizes the operation of social representations at the level of social interaction, where social representations are used to negotiate shared meanings and practices. Finally, sociogenesis refers to a societal level, where social representations are constructed, expressed, and modified, for example, in media and policy statements (Flick et al., 2015). The media importantly contributes to the process of naturalization; it provides an effective and fast means of repeating certain social representations and making them appear natural (Rouquette, 1996).

Prior research using visual means within social representations theory

Diverse visual materials have been used in social representations research, including photographs (Sarrica and Brondi, 2020); images provided by books, the press, and other forms of printed media (Hakoköngäs and Sakki, 2016; Martikainen, 2019a; Sakki, 2010); political cartoons (Moloney, 2007); internet memes (Hakoköngäs et al., 2020); and advertisements (Salelless and Romain, 2014). While uncommon, participant-created drawings have been used for studying social representations of mental illness (De Rosa, 1987), intelligence (Räty et al., 2012), racism (Howarth, 2007), teachership (Martikainen, 2019a, 2020), and locations, such as the city of Paris (Milgram and Jodelet, 1976). All of these studies used the drawing method in the process of objectification with the aim of making abstract social representations tangible. In addition, images were drawn individually, and the focus was on ontogenesis (how social representations manifest at the individual level).

Arruda (2015: 140) argued that drawings can provide more in-depth information about social representations than verbal accounts displaying “traces of archaic, utopian, mythical, fantastical and affective elements.” In her study on mental illness, De Rosa (1987) asked Italian participants to draw a picture of a mad person. She noticed that people suffering from mental illness were associated with stigmatizing visual features (such as horns) and that conceptions associated with them could be traced back to the images of demons in medieval church paintings. Hence, through the method of drawing, de Rosa indicated the deep-rooted cultural influences in modern people’s common-sense thinking.

Using a similar approach, Räty et al. (2012) studied social representations of intelligence and asked school children to draw an image of an intelligent person. They found that the idea of intelligence is related to certain visual characteristics and objects, such as eyeglasses and books. In addition, they found gendered conceptions of intelligence: whereas intelligent women were often depicted as schoolteachers, intelligent men were depicted as professors. Using a similar study design, Martikainen (2019a, 2020) asked students and teachers in upper secondary education to draw a picture of a typical teacher. The results showed that students generally regarded the typical teacher as strict and bored, whereas teachers depicted a typical teacher as a multitasking expert. It became evident that students’ social representations of teachership focused on the way teachers treat students and communicate with them, whereas teachers’ social representations of teachership emphasized knowledge-based expertise and a challenging profession. Hence, the drawings concretized the different common-sense understandings among students and teachers. These differences in social representations may problematize interactions at school.

Whereas Martikainen (2019a, 2020) asked participants to elucidate their drawings with writing, Howarth (2007) discussed the drawings with the participants (children) after the drawing session to understand the drawers’ aims and decisions. Similar to Arruda (2015) and Martikainen (2020), she found it important that participants talk about the meaning of the image in their own words but regarded discussion as a more suitable method of elucidation with children than writing or structured interviews. Because images are polysemous and open to multiple interpretations (Barthes, 1977), it is important to have first-hand knowledge from the creators, as perceivers may make sense of images using different social representations than the image maker (Arruda, 2015). This is particularly important when the participants are of a (notably) different age or when they come from a different cultural background than the researcher.

Visual research methods and drawing as a means of data production

Visual research methods

According to Rose (2014: 26), visual research methods refer to a wide range of research practices that “use visual materials of some kind as part of the process of generating evidence in order to explore research questions.” More specifically, visual research methods include both participant-driven approaches, whereby research participants produce visual data or discuss a research topic facilitated by images, and researcher-driven approaches, whereby researchers analyze different types of visual materials (Leavy, 2018; Rose, 2014). Regardless of the production method, visual images can be studied from three perspectives: the production of the image, the image itself, and the perception of the image (Mitchell et al., 2011; Rose, 2016). Recently, the scope of visual research methods has widened to also include practices through which visual images are used to express, elucidate, summarize, and disseminate research findings (Gameiro et al., 2018; Leavy, 2018). According to Leavy (2018) and Theron (2012), visual research methods are capable of both enriching research based on verbal material and enabling access to layers of knowledge and experience that are difficult to express in words.

One of the most important reasons for applying visual research methods is that visual materials have been found to address and appeal to participants’ (tacit) experiences and emotions (Leavy, 2018; McNiff, 2018), motivate them to share their experiences, and arouse a keen interest in hearing fellow participants’ experiences (Martikainen, 2018; Theron, 2012). In addition, people suffering from social anxieties as well as diverse marginalized and vulnerable groups may find it easier to express their thoughts and experiences visually than verbally (Gameiro et al., 2018; Literat, 2013). Prior research has also found that visual research methods may diminish the guidance of the researcher and their verbal concepts, thus breaking down the hierarchical relationship between researchers and participants to give participants more control over the research situation (Leavy, 2018; Literat, 2013; Mannay, 2010). The characteristics and benefits of visual research methods in general also apply to drawing as a method of data production.

Defining drawing

Lyon (2020) distinguished between three types of drawing: sketching, objective drawing, and subjective drawing. Sketching can be understood as searching a visual expression for certain ideas, emotions, and experiences. Objective drawing, in turn, privileges the rational and may refer to empirical and mimetic drawing designed to record visible objects. Finally, subjective drawing is understood primarily as expressive drawing in terms of dialogue with the self or communication with other people (Lyon, 2020; Sale and Betti, 2011). All the aforementioned types of drawing can be employed in research; however, we focus on subjective/expressive drawing as a means of participant-created data production designed to express and communicate participants’ thoughts, experiences, and emotions. In this kind of participatory approach, drawings are used to gain an understanding of how participants see the world (Guillemin, 2004; Lyon, 2020). In the framework of social representations theory, we are especially interested in exploring the socially constructed and shared ways individuals make sense of social reality.

The method of drawing is often understood as drawing lines to form the contours of objects, people, and environments. However, drawing also includes coloring techniques in terms of filling in those contours with different types of lines. Together these lines form the plane and texture of the image (Kandinsky, 1979). The lines can be coherent, dotted, thin, thick, straight, curvy, and have different colors. In addition, they can produce round, angular, regular, irregular, horizontal, and vertical forms, all of which contribute to the meaning of the image. Similarly, the arrangement of drawn elements—known as composition—communicates meanings (Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006). Drawing can produce not only two-dimensional images but also three-dimensional images since lines can be used to express distance, relation, and light/shadow, creating the impression of depth (Lyon, 2020). The abovementioned possibilities allow the drawer to visualize not only the subject matter but also their stance or emotional relation to the subject matter. Hence, similar to other visual images, drawings are not limited to the communication of the denotative (literal) meaning but are capable of communicating connotative (associative, context specific, and culture specific) meanings (Barthes, 1977; Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006).

Drawing can be used to produce both realistic and abstract images (Lyon, 2020). In addition, artists may use diverse improvised and spontaneous techniques, such as automatic or associative drawing, with the aim of reducing guidance from pre-existing mental images and bypassing conscious decision making (Bullen et al., 2017; Maclagan, 2014). Images may even be produced accidentally through a range of unintentional processes (Gamboni, 2002). Drawing enables people to customize the habitual form of visual encounters and create imaginative forms, shapes, and objects to better express their ideas, thoughts, and emotions (Mitchell, 1996, 2008). In the social representations approach, we understand drawing as a process of meaning construction (Literat, 2013; Mitchell et al., 2011), intertwining subjective experiences with social and cultural meanings (Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006).

Drawing as reflection and expression

Berger (2007) suggested that drawing is an innate way for people to communicate and express themselves. Similarly, Petherbridge (2010) argued that drawing is the basis of visual thinking. However, several studies have suggested that drawing might not be such a convenient way for contemporary people to express themselves and that research participants may hesitate to express themselves through drawing (Lyon, 2020; Martikainen, 2018). In fact, Mannay (2010, 2016) argued that drawing is not a method normally used by contemporary people for reflecting and expressing their everyday experiences but, in her view, it is precisely this uncommonness of drawing as a method of reflection that speaks to its application in research. Mannay (2010, 2016) suggested that drawing distances people from their everyday attitudes and lives, promoting self-reflection and awareness. However, Berger’s (2007) and Mannay’s (2010) conceptions do not have to be mutually exclusive. Being an archaic method of expression (Berger, 2007), drawing may still connect people with unconscious and unrecognized layers of humanness and provide them with means of getting in touch with thoughts and emotions they find difficult to verbalize or might not even be aware of.

Drawing is a physical act of creation involving bodily engagement with the environment and materials (Knight et al., 2015; Literat, 2013). Hence, the techniques and materials used in drawing as well as the embodied, kinesthetic, and other sensory experiences activated through drawing contribute to the visual outcome and its meaning (Bullen et al., 2017; Mitchell, 1996, 2008; Rose, 2016). It is this “negotiation” between drawers’ (social) cognition and embodied, kinesthetic, and sensory experiences generated during the act of drawing that makes drawing an emergent process for articulating tacit layers of experience and knowledge (Bullen et al., 2017; Maclagan, 2014).

When discussing drawing as a means of data production in social representations research, it is important to understand that the artistic quality of the drawings and participants’ drawing skills are secondary. However, since not all participants may be comfortable with drawing, several scholars recommend that researchers make it clear that drawing skills are not of primary importance (Lyon, 2020; Mitchell et al., 2011; Rose, 2014). What matters is that the participants reflect on the research topic using a visual means of expression (Mitchell et al., 2011). For instance, Lyon (2020) and Martikainen (2018) found that once the doubts related to drawing skills were acknowledged and the purpose/function of the drawing clarified, all participants commenced drawing and seemed to forget their initial anxieties.

When researchers aim to inquire into participants’ intentions, thoughts, and experiences, the drawing method tends to be accompanied by speaking or writing activities whereby the participants elucidate their drawings (Lyon, 2020; Theron, 2012). The purpose of this “draw-and-write” or “draw-and-talk” method is to ensure that the participants’ intentions and meanings are the focus of the analysis (Mitchell et al., 2011; Rose, 2014). Drawers’ elucidation about their motives and intentions may be important for revealing dimensions of meaning that are difficult to derive from drawings alone using researcher-driven visual analysis (Rose, 2016).

Drawing as a social process

Drawing does not have to be an individual procedure. For instance, Knight et al. (2015) applied a collaborative drawing method with children and youth as a means of sharing experiences and constructing intergenerational understanding between children, youth, and the researchers themselves. Their method included both drawing and talking about drawings, and they noticed how “the act of drawing with others could make ideas, thoughts and theorizations visible, as well as aspects of their diverse experiences and histories” and how “drawings sometimes became a mediating tool to support understanding of the collective ideas behind the images” (Knight et al., 2015: 25).

Rogers (2008), in turn, developed a dialogic drawing approach whereby the researcher draws together with the research participants as a form of conversation using visual means of expression. Dialogic drawing aims at constructing shared experiences and collaborative meaning and, hence, the process of drawing together is as important as the outcome. In this approach, drawing appears as a collaborative form of visual thinking by which the drawers negotiate not only the meanings but also their roles and relations using visual means. Hence, dialogic drawing includes reflection on the topic, drawers’ own ideas and experiences about the topic, drawers’ relation to other drawers, and the ideas and experiences they express. In the collaborative approach, drawing is a social practice by which knowledge is constructed (Guillemin, 2004). Individually created drawings can serve as starting points for collaborative meaning construction, with participants discussing and reflecting on the thoughts, experiences, and emotions generated by the drawings made by other participants (Gameiro et al., 2018; Literat, 2013; Theron, 2012).

Participatory drawing can be fruitfully applied in community development projects because it is a low-threshold method of expression that does not necessitate complex technical skills and facilitates communication between people of different backgrounds (Gameiro et al., 2018; Literat, 2013). According to Literat (2013), participatory drawing is an inclusive and interactive way to break down the hierarchy between researchers and participants and provide potential for self- and collective empowerment. In addition, drawing and reflection on drawings may teach participants how to comprehend the visual world around them and contribute to the development of visual literacy skills (Turkmenoglu, 2012).

Drawing from the perspective of social representations

Drawing as a process of objectification

Within social representations theory, we relate drawing mainly to the process of objectification for expressing social representations in a visual form (Hakoköngäs and Sakki, 2016). That being said, we also regard drawing as a process of meaning construction in terms of continuous cycles of anchoring and objectification (Martikainen, 2020). As Stocchetti (2017) argued, meaning is not a feature of the image itself but rather the outcome of anchoring.

Common sense is shapeless and devoid of material form, and ordinarily people are not aware of the social representations that influence their thoughts, actions, and emotions in their everyday practices and communication (Moscovici, 1984). In order to become aware of social representations, we need practices through which values and ideas on a certain topic can be materialized and made tangible (Moscovici, 1984, 2008). Drawing is one such method. For example, in order to study social representations of intelligence, Räty et al. (2012) asked school children to draw images of “an intelligent person and an ordinary person.”

In the participatory approach, the visual tangibility of drawings may motivate and engage participants to reflect on their thoughts and experiences, enabling a more nuanced understanding of social representations. The ability of drawing to concretize social representations is especially fruitful when studying and comparing social representations between groups or people (Martikainen, 2019a, 2020). As Martikainen (2019a) showed, drawings may concretize the differences between social representations that might problematize interaction.

Hence, we do not regard drawing as a linear process whereby the drawer proceeds from mentally constructed meanings and mental images to their mechanic externalizing in a visual form. Rather, we understand drawing as an evolving process of meaning construction (Guillemin, 2004; Literat, 2013; Mitchell et al., 2011) whereby the act of drawing, materials, and tools used as well as the emerging image itself—as forms of “visual thinking” (Arnheim, 1969)—contribute to the meaning and content of the final drawing (Mitchell, 1996, 2008; Rose, 2016). According to Mannay (2010, 2016), drawing as a method of meaning construction can make familiar things appear unfamiliar, which helps to recognize habitual ways of thinking and acting (see Kalampalikis and Haas, 2008). Simultaneously, the systems of ideas, norms, and values—in other words, social representations (Moscovici, 1973)—maintaining the habitual thought and behavior become observable targets of critical reflection.

The fluctuation between the mental and visual furnishes drawing with emergent dimensions, and the outcome of drawing cannot be fully known in advance (Bullen et al., 2017; Knight et al., 2015; Lyon, 2020). The evolving quality of drawing makes it a forum through which tacit and hidden layers of social representations may become expressible (Arruda, 2015). Hence, drawing may create possibilities for the articulation of naturalized social representations beyond the drawers’ conscious awareness (De Rosa, 2014). Once concretized and materialized in a visual form, critical reflection on these conceptions becomes possible. For this reason, drawing may contribute to social representations theory as the theory of social change (Howarth et al., 2013; Sakki et al., 2017) by showing hidden power relations or harmful ideas regarding a certain group.

When employing and constructing social representations, we are part of the material and social world (Moscovici, 1973) and act as rational, emotional, mental, and corporeal beings. Visual images and their production and perception cluster diverse dimensions of knowing and experiences: rational, emotional, visual, sensory, affective, embodied, conscious, and unconscious (Bullen et al., 2017; Mitchell, 2008). Hence, drawing may provide an insight into the multisensory, multimaterial, and multimodal layers of knowledge and experience we are immersed in in our everyday lives but which are challenging to observe using “traditional” methods like interviews. Drawing may also enrich our understanding of embodied social representations (O’Connor, 2016; Wagner, 2017) because (manual) drawing is an embodied activity and because images and vision are closely connected with embodied, kinesthetic, and sensory experiences (Bullen et al., 2017; Mitchell, 1996, 2008). This article has mainly discussed drawing carried out in a small scale (i.e., on a sheet of paper), which is an embodied practice (Bullen et al., 2017). However, there are also methods of drawing that include movement (Maclagan, 2014). These approaches to drawing as action and movement may appeal more profoundly to embodied dimensions of knowledge neglected in the research of social representations thus far.

Visual images are polysemous and open to multiple interpretations (Mitchell et al., 2011; Rose, 2016). Based on prior studies (e.g., Arruda, 2015; Howarth, 2007; Martikainen, 2019a, 2020), it is preferable for drawings to be accompanied by their creators’ spoken or written elucidation. However, Rose (2016) noted the importance of including three levels of interpretation—the image maker (production), image (drawing), and researcher (perception)—in the analysis. Thus, it is important that images be analyzed not only in light of the explanations given by the drawers. Instead, a researcher-driven analysis of the image based on its visual features (e.g., compositional analysis and content analysis) and participant-driven analysis based on drawers’ explanations should be combined. Comparing these two levels may reveal incongruences and discrepancies between social representations expressed visually and verbally, which in turn may help the researcher recognize tacit—and even socially inappropriate—layers of social representations (Martikainen, 2019a). Hence, drawing and language-based methods may complement each other and contribute to a more nuanced interpretation of the topic of research.

Finally, drawings can serve as a means of studying themata forming the figurative nucleus of social representations. Regarding the term figurative, Moscovici (2001) referred to both mental and material images. Moscovici’s message was that social representations are not only verbally expressible entities but also based on images. Following Berger’s (2007: 109) notion of drawing as being “as fundamental to the energy which makes us human as singing and dancing,” it is tempting to suggest that drawing and other visual means of expression could capture the essence of figurative themata in greater detail than words.

Drawing as a means of studying cognitive polyphasia

From the perspective of social representations research, we understand cognitive polyphasia not only in terms of people having different social representations about a particular topic (Jovchelovitch, 2008; Moscovici, 1998) but also in terms of research designs enabling the participants to express various and even contradictory social representations. Drawing as a means of data production has the potentiality to facilitate the expression of diverse and unexpected ideas, points of view, and social representations (Martikainen, 2019a). In order to study social representations of teachership, Martikainen (2019a) asked students and teachers in upper secondary education to draw an image of “a typical teacher.” The findings showed that students’ and teachers’ social representations of teachership differed substantially from each other. In addition, the study showed that both groups of participants had multiple social representations of teachership.

Study designs in which participants were asked to draw a picture related to a research topic without detailed guidelines allowed the participants more spontaneity and freedom to communicate their experiences as well as control over the content they wanted to express (Arruda, 2015; Howarth, 2007) compared to word-based means. Unlike surveys and interviews containing detailed questions, drawing can reduce the guidance and influence of the researcher (Leavy, 2018).

Drawing can be used as a research method in both participant-driven and researcher-driven approaches (Hurdley, 2018). For instance, Taussig (2011) used drawing as a method of making notes in anthropological fieldwork, and Heath et al. (2018) used observational sketching as a tool in social science research. Very often drawing is used as an inclusive and participatory method (Literat, 2013) that facilitates the participation of groups of people who find it difficult to express their conception in words, such as children, people from different cultural and language backgrounds, and vulnerable and marginalized groups (Gameiro et al., 2018; Howarth, 2007; Literat, 2013). It is important to increase the variety of means of expression used in social representations research because it facilitates the participation of more diverse people in research. Drawing may unfold layers of social representations that are difficult, or even impossible, to put into words (De Rosa, 1987; Räty et al., 2012). Drawing can also enable mapping of polemic and empowered social representations that are overshadowed by hegemonic social representations and operate at an embodied level beyond the scope of rational thought and its verbal articulation.

Drawing as means of studying ontogenesis, microgenesis, and sociogenesis

When drawing is done individually, it can be used to explore how and which social representations are activated and used at the level of ontogenesis (Flick et al., 2015). Although articulated by individual people, the theory of social representations does not regard meanings as products of an individual mind (Flick et al., 2015; Sammut, 2015). Since social representations are social constructions, an individual’s drawings are understood to communicate socially shared conceptions capable of informing us about socially shared common-sense understanding. Martikainen's (2019a) study on social representations of teachership and Räty et al.’s (2012) study on social representations of intelligence serve as examples; they studied culturally shared social representations through drawings made by individual participants.

However, drawing can also be a collaborative practice (Guillemin, 2004; Knight et al., 2015; Theron, 2012). Firstly, drawings made by individual drawers can form a basis for collaborative meaning construction by having the drawers share and elaborate their drawings and reflect on each other’s drawings and the thoughts, experiences, and emotions generated by them. Secondly, drawing can be conducted collaboratively as a group assignment comparable to a group interview. From the perspective of social representations theory, collaborative drawing provides a method for people to share and express social representations and negotiate them by deciding which social representations are expressed visually. In this sense, both collaborative modes of drawing can be related to microgenesis, conceptualizing the operation of social representations at the level of social interaction (Flick et al., 2015). In their study based on collaborative drawing, Knight et al. (2015: 26) reported that “Ideas and concepts were sometimes thought about before marks were made on the paper; at other times, this occurred simultaneously; and in other instances still, concepts became apparent or understood after drawing.” Thus, collaborative drawing is capable of producing new and unexpected understandings of the topic. For this reason, the method seems promising in terms of social representations, echoing Ganesh’s (2011) notion that drawing may allow for defining and redefining shared beliefs held by society.

Finally, exploring and comparing drawings made by larger groups of people may give insight into sociogenesis in terms of showing the influence of images circulating in society (Flick et al., 2015). De Rosa’s (1987) study on the social representations of mental illness based on drawings serves as an example; the drawings revealed that historical paintings typical to a cultural context (Italy) influenced the participants’ depictions of mentally ill people at the present.

Limitations of using drawing in social representations research

Although drawing can function as a starting point for verbal data production, it can also and should be used as research material. In the case of group research, some researchers may assume responsibility for analyzing the drawings, while others may focus on the verbal data. This necessitates the researchers having a theoretical understanding of drawing and its meaningfulness in the study and having familiarized themselves with the principles of visual expression as well as methods suitable for analyzing visual images (e.g., Lyon, 2020; Rose, 2016). It is also advisable for researchers themselves to try out any drawing activities they intend to ask their participants to undertake (Lyon, 2020; Mitchell et al., 2011). Regarding researchers’ drawing skills, Lyon (2020) argued that if participants are not expected to have special drawing skills, neither should researchers. In addition, it is advisable to recruit an artist or art pedagogy expert to lead the drawing sessions.

As Theron (2012: 387) pointed out, drawing is not “an emotionally neutral methodology,” and it necessitates sensitive application. Visual materials and methods can strongly appeal to emotions and experiences, some of which might include difficult and even traumatic aspects. Thus, it is important to inform participants about the possible risks inherent in their participation (Theron, 2012). Especially when dealing with sensitive topics that might trigger painful memories (see Howarth, 2007), researchers should prepare themselves in advance, collaborate with pedagogy and visual expression experts, and refer the participants to local professionals (Theron, 2012). Similar precautions are relevant regardless of the means of data production. Researchers also participate in the research situation and may deeply associate themselves with participants’ distress. In such cases, they might also benefit from the opportunity for debriefing (Mitchell et al., 2011; Theron, 2012).

Even though drawing is often considered a participatory and inclusive research method that may facilitate the participation of diverse groups of people in research, it is important to be aware that some participants may not be comfortable with drawing and may doubt their drawing skills. Therefore, it is important that researchers reassure participants that drawing skills are secondary (Mitchell et al., 2011). The primary function of drawing in social representations research is to provide participants with a means of expression other than mere verbal expression, since some layers of meaning related to a particular idea or phenomenon may be difficult to put into words (Leavy, 2018).

Since the purpose of participatory social representations research is to understand how participants understand and make sense of social encounters, it is important that participants elucidate their drawings verbally. Even though the visual may not be fully verbalized (McNiff, 2018), we suggest that drawing combined with verbal elucidation may significantly diversify our understanding of social representations. In this sense, the drawing method may enrich other, more “traditional” research methods, such as interviews and thematic writing assignments, in social representations research. If previous qualitative social representations research is considered to have drawn much from the linguistic turn, applying the drawing method in the future could serve as a means to develop research in this field to answer to the questions raised by material, visual, emotional, affective, and embodied turns (e.g., Boxenbaum et al., 2018; Clough, 2007; Mitchell, 1994).

Another aspect worth considering is how the researchers account for participants’ behavior during the drawing assignment as well as the circumstances in which the drawings are made (Lyon, 2020). Martikainen (2018) suggested that it could be beneficial to videotape the drawing sessions since participant behavior may contribute valuable information regarding both the contents of the drawing and participants’ relation to the research topic. However, the issue of anonymity must be considered when using recordings.

Conclusions

This paper discussed drawing as a means of data production in social representations research by elaborating on the theory of social representations, visual research methods, and how and why drawing could be used in social representations research. Building on prior research on social representation, we explored drawing as a method and emphasized that it is not merely an act of transferring mental images onto paper but of constructing meaning, in which the visual and kinesthetic qualities of the process contribute to the image and its contents. This understanding provides affordance for affective, sensory, and embodied dimensions of social knowledge to come into play. Based on these qualities, drawing may diversify our understanding of social representations beyond the scope of mere verbal research materials and methods of data production.

In addition, as an inclusive and participatory method, drawing can enable the participation of more diverse groups of people in research, thus enriching our understanding of the diversity of social representations and relations between hegemonic, polemic, and emancipated conceptions. Finally, the visual tangibility of drawings may help highlight differences in people’s ideas, values, and norms that might problematize social interaction and hinder a sense of communality.