Findings in social work research are often disseminated in a manner that excludes the subjects of that research. In the SHINE for Kids – MyLifeNow research collaboration between a social work researcher, a communication design researcher and communication design students, research findings were animated in a variety of styles for distribution by the charitable organization. SHINE for Kids is a non-profit organization that assists and advocates for children with parents in prison. Transcripts of social work interviews with the children were modified into screenplays to be animated by communication design students. The animated documentary has advantages over the expository documentary mode, including protecting the identity of the subject and creating an affective video that constitutes a dual-process model of entertainment providing for a more socially connected pleasure.
AskaniusT.UldamJ. (2011) Online social media for radical politics: Climate change activism on YouTube. International Journal of Electronic Governance4(1/2): 69–84.
2.
BartlettR. (2013) Playing with meaning: Using cartoons to disseminate research findings. Qualitative Research13(2): 214–227.
3.
BartschA.SchneiderF. (2014) Entertainment and politics revisited: How non-escapist forms of entertainment can stimulate political interest and information seeking. Journal of Communication64: 369–396.
4.
BrimblecombeN.S.StevensB.HuM. (2014) Tales from social care, Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science. Available at: http://issuu.com/pssrulse/docs/tales_from_social_care (accessed 21 April 2015).
5.
BrownK. (2001) ‘No-one’s Ever Asked Me’: Young People with a Prisoner in the Family. London: Action for Prisoners’ Families.
6.
BurgessJGreenJ. (2013) YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Cambridge: John Wiley.
7.
ChambonA. (2008) Social work and the arts: Critical imagination. In: KnowlesJ.ColeA. (eds) Handbook of the Arts in Qualitative Research. London: Sage, 591–602.
8.
CunninghamA.BakerL. (2003) Waiting for Mommy: Giving a Voice to the Hidden Victims of Imprisonment. London, Ontario: Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System.
9.
DallaireD.H. (2007) Incarcerated mothers and fathers: A comparison of risks for children and families. Family Relations56(5): 440–453.
10.
DaviesH.T.O.PowellA.E. (2012) Communicating research finding more effectively: What we can learn from other fields. Evidence and Policy8(2): 213–233.
11.
Economic and Social Research Council (2014) Available at: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ (accessed 4 December 2014).
12.
FerrisL.E.Sass-KortsakA. (2011) Sharing research findings with research participants and communities. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine2(3): 172–181.
13.
FlynnC.SaundersV. (2015) Research with children of prisoners: Bringing them in from the margins. In: BastienS.HolmarsdottirH.-B. (eds) Youth at the Margins: Experiences from Engaging Youth in Research Worldwide. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 219–240.
14.
FlynnC.A. (2012) Caring for children of imprisoned mothers: Exploring the role of fathers. Child Abuse Review21(4): 285–298.
15.
FlynnC.A. (2013) Mothers facing imprisonment: Arranging care for their adolescent children. Women and Criminal Justice23(1): 43–62.
16.
FlynnC.A. (2014) Getting there and being there: Visits to prisons in Victoria – the experiences of women prisoners and their children. Probation Journal61(2): 176–191.
17.
GallagherM. (2009) Ethics. In: TisdallEKMet al. (eds) Researching with Children and Young People: Research Design, Methods and Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 11–28.
18.
GambleA.FullerM. (2009) The Common Ground: A Contemporary Exploration of the Ways We Think About Land (self-published).
19.
GhannamJ. (2011) Social media in the Arab world: Leading up to the uprisings of 2011. Center for International Media Assistance3.
20.
GuilleminM.GillamL. (2004) Ethics, reflexivity, and ‘ethically important moments’ in research. Qualitative Inquiry10(2): 261–280.
21.
GursanskyD.et al. (1998) Who’s Minding the kids? Developing Coordinated Services for Children Whose Mothers Are Imprisoned. Social Policy Research Group, University of South Australia, Adelaide.
22.
GwiltIWilliamsJ. (2011) Framing futures for visual communication design research. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal5(5): 81–98.
HuebnerB.M.GustafsonR. (2007) The effect of maternal incarceration on adult offspring involvement in the criminal justice system. Journal of Criminal Justice35: 283–296.
JenkinsH. (2009) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
KampfnerC.J. (1995) Post-traumatic stress reactions in children of imprisoned mothers. In: GabelK.JohnstonD. (eds) Children of Incarcerated Parents. New York: Lexington Books, 89–102.
28.
KensingF.BlombergJ. (1998) Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)7(3/4): 167–185.
29.
MacKenzieC.ChristensenJ.TurnerS. (2013) Advocating beyond the academy: Dilemmas of communicating relevant research results. Qualitative Research15(1): 105–121.
30.
MacLeanS.WarrD.PyettP. (2009) ‘Was it good for you too?’ Impediments to conducting university-based collaborative research with communities experiencing disadvantage. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health33(5): 407–412.
31.
MargolinV.MargolinS. (2002) A ‘social model’ of design: Issues of practice and research. Design Issues18(4): 24–29.
32.
McArthurM.WinkworthG. (2013) Powerful evidence: Changing policy and practice through research. Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal35: 41–53 (online).
33.
McCrickardR.FlynnC. (2015) Responding to children of prisoners: The views of education professionals in Victoria. Children Australia. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cha.2015.15 (accessed 9 November 2015).
34.
McCullochC.MorrisonC. (2002) Teenagers with a Family Member in Prison. Edinburgh: Scottish Forum on Prisons and Families.
MorelliN. (2007) Social innovation and new industrial contexts: Can designers ‘industrialize’ socially responsible solutions?Design Issues23(4): 3–21.
37.
MortonSPhippsDNutleyS (2012) Using research to influence family services and policies: Issues and challenges. Families, Relationships and Societies1(2): 243–253.
38.
MyersB.J.et al. (1999) Children of incarcerated mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies8(1): 11–25.
39.
NicholsB. (2001) Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
40.
PyettPWaples-CroweP.Van der SterrenA. (2013) Collaborative participatory research with disadvantaged communities. In: LiamputtongP (ed.) Research Methods in Health: Foundations for Evidence Based Practice, 2nd edn.London: Oxford University Press, 344–362.
ShonkoffJ.P. (2000) Science, policy, and practice: Three cultures in search of a shared mission. Child Development71(1): 181–187.
44.
SligoFXTilleyE (2011) When words fail us: Using visual composites in research reporting. Visual Communication10(1): 63–85.
45.
SpinuzziC. (2005) The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication52(2): 163–174.
46.
ThyerB.A. (2001) The Handbook of Social Work Research Methods. London: Sage.
47.
VaughnN.et al. (2013) Digital animation as a method to disseminate research findings to the community using a community-based participatory approach. American Journal of Psychology51: 30–42.
48.
WallackL.et al. (1993) Media Advocacy and Public Health: Power for Intervention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
