Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Researchers are increasingly using participatory visual methods (PVM) to gain a deeper understanding of newcomer children’s experiences, sense of identity, relationships, needs, strengths, and aspirations. By taking photos, producing digital stories, creating maps, drawing, sculpting, and other visual-based practices, children can help us understand how they navigate their complex worlds. We conducted a scoping review to explore what is known about participatory visual research with newcomer children. We searched nine databases, screened 692 articles, and included 21 articles for synthesis and analysis. Five common and connected areas were identified as important for consideration when envisioning, planning, and conducting this type of research with newcomer children: PVM provides an opportunity for children to communicate complex feelings and disrupt deficit discourse; participation in PVM research is highly dependent on varying cultural, economic, and relational factors; providing a range and choice of data collection activities permits deeper engagement and higher quality data; PVM can enhance meaningful engagement, reduce power asymmetry, and engender confidence and self-awareness; developing and sustaining trusted relationships are integral to the research process. The review reveals the need for more researcher reflexivity with an explicit attention to assumptions, values, and ethical considerations and suggests opportunities for researchers to better ensure newcomer children can share and shape their own stories.

Keywords

arts-based methods methods in qualitative inquiry PAR—participatory action research photo elicitation photovoice qualitative meta-analysis/synthesis

Introduction

Around the world, unprecedented numbers of people are moving across international borders in search of safe homes with opportunities—some go by choice, though many go by force (United Nations Refugees and Migrants, 2016). Having moved away from established ways of knowing and from familiar places, people, and resources, newcomers must negotiate new information, social, and cultural landscapes to interpret surroundings, access relevant supports, and make meaningful choices and decisions (Caidi & Allard, 2005; Caidi et al., 2010; Lloyd, 2006).

For many newcomer families, children play a pivotal role in supporting settlement processes (Alvarez, 2017; Bauer, 2016). Often the first to develop new language skills and acquire cultural familiarity, children frequently act as brokers or mediators of information, language, and culture for their families and communities (Bauer, 2016; Dorner et al., 2008; Kam & Lazarevic, 2014; Martinez et al., 2009; Orellana & Phoenix, 2017). They simultaneously experience the resettlement and integration challenges associated with migration and those associated with childhood development (Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009). Alongside these challenges, newcomer children demonstrate tremendous resilience (Didkowsky et al., 2010; Oh, 2012; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009). Until recently, the majority of the scientific literature on newcomers has focused on adults or youth, leaving children’s perspectives in the periphery (Zayas et al., 2017). When rarely asked to share their perspectives, it is usually in an effort to address a problem or concern; children are positioned as vulnerable and in need of saving (Ajodhia-Andrews, 2016; Liebel, 2017). Much research and practice continues to deny children agency and to “overlook the fact that childhood is a socially constructed phenomenon that changes over time and takes on different forms with varying expectations and actions, depending on historical, societal and cultural contexts” (Liebel, 2017, p. 79). Researchers are increasingly using participatory visual methods (PVM) with newcomer children to give them greater control in sharing with us a deeper understanding of newcomer children’s experiences, their sense of identity and belonging, their relationships, strengths, and aspirations (Moskal, 2017).

Through involvement in participatory visual research, children have an opportunity to document their experiences and critically reflect on the forces that influence those experiences. Positioning children not simply as objects of research but as collaborators in inquiry aligns with the value of children as competent social actors who both shape and are shaped by their environment (Clark, 2017; Mason & Danby, 2011; Montreuil & Carnevale, 2016; Morrow, 2008, James et al., 1998). Child-centered research methods have been criticized for their limiting focus on individual children’s perceptions, with insufficient account for the social, economic, environmental, and political contexts (Ansell, 2009; Spyrou et al., 2018). Researchers using PVM counter that visual tools can meaningfully uncover children’s perspectives on those wider circumstances (Ansell, 2009; White & Bushin, 2011). Although the actual level of participation varies across projects, participatory methods can provide space and tools for children to guide research design, interpret findings, and lead sharing results (Bishop, 2014; Cahill & Dadvand, 2018).

Incorporating visual methods within participatory research provides an opportunity for children to explore, pose questions, reflect, interpret, and share findings and implications (Clark, 2010; Lodge, 2009; Schäfer, 2012). Visual methods are among the most compelling ways children have for expressing what they experience; they allow meaningful engagement among children who might find it challenging to use more traditional research tools like interviews or surveys and for those who may not share proficiency in the same language as the researchers (Barley & Russell, 2019; Didkowsky et al., 2010; Vecchio et al., 2017). By taking photos, producing digital stories, creating maps, drawing, sculpting, and other visual-based practices, children can help us understand how they navigate their world (Clark, 2010; Lomax, 2012; Strack et al., 2004; Thomson, 2009). Despite the purported benefits of PVM, there is still considerable uncertainty among researchers about how to optimally provide meaningful opportunities for involving children, especially newcomer children. The aim of this scoping review was thus to systematically map how PVM have been used in research with newcomer children. It is our hope that this article will highlight useful areas for consideration when envisioning, planning, and conducting this type of research with newcomer children.

Method

Scoping reviews address an exploratory research question by systematically searching, selecting, and synthesizing a wide range of literature to determine the breadth of evidence on a particular topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010; Peterson et al., 2017). They are a form of knowledge synthesis that clarifies key concepts and related characteristics, examines how research is conducted, identifies gaps in the literature, and scopes or maps a body of literature with relevance to time, location, source, method, and origin (Levac et al., 2010). Given the emergent nature of participatory visual research methods with newcomer children, it was deemed appropriate to map and summarize what was known about their use, uncover key concepts, and identify gaps in the literature. This scoping review was conducted using the five-stage framework described by Arksey and O’Malley (2005): identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, selecting the studies, charting the data, and collating, summarizing, and reporting the results.

Identifying the Research Question

The question used to guide this scoping review, “What is known about how participatory visual research methods are used with newcomer children?” was developed with a sufficiently broad scope to ensure a wide range of literature would be identified (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). For the purpose of this review, “participatory visual methods” is an umbrella term capturing a broad range of methods including, but not limited to, the use of drawing, photography, digital storytelling, or mapping to share stories in a visual narrative (Richards, 2011). Newcomer children are likewise defined broadly, encompassing those under 18 who have moved from their country of origin for any reason (UNICEF, 2017).

Identifying Relevant Studies

Supported by the library science expertise of one author, we designed a sensitive search strategy to identify relevant studies for inclusion in the analysis and synthesis. Guided by the research question, we developed a list of search terms associated with the study population (e.g., immigrant children, newcomer children, refugee children, migrant children, asylum seeker children) combined with the study methods (e.g., visual participatory research, visual participatory methods, photo elicitation, photovoice, digital storytelling, drawing, map-making, arts-based methods). The terms were searched as key words, topics, and subject headings. We searched the electronic bibliographic databases Academic Search Premier, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, CINAHL Plus, Education Research Complete, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycArticles, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX. Given our research topic, these databases were selected to focus our review on research published in the sociology, education, psychology, sociology, and health literature.

Study Selection

As familiarity with the literature evolved, an iterative process was used to establish inclusion and exclusion criteria (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Studies were included for consideration if they were peer-reviewed, English-language, and used visual participatory methods with newcomer children (exclusively or in combination with other approaches). We made a distinction between studies exploring PVM within interventions, therapies, or academic programs and studies exploring PVM for research; we included only those studies exploring PVM as research. Studies were excluded if the primary participants were youth and did not include children younger than 16. Studies were also excluded if there was no discussion regarding outcomes of newcomer children’s participation in the research or little description of the methods, context, or ethical considerations. Note, articles did not have to include a robust discussion of all these elements to be included (i.e., if an article articulated well the outcomes of newcomer children participation but did not fully address ethical considerations, it was still included). Finally, articles were excluded if they did not report original research (e.g., discussion papers, book reviews, conference proceedings); review articles were not included, though their reference lists were hand-searched.

Titles and abstracts of all 605 articles identified by database searching were screened to determine whether they would be considered for a full text review. The full texts of 117 articles were reviewed independently by two authors, against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In total, 21 articles were included in the final review. This process is represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Flowchart depicting search results and exclusions.

Charting the Data

For studies that met the inclusion criteria, two authors independently and systematically extracted, charted, and tabulated relevant data using an extraction form with categories related to key study characteristics and those that best answered the research question: author(s), publication year, and location; method, design, and sample; benefits; facilitators; barriers; and ethical implications (Levac et al., 2010). The extracted data are as reported in the included original articles. Our charting is presented in Table 1 as Online Appendix.

Summarizing, Collating, and Reporting the Findings

Arksey and O’Malley (2005) propose findings be reported in a structured narrative, providing an overview of the reviewed literature to answer the research question. Key findings from the extracted data were thematically analyzed using the six-step process described by Braun & Clarke (2012): familiarization of data, initial coding, generating themes, validity and reliability of themes, defining and naming of themes, and interpretation and reporting. We identified common themes and subthemes in the reviewed literature and have categorized them across five broad areas that describe the current use of participatory visual research with newcomer children: voice and perspective, context, process, positioning, and relationships.

Results

Results of our scoping review include both a descriptive numerical summary and a thematic analysis, based on our research question (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005).

Descriptive Numerical Summary

Of the 21 articles that met our inclusion criteria, about half (n = 10) were published in the last 5 years and the earliest was published in 2007. The greatest number of articles reported research from Canada (n = 6), followed by United States (n = 5) and England (n = 3). There were two articles set in Italy and Australia and one each set in the Netherlands, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Sweden, Thailand, and Ghana. The peer-reviewed articles were from a broad range of disciplines including education, occupational therapy, human geography, sociology, anthropology, psychology, health, communication, and social work.

The reviewed articles included populations of children between the ages of 4 and 18 with refugee experience, immigrant children with disabilities, and those with a variety of immigration statuses including undocumented and unaccompanied. Many researchers offered children a choice of research arts-based, visual activities. In most of the reviewed articles, photography (n = 15) was used as a primary data collection tool and entry point for reflection and discussion. A range of additional visual methods were used including drawing, book creation, map-making, emoticons, video production, embroidery, board game creation, painting, and collage. All the included research reported participatory data collection, while the majority (n = 14) also involved children in the data analysis. Nine of the included studies involved children in knowledge mobilization activities (most often a public exhibit of their photography or art), while only three explicitly engaged children in the development of the research design.

Major Themes

The overall aim of this scoping review was to highlight useful areas for consideration when envisioning, planning, and conducting PVM research with newcomer children to better ensure their meaningful engagement. Therefore, in addition to displaying the general characteristics of the included articles (e.g., author, publication date, setting, purpose, design, and method), we found it useful to map and analyze the articles’ reported benefits and methodological characteristics including facilitators, barriers or limitations, and ethical implications. In charting and analyzing the key methodological findings of the reviewed articles, we identified five common and connected themes on the use of participatory visual research with newcomer children. The evidence for each domain is described below.

PVM Can Support Access to Newcomer Children’s Voices and Perspectives

Woven through each of the included articles is the recognition that a key benefit of PVM with newcomer children is its powerful capacity to reveal children’s experiences from their own point of view. Roxas et al. (2017) contend researchers do not “give” children a voice; they already have one. Like other groups pushed to the margins of society, newcomer children have often had their voices systematically ignored (Roxas et al., 2017). Nor do newcomer children speak with one voice; their range of experiences and perspectives is vast (White et al., 2010). Researchers are nonetheless well positioned to facilitate access to newcomer children’s voice, consider the range of varying experiences and perspectives, and strive to ensure children are heard by those who can influence their well-being (Ajodhia-Andrews, 2016).

Nearly every study reviewed highlighted how the visual artifacts created through the participatory visual research process serve as powerful entry points for children to communicate abstract, complex, and even contradictory feelings and experiences (e.g., bullying, inclusion, or hope) that might be difficult to share through more traditional means like interviews (Ajodhia-Andrews, 2016; Evans, 2011; Liamputtong & Fernandes, 2015). Additionally, photographs or drawings can trigger new memories or different lines of contemplation and sometimes surface issues or lines of inquiry not initially identified by the researchers (Liamputtong & Fernandes, 2015; Luttrell, 2010). Several of the reviewed studies emphasized that genuine, participatory data analysis is necessary to prevent researchers from misinterpreting the visual artifacts produced by newcomer children; otherwise, there is a risk of bias and failure to understand cultural and individual nuances presented in the children’s often-complex representations (Ajodhia-Andrews, 2016; Davy et al., 2014; Due et al., 2014; Kirova & Emme, 2008; Liamputtong & Fernandes, 2015).

One third of the articles reported that children used visual methods to actively disrupt the negative, deficit discourse which often surrounds the lives of newcomers (Davy et al., 2014; Den Besten, 2010; Del Vecchio et al., 2017; Roxas et al., 2017; Yohani, 2008). In Den Besten’s (2010) study, for example, children framed their neighborhoods as places of love, strength, and possibility, counter to the conventional understanding of them as places of poverty and crime. PVMs are often explicitly asset-based, encouraging children to share stories of their individual, family, and community strengths and aspirations (Davy et al., 2014; McBrien & Day, 2012). In another study, children with refugee experience used cameras and story quilts to explore their ideas of hope and share that hope with others (Yohani, 2008).

Access to Newcomer Children’s Voices Through Participatory Visual Research Is Highly Dependent on Context

Evident from the reviewed literature is that newcomer children’s capacity to share their stories through participatory visual research is highly dependent on the context in which they live. Cultural and linguistic barriers, combined with the precarious conditions in which some participants and their families live (including security concerns and lower socioeconomic status), play a large role in determining the extent to which newcomer children are able to engage in research (Ajodhia-Andrews, 2016; Fassetta, 2016; Luttrell, 2010; Roxas et al., 2017). Newcomer children may not fully understand the research purpose, methods, or potential risks and benefits (White et al., 2010). McBrien and Day (2012) noted the risk of participants giving consent out of a desire to please researchers, and Neag (2019) reported that some with refugee experience have difficulty distinguishing between researchers and service providers.

By visually depicting parts of their lives, children give researchers the opportunity to observe spaces and places they could not otherwise access (White et al., 2010). Through the creation of mental maps of their neighborhoods, for example, children shared with researchers the spaces and places that elicited strong feelings (Den Besten, 2010). The images or artifacts newcomer children create (or do not create) are determined by their specific circumstances; however, they can reflect the often-restricted places participants can access rather than what would best reflect their perspectives or views (Fassetta, 2016). For example, children in Italy did not wish to be seen with a camera in public, whereas having a camera afforded children in Ghana access to places they would not otherwise have; in both instances, children were largely restricted to their home, school, or neighborhood (Fassetta, 2016).

Several reviewed studies reported that the consistent routine established through the research workshops and activities was a welcome respite from newcomer children’s often uncertain, disrupted days (Ajodhia-Andrews, 2016; Liamputtong & Fernandes, 2015; Neag, 2019). Moreover, rich research data emerge if participants are comfortable and given abundant time for reflection and for carrying out the varied research activities (Davy et al., 2014; Due et al., 2014; Guruge et al., 2015; McBrien & Day, 2012; Neag, 2019; Oh, 2012). Research funding was acknowledged as critical to ensuring sufficient project time (Neag, 2019; Roxas et al., 2017). In three studies, though, participants expressed that the research was sometimes too burdensome and demanding of their time, given their other pressing obligations (e.g., caring for family, school; Oh, 2012; Evans, 2011; Fassetta, 2016).

The Participatory Visual Research Process Can Support Meaning-Making and an Array of Competencies and Interests

Providing a range and choice of research tools and activities with which children are familiar and confident was reported to permit both a deeper engagement in the research process and higher quality research data (Ajodhia-Andrews, 2016; White et al., 2010; Guruge et al., 2015; Kirova & Emme, 2007; Yohani, 2008). Across several studies, children expressed a lack of artistic confidence and concern that their visual artifacts would not be good enough or represent what they wished to share; researchers allayed participants’ concerns through the provision of alternate and multiple means of expression, reassurance, and prompts (Ajodhia-Andrews, 2016; Davy et al., 2014; Guruge et al., 2015; Liamputtong & Fernandes, 2015; Moskal, 2010). For children with painful pre- and postmigration stories, drawings or photographs can provide an indirect, less hurtful way to explore and share those experiences (Davy et al., 2014; Liamputtong & Fernandes, 2015; Oh, 2012). Also observed was the challenge of comparing data, or making meaning across the data, when not all children within the same study participated in the same activities or produced the same artifacts (Due et al., 2014).

Visual research methods are not dependent on a shared language; each included study noted this as a benefit when conducting research with newcomer children who speak a variety of languages. The “universal language” of art and play can facilitate imaginative, creative communication across different languages and literacy levels (Neag, 2019, p. 255). Half of the reviewed studies explicitly reported children’s enjoyment of the research process and their appreciation for the fun, unobtrusive, relaxing, and social research tools. Researchers reported that ongoing assent is crucial; repeatedly checking to be sure children wanted to continue with research participation and providing an authentic alternative is key (Ajodhia-Andrews, 2016; Barley & Russell, 2019; White et al., 2010; Luttrell, 2010). Visual methods lend themselves to vivid depictions of children’s culture and equally facilitate communication across cultures (Davy et al., 2014, Den Besten, 2010; Evans, 2011; Fassetta, 2016; Liamputtong & Fernandes, 2015; Neag, 2019).

PVM Can Enhance Meaningful Engagement and Reduce Power Asymmetry by Positioning Children as Competent Producers, Interpreters, and Mobilizers of Knowledge

A key benefit of participation in visual research reported across many of the reviewed studies is the opportunity for newcomer children to demonstrate “that they are well-informed individuals capable of contributing knowledge about their lives and socio-cultural contexts” (Ajodhia-Andrews, 2016, p. 263). Positioned as competent knowledge producers can engender pride, self-awareness, and confidence in newcomer children (Guruge et al., 2015; Kirova & Emme, 2007, 2008; Luttrell, 2010; McBrien & Day, 2012). Children with refugee experience in Oh’s 2012 study, for example, expressed this was the first time someone sought their input into a project that could influence their well-being.

Researcher–participant power imbalance can be partially addressed by involving children in not just the data collection but also inviting them to participate in the analysis and providing them with choice in how and with whom to share their perspectives and ideas (Barley & Russell, 2019; White et al., 2010; Davy et al., 2014; Kirova & Emme, 2008; Neag, 2019). It is acknowledged, though, that the researcher has the ultimate decision-making power in how the research is shaped and disseminated (Ajodhia-Andrews, 2016; Mand, 2012; Roxas et al., 2017). Newcomer children are often given specific tasks with specific topics and goals and confined to specific time frames and spaces, all predetermined by the researcher (Del Vecchio et al., 2017). In one study, despite the researcher’s participatory ideals, many of the children’s contributions were altered; the artist facilitator was misinformed about how faces could be represented within Islam (Mand, 2012). Moreover, due to restrictions on gallery space, not all children’s artwork was publicly displayed (Mand, 2012).

Potentially illusory are tangible outcomes of research participation. Evans (2011) reported that participants’ identified needs were not met due to insufficient time, resources, and broader structural inequities; she advocated for a revaluing of an ethic of care. Finally, one article contended that the privacy and protection requirements set out by institutional ethics review boards limit newcomer children’s opportunity to be identified and acknowledged for their creative work, restricting their capacity to provide a narrative that challenges the dominant (often incomplete or incorrect) view (Moskal, 2010).

Trusted Relationships Are Key to Accessing the Voices of Newcomer Children

In many of the studies reviewed, researchers reported that developing and sustaining trusted relationships with newcomer children and their families was integral to the research process and product (White et al., 2010; Kirova & Emme, 2007, 2008; Liamputtong & Fernandes, 2015; Neag, 2019). Participant engagement requires the intentional negotiation of trust by researchers (White et al., 2010; Oh, 2012). The need to invest time in nurturing trust and rapport is evident (White et al., 2010; Due et al., 2014; McBrien & Day, 2010; Oh, 2012). McBrien and Day (2012) reported their research data may have been richer had there been more secure relationships between the research team and participants.

Among the interpersonal skills characterized as playing a role in developing relationships and facilitating the research were flexibility, patience, humor, and warmth (Davy et al., 2014; McBrien & Day, 2012). An authentic curiosity and active, engaged listening also fostered the development of trust (Liamputtong & Fernandes, 2015; Roxas et al., 2017).

In several studies, researchers collaborated with community organizations, service providers, artists, interpreters, and schools as partners for recruitment, hosting, and facilitation; this association with trusted community members and agencies eased participants’ suspicions or concerns (Barley & Russell, 2019; Evans, 2011; Fassetta, 2016; Mand, 2012; McBrien & Day, 2012; Neag, 2019; Roxas et al., 2017). In one instance, research clearance was expedited due to the preexisting and strong relationship between the research team and the school administration (Roxas et al., 2017). Due to the stigma surrounding HIV and the pressing need for confidentiality, Evans (2011) relied on staff from professional organizations who had established relationships with participants to facilitate their engagement with the research.

Through participatory, solutions-oriented analysis, children can build lasting relationships with other participants and develop a deeper sense of belonging and community support (Kirova & Emme, 2007, 2008; Roxas et al., 2017). Visual research helps newcomer children educate and promote empathy within their community (Barley & Russell, 2019; Due et al., 2014; Guruge et al., 2015; McBrien & Day, 2012).

Discussion

Our review demonstrates the powerful potential of participatory visual research in accessing the voices of newcomer children and rendering the invisible visible—both literally and metaphorically. The results of the review highlight the ways in which researchers are using participatory principles in a range of visual research with newcomer children and point to key issues important for researchers to consider at each stage of their research. Although outlined above as distinct themes, in practice, the issues are not discrete but interrelated and part of a whole; the decisions and activities of one domain influence the others. For example, attention to context highlights the geographic, cultural, and economic barriers and enablers which may influence what is possible in terms of research process.

The studies reported in this review demonstrate researchers’ efforts to provide participants with a range of accessible, engaging tools as a process for amplifying their voices and sharing their perspectives. Visual artifacts produced by newcomer children are not in and of themselves “more authentic representations of voice” (Barley & Russell, 2019, p. 225). Instead, the research suggests visual artifacts be used as a catalyst for constructing or eliciting further data. Photography, drawing, map-making, and other visual methods are effective tools for reflection, engagement, and representation by newcomer children. If newcomer children’s voices are to be amplified rather than muted, and if they are to be given an authentic opportunity to shape their stories, researchers are compelled also to create the conditions where the voices will be actively listened to by those who have the power to respond and improve well-being (including practitioners, policy makers, and community members). This is highlighted in Mand’s 2012 study where the display of children’s mapping, drawing, embroidery, and writing was curtailed due to museum space restrictions, effectively (re)silencing many perspectives.

The ways in which newcomer children are positioned influence the development of their self-awareness, identity, and confidence. Our findings align with previous research suggesting that the participatory elements of PVM afford children the confidence to reveal their experiences and perspectives (Clark, 2010; Mason & Danby, 2011; Montreuil & Carnevale, 2016). Those conducting participatory visual research should therefore attend to the ways in which children are engaged in the research: collaborators in research design, collectors and producers of data, interpreters and analysts, knowledge mobilizers, and/or evaluators. These positions affect newcomer children’s sense of agency within the research project and within their wider community.

Attention to context in research design and implementation can draw attention to the ways in which cultural, geographic, linguistic, economic, physical, and relational factors influence what is possible to achieve with the research and who is willing and able to participate (White et al., 2010; Evans, 2011; Fassetta, 2016; Luttrell, 2010; Moskal, 2010). Systemic inequities, stigma, and social inclusion can unintentionally be replicated within participatory visual research without the intentional design of processes which make it possible to reach those who would otherwise remain marginalized, secure their consent, and provide space for them to shape and share their story (Del Vecchio et al., 2017; Mand, 2012).

Actively addressing power asymmetries (including the provision of tools that position children as collaborators in inquiry at all or most levels of the research) can facilitate authentic participation (Ajodhia-Andrews, 2016; Due et al., 2014; Kirova & Emme, 2007, 2008; Neag, 2019). Our findings reinforce Liebel’s (2017) assertion that asymmetrical power structures (e.g., adult/child, researcher/participant, colonizer/colonized) must be challenged and addressed before children can reveal their own conceptions of their childhood and experiences. PVM research intentionally places children’s perspectives at the center of analysis. Meaningful participation is further fostered through cultivating trusted community relationships (including consulting with children, families, and those they trust to determine inclusive research design). Findings from our review support Gerlach’s (2018) contention that “thinking relationally,” or grounding research in relationships that demonstrate reciprocity and respect, is critical to building the trust that can mitigate power imbalances and reveal the experiences and perspectives of those too often obscured (p. 2). If power relations are well managed, contextual barriers can be overcome to give newcomer children agency in sharing their stories.

Gaps in the Literature

This review reveals several gaps in the literature. The reviewed studies focus primarily on children aged 10 or above; several studies were excluded for their focus on youth or young adults. This is unsurprising given the challenges in securing ethics approval for projects involving vulnerable children and serves as an opportunity for researchers and ethics boards to think carefully about how protection can be integrated with participation. Few studies involve an explicit, substantial discussion explicitly linking particular aspects of PVMs to beneficial outcomes. Methodological and ethical considerations are likewise infrequently discussed. Critical reflexivity, wherein the researcher actively and continuously examines their own cultural, social, political, historical, and personal position within the research, is rarely demonstrated by authors (Gerlach, 2018). Our review affirms the findings of Luttrell (2010) and Ajodhia-Andrews (2016), that greater researcher reflexivity—and reporting on that reflexivity—will focus attention on the assumptions, values, and practices that underlie the research process, especially crucial when engaging newcomer children.

Limitations

Our scoping review has limitations. First, the review was limited to articles published in English and did not explore the gray and unpublished literature, although we recognize they constitute an important source of research information. A scoping review is meant to provide a first search of the literature on a particular topic, but it is not be exhaustive, so it is likely that some relevant studies were not included. The broad and varied nature of scoping reviews does not usually include quality assessment (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005), so we cannot attest to the quality of the evidence reviewed. Finally, the application of the exclusion and inclusion criteria used in study selection reflects our interpretivist approach to analysis and this subjectivity influenced our decision making on studies relevant for this review.

Conclusion

Findings from our scoping review reveal that researchers from a broad range of disciplines are increasingly using PVM with newcomer children to gain a deeper understanding of their experiences, sense of identity, relationships, needs, strengths, and aspirations. Through involvement in PVM research, newcomer children can document and share their experiences and engage in critical reflection on the forces that influence those experiences. Newcomer children’s photos, drawings, maps, digital stories, embroidery, and sculptures can help us understand how they navigate their complex worlds.

Our review of the peer-reviewed literature illuminated several interconnected factors important for researchers to consider when conducting PVM research with newcomer children. The visual artifacts created through PVM serve as powerful entry points for children to communicate their complex feelings and experiences that might be challenging to share otherwise; participatory analysis is key to mitigating misinterpretation and provides children an opportunity to shift the deficit discourse. Participation in PVM is highly dependent on children’s varying cultural, economic, and relational context. Newcomer children more meaningfully engage with the research when given a range and choice of data collection activities. PVM research helps to reduce the power asymmetry between researcher and participant and builds participant confidence and self-awareness. Finally, developing and sustaining trusted relationships is imperative to the research process. By considering these issues of voice, context, process, positioning, and relationships, researchers can better harness PVMs to enable newcomer children to share and shape their stories.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, Supplementary_File - Drawing Out Their Stories: A Scoping Review of Participatory Visual Research Methods With Newcomer Children

Supplemental Material, Supplementary_File for Drawing Out Their Stories: A Scoping Review of Participatory Visual Research Methods With Newcomer Children by Alison Brown, Rebecca Spencer, Jessie-Lee McIsaac and Vivian Howard in International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was undertaken, in part, thanks to funding from the Canada Research Chairs program and a New Scholars Grant from Mount Saint Vincent University as well as a Nova Scotia Graduate Scholarship.

ORCID iD

Alison Brown

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Ajodhia-Andrews

(2016). Reflexively conducting research with ethnically diverse children with disabilities. The Qualitative Report, 21(2), 252–287.

Alvarez

(2017). Brokering tareas: Mexican immigrant families translanguaging homework literacies. SUNY Press.

Ansell

(2009). Childhood and the politics of scale: Descaling children’s geographies? Progress in Human Geography, 33(2), 190–209.

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Barley

Russell

(2019). Participatory visual methods: Exploring young people’s identities, hopes and feelings. Ethnography and Education, 14(2), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2018.1441041

Bauer

(2016, November 21). Language brokering, mediated manipulations, and the role of the interpreter/translator [Paper presentation]. University of Strasbourg Winterschool: Biographical evaluation of language policies by migrants in Europe, University of Strasbourg, France. http://researchopen.lsbu.ac.uk/1044/

Bishop

(2014). Challenging research: Completing participatory social research with children and adolescents in a hospital setting. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 7(2), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/193758671400700205

Braun

Clarke

(2012). Thematic analysis. In Cooper

Camic

P. M.

Long

D. L.

Panter

A. T.

Rindskopf

& Sher

K. J.

(Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of research methods in psychology. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (Vol. 2., pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004

Cahill

Dadvand

(2018). Re-conceptualising youth participation: A framework to inform action. Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.001

10.

Caidi

Allard

(2005). Social inclusion of newcomers to Canada: An information problem? Library & Information Science Research, 27(3), 302–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2005.04.003

11.

Caidi

Allard

Quirke

(2010). Information practices of immigrants. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44(1), 491–531. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2010.1440440118

12.

Clark

(2010). Young children as protagonists and the role of participatory, visual methods in engaging multiple perspectives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1–2), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9332-y

13.

Clark

(2017). Listening to young children, expanded third edition: The Mosaic Approach. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dal/detail.action?docID=4784949

14.

Davy

Magalhães

L. V.

Mandich

Galheigo

S. M.

(2014). Aspectos da resiliência e da integração social de jovens refugiados: um estudo narrativo usando mapas corporais [Aspects of the resilience and settlement of refugee youth: A narrative study using body maps]. Cadernos Brasileiros de Terapia Ocupacional, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.4322/cto.2014.045

15.

Den Besten

(2010). Local belonging and “geographies of emotions”: Immigrant children’s experience of their neighbourhoods in Paris and Berlin. Childhood, 17(2), 181–195.

16.

Didkowsky

Ungar

Liebenberg

(2010). Using visual methods to capture embedded processes of resilience for youth across cultures and contexts. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 19(1), 12–18.

17.

Dorner

L. M.

Orellana

M. F.

Jiménez

(2008). “It’s one of those things that you do to help the family”: Language brokering and the development of immigrant adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23(5), 515–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558408317563

18.

Due

Riggs

D. W.

Augoustinos

(2014). Research with children of migrant and refugee backgrounds: A review of child-centered research methods. Child Indicators Research, 7(1), 209–227.

19.

Evans

(2011). Young caregiving and HIV in the UK: Caring relationships and mobilities in African migrant families. Population, Space and Place, 17(4), 338–360.

20.

Fassetta

(2016). Using photography in research with young migrants: Addressing questions of visibility, movement and personal spaces. Children’s Geographies, 14(6), 701–715.

21.

Gerlach

(2018). Thinking and researching relationally: Enacting decolonizing methodologies with an Indigenous early childhood program in Canada. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918776075

22.

Guruge

Hynie

Shakya

Akbari

Htoo

Abiyo

(2015, August). Refugee youth and migration: Using arts-informed research to understand changes in their roles and responsibilities. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-16.3.2278

23.

James

Jenks

Prout

(1998). Theorizing childhood. Free Press.

24.

Kam

J. A.

Lazarevic

(2014). The stressful (and not so stressful) nature of language brokering: Identifying when brokering functions as a cultural stressor for Latino immigrant children in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(12), 1994–2011. https://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.dal.ca/10.1007/s10964-013-0061-z

25.

Kirova

Emme

(2007). Critical issues in conducting research with immigrant children. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 1(2), 83–107.

26.

Kirova

Emme

(2008). Fotonovela as a research tool in image-based participatory research with immigrant children. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(2), 35–57.

27.

Levac

Colquhoun

O’Brien

K. K.

(2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

28.

Liamputtong

Fernandes

(2015). What makes people sick? The drawing method and children’s conceptualisation of health and illness. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 40(1), 23–32.

29.

Liebel

(2017). Children without childhood? Against the postcolonial capture of childhoods in the global south. In Cooper

Camic

P. M.

Long

D. L.

Panter

A. T.

Rindskopf

Sher

K. J.

(Eds.), Children out of place and human rights (Vol. 15, pp. 79–97). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33251-2_6

30.

Lloyd

(2006). Information literacy landscapes: An emerging picture. Journal of Documentation, 62(5), 570–583. https://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.dal.ca/10.1108/00220410610688723

31.

Lodge

(2009). About face: Visual research involving children. Education 3–13, 37(4), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270903099926

32.

Lomax

(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

33.

Luttrell

(2010). “A camera is a big responsibility”: A lens for analysing children’s visual voices. Visual Studies, 25(3), 224–237.

34.

Mand

(2012). Giving children a “voice”: Arts-based participatory research activities and representation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(2), 149–160.

35.

Martinez

C. R.

McClure

H. H.

Eddy

J. M.

(2009). Language brokering contexts and behavioral and emotional adjustment among Latino parents and adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(1), 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431608324477

36.

Mason

Danby

(2011). Children as experts in their lives: Child Inclusive research. Child Indicators Research, 4(2), 185–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-011-9108-4

37.

McBrien

J. L.

Day

(2012). From there to here: Using photography to explore perspectives of resettled refugee youth. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 3(4.1), 546–568.

38.

Montreuil

Carnevale

F. A.

(2016). A concept analysis of children’s agency within the health literature. Journal of Child Health Care, 20(4), 503–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367493515620914

39.

Morrow

(2008). Ethical dilemmas in research with children and young people about their social environments. Children’s Geographies, 6(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280701791918

40.

Moskal

(2010). Visual methods in researching migrant children’s experiences of belonging. Migration Letters, 7(1), 17–31.

41.

Moskal

(2017). Visual methods in research with migrant and refugee children and young people. In Liamputtong

(Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 1–16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_42-1

42.

Neag

(2019). Board Games as interview tools: Creating a safe space for unaccompanied refugee children. Media and Communication, 7(2), 254–263.

43.

S. A.

(2012). Photofriend: Creating visual ethnography with refugee children. Area, 44(3), 288–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2012.01111.x

44.

Orellana

M. F.

Phoenix

(2017). Re-interpreting: Narratives of childhood language brokering over time. Childhood, 24(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568216671178

45.

Peterson

Pearce

P. F.

Ferguson

L. A.

Langford

C. A.

(2017). Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 29(1), 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12380

46.

Richards

(2011). Using participatory visual methods. https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/155426/1/155426.pdf

47.

Roxas

K. C.

Gabriel

M. L.

Becker

(2017). “Mexicans Are Like Thieves and Bad People, and We’re Not Really Like That”: Immigrant youth use photovoice to counter racism and discrimination. Journal of School Counseling, 15(19), 19.

48.

Schäfer

(2012). Finding ways to do research on, with and for children and young people. Geography, 97, 147–154.

49.

Spyrou

Rosen

Cook

D. T.

(2018). Introduction: Reimagining Childhood studies: Connectivities . . . Relationalities . . . Linkages . . .. Bloomsbury Publishing.

50.

Strack

R. W.

Magill

McDonagh

(2004). Engaging youth through photovoice. Health Promotion Practice, 5(1), 49–58.

51.

Suárez-Orozco

M. M.

(2009). Children of immigration. Harvard University Press.

52.

Thomson

(Ed.). (2009). Doing visual research with children and young people. Routledge.

53.

United Nations International Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2017). A child is a child. https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF_A_child_is_a_child_May_2017_EN.pdf

54.

United Nations Refugees and Migrants. (2016). 2016 Global response. https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/global-response

55.

Vecchio

Dhillon

K. K.

Ulmer

J. B.

(2017). Visual methodologies for research with refugee youth. Intercultural Education, 28(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2017.1294852

56.

White

Bushin

Carpena-Méndez

Ní Laoire

(2010). Using visual methodologies to explore contemporary Irish childhoods. Qualitative Research, 10(2), 143–158.

57.

White

Bushin

(2011). More than methods: Learning from research with children seeking asylum in Ireland. Population Space & Place, 17(4), 326–337.

58.

Yohani

S. C.

(2008). Creating an ecology of hope: Arts-based interventions with refugee children. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 25(4), 309–323.

59.

Zayas

L. H.

Brabeck

K. M.

Heffron

L. C.

Dreby

Calzada

E. J.

Parra-Cardona

J. R.

Dettlaff

A. J.

Heidbrink

Perreira

K. M.

Yoshikawa

(2017). Charting directions for research on immigrant children affected by undocumented status. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 39(4), 412–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986317722971

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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB