Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Educational research has sometimes been criticized for its seeming lack of relevance to classroom reality and its subsequent inability to inform pedagogical practices. Such criticism has prompted researchers to consider research methods that may better approximate reality. Among these methods, photo-elicitation interviews (PEI) offer a visual dimension to elicit lived experiences, feelings, and thoughts in real educational contexts, and to enhance researchers’ understanding of educational practitioners’ and students’ experiences in real classrooms and school communities. This review examines the application of PEI to explore educational practitioners’ and students’ lived experiences and perceptions in educational contexts. Specifically, this paper examines the existing educational studies adopting PEI in order to identify the affordances of the method, the challenges it has presented for researchers in the education field, and critical considerations for researchers who may be planning to use the method. Specifically, this review addresses the following three questions: 1. What has PEI contributed to previous investigations of participants’ lived experiences and perceptions in educational contexts? 2. What methodological challenges have previous researchers encountered when utilizing PEI? and 3. How can methodological concerns be addressed when designing and implementing PEI to understand participants’ lived experiences and perceptions? We provide an up-to-date critical examination and discussion of PEI to better inform researchers seeking to develop the use of the method in future investigations in the education field.

Keywords

Photo-elicitation interview qualitative research education

Introduction

Understanding personal stories and life experiences is central for qualitative researchers (Daher et al., 2017). Making sense of the lived experiences of learners and educational practitioners, and of their teaching and learning beliefs, is critical in understanding teachers’ professional development, students’ learning processes, the role of institutions, and the effectiveness of education policies and curriculums (Parker et al., 2016; Taylor, 2002). To this end, the interview method is commonly adopted to uncover participants’ interpretations of the worlds they belong to, and to elicit rich, complex insights into their experiences and perspectives on the research phenomenon (Wellington, 2000). Further enriching this verbal data and reflecting the complexity that often characterizes qualitative research phenomena, interviews are at times combined with other instruments, including observations, field notes, reflective journals, diaries, and questionnaires. Even so, many researchers continue to rely on verbal interviews as the primary or only source of input related to teachers’ or students’ lived experiences and perspectives (e.g., Block, 2015; Doecke et al., 2000; Mirzaee & Aliakbari, 2018). By the term “verbal interviews” we refer here to interviews in which information is conveyed by the spoken word alone.

However, the extent to which word-based verbal interviews alone can adequately capture the complexity of human experiences and beliefs formed through the interaction of all the senses is questionable. Researcher control in such interviews may also constrain the emergence of particular experiences, perceptions, and emotions that might be of significance to participants. It is also worth considering how far word-based interviews allow all voices to be heard, regardless of differences in verbal prowess (Taylor, 2002).

Educational research has sometimes been criticized for its seeming lack of relevance to classroom reality and its subsequent inability to inform pedagogical practices, which has prompted researchers to consider different research methods that may better approximate the reality (Standen, 2021). Among these methods, PEI offers a visual dimension to elicit unobservable experiences, feelings, and thoughts (Richard & Lahman, 2015) and to enhance the researchers’ understanding of school communities or other academic settings, particularly where they may not have direct access (Torre & Murphy, 2015). The method of PEI assumes that “the parts of the brain that process visual information are evolutionarily older than those that process verbal information”, and thus “images evoke deeper elements of human consciousness than do words” (Harper, 2002, p. 13). Therefore, photos are incorporated into interviews to trigger deeper individual consciousness and latent memories, and to elicit participants’ personal knowledge, thoughts, and emotional responses (Harper, 2002). Standen (2021) argues that PEI has the potential to address the complexities of educational issues and generate meaningful results that could inform teachers’ teaching practice in educational contexts.

Notwithstanding the benefits of this type of data collection, dilemmas are associated with PEI concerning the creation, selection, and analysis of photos, as well as ethical dimensions (White & Drew, 2011). This paper offers a review of existing educational studies adopting PEI, aiming to identify the affordances of the method and the challenges it has presented for researchers in the education field. The review is timely given the recent growth in studies adopting PEI for educational research (e.g., Caldeborg, 2022; Kahu & Picton, 2022; Legg & McWilliams, 2021; Wang et al., 2018, etc.). We critically consider some potential methodological concerns associated with the implementation of PEI, seeking to inform the future use of PEI in educational research. It is anticipated that this detailed critical consideration of PEI will benefit new researchers or those who are unfamiliar with the method, particularly if they are working in the field of education. It may also be useful to researchers looking to refresh their understanding of the method. In the spirit of interdisciplinarity, we hope it may also be of interest to researchers outside the education field who may be looking to explore how the PEI method is used in a field other than their own.

Method

The review was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for systematic reviews (Page et al., 2021; PRISMA Flow Diagram, 2022). Figure 1 outlines the process of identification and selection of the reviewed articles. First, a search for peer-reviewed articles was conducted through the Education Resources Information Centre (a primary database for education research). In addition, we did a manual search of relevant papers on Taylor and Francis Online and Web of Science. The following search terms were employed alone or in combination with one another: “photo-elicitation”, “visual elicitation”, “interview”, “education”, “teaching and learning experience”, “teacher perceptions”, “student perceptions”. The search was confined to the period from 2002 to 2022, reflecting the fact that PEI was rarely used as a method in academic studies written before 2002 (Harper, 2002; Torre & Murphy, 2015). A total of 117 studies were identified.

Figure 1.

Systematic selection of the reviewed studies (based on PRISMA flow diagram).

The search only included English publications since this represents the main body of work relevant to a discussion of the use of PEI in the field of education. While excluding non-English publications is unlikely to have a significant impact on the broad conclusions of this review, we acknowledge that an exploration of work published in languages other than English might generate certain nuanced insights, particularly in terms of local perspectives and insights on the affordances and challenges of PEI in different contexts and cultures.

The next stage eliminated theoretical and methodological review articles, studies making no mention of “photo” and “elicitation” in the abstract and keywords, as well as those that explored the use of photo elicitation as a pedagogical tool rather than a research method and those that did not mention the exploration of perceptions and/or experiences in educational contexts. In some special cases, although Einarsdottir (2005) did not mention “elicitation” in the abstract and keywords, photos were used in the interviews with children. Thus, this study was also included. Another two studies (Miller, 2016; Vänskä et al., 2020) that used PEI to investigate children’s meaningful participation experiences in everyday activities were also included. Therefore, the number of papers identified for further reading is 46.

A careful reading of the 46 studies in the third stage led to the exclusion of studies that did not adhere to the following criteria:

1. Investigate participants’ perceptions and/or lived experiences;

2. Studies that incorporated a relatively straightforward description of the demographics of participants and data collection process;

3. Published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Based on these three criteria, 12 records were further eliminated. Thus, a final total of 34 studies constituted the basis for the review. Moreover, although articles discussing the theoretical underpinnings and methodological benefits/concerns of PEI (e.g., Dockett et al., 2017; Richard & Lahman, 2015) were excluded from the database for analysis, insights from these papers were drawn on in shaping this review. Several articles (e.g. Elliot et al., 2017; Standen, 2021) that focused on discussing methodological reflections of applying PEI to collect data also met the three criteria above and thus were included in the reviewed studies.

Of the 34 studies, 29 investigated students’ lived experiences while five explored education practitioners’ perceptions and experiences in diverse educational settings (see Table 1). There are three main categories of images used in interviewing: participant-driven, researcher-driven, and pre-existing images (Holm, 2008). The differences between these three types of images lies in who produces the photos. Participant-driven images refer to photos taken by the participants about different aspects of their worlds, which could offer researchers an inside view (Holm, 2008). In producing researcher-driven photographs the photographer-researcher has an impact on what to photograph (e.g., people, objects, settings, scenes) and on the situations photographed (Cleland & MacLeod, 2021; Holm, 2008). Pre-existing images are published photographs or pieces of art that exist independently of the research (Reavey & Johnson, 2017). Participant-driven photos (e.g. Eskola et al., 2018; Hill, 2015a) were the most frequently used in the reviewed studies (see Online Appendix II). In addition, some researchers collected pre-existing photos (e.g., Sanagavarapu, 2017; Walton & Niblett, 2013), while others took photos themselves and then used them in the interviews (e.g., Ketelle, 2010; Ruto-Korir & Lubbe-De Beer, 2012).

Table 1.

A Summary of Identified Research Topics.

Focus	Sub-focus	Topic Themes	Total
Students	Young children	- Perceptions of play and learning - Knowledge of food allergy - Participation in activities	7
	School students	- Physical education - Exam preparation experiences - Students’ perceptions -of success -of school life -of teacher credibility -of being a scientist -of identity	13
	University students	- Overseas study experiences - College experience - Distance education	9
School practitioners	Teachers	- Professional teaching practice - Professional development - Teachers’ beliefs	4
School practitioners	School principals	- Professional identity	1

Among the 29 student-focused studies, PEI has been applied to explore a wide range of issues relating to early childhood education, and to examine students’ experiences in schools and universities. Among the five practitioner-focused studies, four focused on teachers’ professional development, teaching practices, or teacher beliefs, while the fifth explored school principals’ professional identity. A systematic analysis of these 34 studies was conducted (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Systematic analysis of the reviewed studies (based on PRISMA flow diagram).

Our first research question was: What has PEI contributed to previous investigations of participants’ lived experiences and perceptions in educational contexts? To address this question, we started by identifying the research topics, participants, and data collection methods used in the studies. We also identified the contributions of PEI to the understanding of particular learning and teaching experiences in each reviewed article. This information was tabulated and is shown in Online Appendix Ⅰ. We then adopted a qualitative content analysis approach (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008) to examine the contributions of PEI. Specifically, we coded the information in the table (see Online Appendix Ⅰ). This process allowed us to identify four major categories: triggering memories and uncovering emotional responses; empowering participants; identifying multimodalities of lived experiences; and attributing meanings to lived experiences (see Figure 2).

Our second and third research questions, respectively, were: What methodological challenges have previous researchers encountered when utilizing PEI? and How can methodological concerns be addressed when designing and implementing PEI to understand participants’ lived experiences and perceptions? To address these questions, we also used qualitative content analysis to examine the information provided in the 34 reviewed studies (which we treated as data) and an additional 10 methodological articles (treated as literature). The analysis at this stage was conducted both inductively and deductively. We started by noting the methodological concerns highlighted in the critical discussion of PEI in the previous methodological literature (e.g., Dockett et al., 2017; Wiles et al., 2012) and listed the highlighted codes. With these codes identified (and marked as literature-driven codes), we reflected on the methodological limitations discussed in the reviewed studies (marked as data-driven codes) and identified the strategies the researchers used to address them (identified as data-driven codes). These initial data-driven codes (assigned to the methodological limitations and strategies to address methodological limitations) are outlined in Online Appendix Ⅱ.

By combining and synthesizing the codes identified from both the inductive and deductive analysis, we identified two umbrella categories to describe methodological limitations related to the use of PEI, and five strategies associated with addressing these methodological concerns in studies involving photos and photo-elicited information (see Figure 2).

Findings

PEI’s Contributions to the Understanding of Participants’ Experiences and Perceptions in Educational Contexts

Compared to verbal interview methods, photographs can stimulate participants’ hidden memories and “elicit extended personal narratives” (Clark-Ibáñez, 2004, p. 1511), tapping into submerged feelings and potentially opening up new avenues for discussion (Harper, 2002; Richard & Lahman, 2015). Additionally, photos provide a visual dimension and an archive of the events that participants experienced, which offer an alternative observation of the multi-dimensional human presence at a particular time and space (Hockings et al., 2014), and thus potentially enhance our understanding of research phenomena. Furthermore, PEI can contribute to a more equitable research agenda, since the linguistic demands of verbal interviews can present particular challenges for exploring the narratives of participants who have verbal communication difficulties (Epstein et al., 2006). In this regard, PEI offers a means to facilitate the expression of ideas, retelling, and making meanings related to lived experiences (Richard & Lahman, 2015), and has played an essential role in giving voice to the teaching and learning beliefs and experiences of a wide range of stakeholders (e.g., Einarsdottir, 2005; Hill, 2015b).

Triggering Memories and Uncovering Emotional Responses

Previous studies (e.g., McGowan, 2016; Pyle & Alaca, 2018) have indicated that incorporating photos in interviews can sharpen participants’ memories and uncover emotional reactions, thus promoting extended and more detailed narratives about participants’ experiences (Clark-Ibáñez, 2004).

Mukeredzi (2016) explored the professional development experience of unqualified practicing teachers in rural Zimbabwe’s secondary schools, with participants being asked to take pictures of the professional development activities they participated in. Afterwards, individual interviews were conducted, wherein the photos provided concrete references to daily activities and stimulated participants’ memories of what they had learned from the various activities and their reflections on their interactions and collaborative experiences with others. Vänskä et al. (2020) examined meaningful participation in everyday activities from the perspectives of children with disabilities. Participant-driven photographs provided children with concrete references to their daily life, eliciting insights into the meanings of their participation in different daily activities and emotional responses associated with specific participation experiences.

Empowering Participants

Another methodological advantage of PEI lies in empowering the participants and promoting participant agency in interviews (Richard & Lahman, 2015). Epstein et al. (2006) argue that photos open opportunities to involve child participants in various ways, so as not to limit their responses in interviews.

Izumi-Taylor et al. (2016) investigated American and Japanese kindergarteners’ perceptions of play. Children in both countries were asked to take photos demonstrating their understanding of play, and subsequent interviews explored the reasons for their selections. Using both photos and interview data, the researchers discovered that kindergarteners’ perceptions of play relied on their interactions with their playmates, their preferred environments, and toys and props for playing. Izumi-Taylor et al. (2017) then used PEI to explore Japanese and Korean kindergartners’ perceptions of play, with photos facilitating the children’s descriptions of the physical environments where play occurred, their identification of the people involved in the play, their recall of specific details of playing activities, and their expression of feelings while engaging in different play activities and playing with their favorite toys.

The activity of taking photographs offers participants (especially young children) the opportunity to participate more actively in the data collection process, enabling greater agency (Casesa, 2019; Vänskä et al., 2020). This benefit that photographs bring to the process might not only be observed in studies involving the PEI method, but also in other participant-driven visual projects (e.g., photovoice and participant photography projects). Einarsdottir (2005) investigated children’s perceptions of playschool education. One group of children was offered digital cameras and asked to give the researcher a guided tour around the school, highlighting what they found important in the school and taking pictures. Einarsdottir (2005) argues that incorporating photos created an alternative mode of communication other than verbal and written language, further enhancing the collaboration of the researcher and the child participants in the process of creating and gathering data. Arguably, it also assigned greater agency to the children who actively participated in the design and direction of the interviews.

In addition, linguistic differences can also be mitigated using PEI. Shaw (2013) incorporated photos to investigate the overseas study experiences of a group of Saudi Arabian students at an American university. The study highlighted the value of PEI in bridging communication gaps between the researcher and participants who did not share a native language. This linguistic difference might have impacted the participants’ communication and the researcher’s understanding, but the photos served as “a rich and open alternative to spoken language” (p. 792), offering an extra-linguistic means of communication that helped mitigate language distance.

Identifying Multimodalities of Lived experiences

The fluidity and nuances of human experiences can be challenging to capture through observation and verbal descriptions alone (Hockings et al., 2014). However, the use of photographs appears to offer the methodological potential to capture nuanced modalities of experiences (Kahu & Picton, 2022) and to provide details of multi-dimensional human presence at particular moments (Hockings et al., 2014).

Wang et al.’s (2018) investigated American students’ experiences in Flanders, the participants used photos to capture the multimodalities of challenges related to adaptation and adjustment while studying overseas. Investigating students’ experiences of distance learning, Buck (2016) asked participants to photograph their learning environments, their access to online resources provided by the library, their study schedules, and other learning activities. The pictorial data enabled the author to discover specific problems in distance learners’ everyday learning experience. Since the pictures offered a glimpse into the study life of distance learners from multiple angles and modalities, the researcher achieved an authentic understanding of how and when students studied in their specific environments, what problems occurred, and what kind of support was needed. Therefore, photos offered an alternative means of observation and revealed the multimodalities of distance learning experience.

Attributing Meanings to Lived Experiences

Parker et al. (2016) explored physical education teachers’ descriptions of their professional development during the implementation of a new curriculum. Participants were asked to take photos during different data collection periods to document the events that represented changes to their teaching practice. Reflecting on the specific practices recorded in their photos, the participants recalled changes in their interpersonal relationships and attributed meanings to their professional identity development because of the new curriculum.

Pilcher et al. (2016) argue that the meanings of photos are socially constructed by the image producer and the viewer, and are shaped by their backgrounds and social worlds. In the reviewed studies the researchers utilized prompts to various degrees and in different ways to elicit meanings of photos. Examining secondary school students’ experiences of outdoor education programs, Smith et al. (2010) asked participants to describe the photos (“Tell me about this photograph”) and provide a rationale for them (“Why did you choose to take this photo?“). Määttä et al. (2016) also asked participants to provide a rationale for the photos they took, and to describe the content in relation to the research topic (“How did he or she succeed? For example, did he or she get help?“). However, previous articles provide limited discussion of the process of socially constructing the meanings of photos and how this process might be shaped by the producers’ and viewers’ social worlds, which could significantly impact on the interpreted meanings of the experiences captured in the photos.

Methodological Concerns in Implementing PEI

Notwithstanding the benefits of visual materials to the interview process, PEI can also pose several methodological challenges (Clark-Ibáñez, 2004; Torre & Murphy, 2015). Previous studies pointed to concerns about the inherent financial cost and technical problems in producing photos (Clark-Ibáñez, 2004; Richard & Lahman, 2015). In the reviewed studies that were conducted in educational contexts, PEI raises questions relating not only to financial cost and technical problems but, more significantly, to contextual validity around the contexts of producing, exploring, and interpreting pictures (Birkeland, 2013), and the extent to which they reflect the realities they claim to represent (Dockett et al., 2017). In addition, ethics relating to the production and the use of images in visual studies are also important issues to consider (Wiles et al., 2012).

Contextual Validity

The Production of Photos

In the reviewed articles, participant-driven photos were most frequently used in interviews exploring school experiences and teaching practices (e.g., Danker et al., 2017; Standen, 2021; Wang et al., 2018). Even with the previously discussed benefits of such photos, the potential for misunderstanding instructions or misuse of the camera, particularly in research with young children, can be problematic. For example, Einarsdottir (2005) explored the usefulness of photo elicitation for understanding children’s perspectives of their playschool experiences. The researcher provided one group of children with digital cameras and accompanied them while they took pictures. In the other group, each child was given a disposable camera and was taught how to use it. They were told to take pictures of what they found important in the playschool. The first group of children produced pictures of a wide range of objects and scenes in school, whereas the second group treated the disposable camera as a toy to play with, sometimes forgetting the purpose of the exercise and taking pictures of each other, themselves, or things irrelevant to the research. In such cases, determining which photos are relevant to the research requires delicate handling to avoid the researcher’s impact on participants’ contributions. This study highlights the need to finely balance the benefits of adult supervision or guidance with those of giving participants the freedom to determine the photos they take.

Legg and McWilliams (2021) used PEI to investigate contemporary college students’ lived experience given the changing landscape of the college environment. Participants were given a week to take pictures of their college experience. Even though the participants in this study were asked to take photos every day for a week, the researchers highlighted the possibility that they may have forgotten or skipped some important days and occasions. To mitigate this possibility, the researchers had to send the participants daily reminder messages.

Researcher-driven photos entail greater control by the researcher over the production of photos and, arguably, the interview process. However, this requires researchers to have a rich understanding of the research phenomenon and context. Ruto-Korir and Lubbe-De Beer (2012) used researcher-driven photographs to elicit preschool teachers’ perceptions of educational practice. Reflecting on the research process, the authors expressed concerns that the researcher-driven approach might have limited participants’ choices in terms of what to discuss in the interview, thereby possibly failing to capture what was most important to them. The researchers also indicated that their presence in the classroom to take pictures seemed to distract students and disrupt the ordinary course of the lessons. These threats to validity need to be carefully considered in the planning of research, and weighed against the benefits of using PEI.

The use of pre-existing photos selected by the researchers or the participants can serve diverse purposes (e.g., Sanagavarapu, 2017; Walton & Niblett, 2013), but the studies reviewed that adopted this approach were typically not entirely transparent about the photo selection process. Walton and Niblett (2013) explored the problem of bullying through a photo elicitation technique; in their account of their methods the authors mentioned the image sources (public websites), and noted that their selected images showed children and young people from a wide range of social categories. The images were used as a stimulus for discussion on likely targets of bullying, but the readers were not informed of the photo selection criteria, making it difficult to ascertain whether researcher bias may have affected the selection process. Concerns such as this highlight the importance of providing sufficiently transparent accounts of the photo-selection process to allow readers to judge the validity of the study.

The Interpretation of Photos

In a PEI, photos become the focus of the discussion (Henny, 2012). The reviewed studies used broad prompts to elicit descriptions and explanations in interviews, but the studies say little about how the researchers’ prompts might have impacted the validity of the elicited data. Henny (2012) argues that researchers might not make sense of the photos in the same way as participants. Standen (2021) indicated that the researcher’s understandings of the participants’ photos might be different from the meanings the participants attributed to them because their interpretations of photography were highly shaped by previous knowledge and personal experience, preconceptions and values. Therefore, it is of great significance to be aware of the subjectivity of human experience while interpreting photos and analyzing photo-elicited information and to constantly reflect on the differences in what is observed by the researcher and the participant in their interpretations of the photographs (Standen, 2021). Improving the validity and credibility of PEI research findings depends on transparency in acknowledging the researcher’s subjectivity, values, and potential bias, and then taking steps to mitigate them where possible. To address researchers’ subjectivity, Standen (2021) included a short paragraph of personal reflections that transparently demonstrated the influences of her values and preconceptions on the interpretation of photos. However, the majority of the studies reviewed exhibited a lack of discussion and clarity concerning the researchers’ subjectivity. Addressing this deficit will be an essential step towards a more robust, rigorous, and transparent application of PEI.

Ethical Considerations

Asking participants to take photos can sometimes entail risks that researchers need to be aware of. For example, investigating personal changes experienced by participants as a result of taking a village adult literacy program, Prins (2010) asked them to take photos reflecting these experiences. The researcher found that participants’ use of a camera in communities where taking pictures was not common aroused suspicion among local residents, rendering participants vulnerable to misunderstanding and criticism. Moreover, ethical considerations are particularly significant for researchers who intend to include child-generated photographs. Researchers need to be ready to clarify their research protocols and to make revisions whenever required while seeking approval from the institutions and parents of the child participants (Casesa, 2019).

Visual researchers have become more aware of the social consequences of their activities (Henny, 2012), particularly given that the combination of photographic and narrative data might pose additional challenges in terms of protecting participants’ identities. In this regard, Wiles et al. (2012) point to an ongoing tension between “researchers’ desire for participants to be seen” and “researchers’ real and perceived responsibility to protect participants”. This tension is illustrated in Agbenyega’s (2008) study of school experiences, where the researcher included a photo depicting a student being physically punished by the teacher in front of the class. The inclusion of this photo in the findings might be valuable in revealing the power relations present in the school and conveying the students’ feelings of being devalued. However, readers are not told whether the students and teachers had consented to the scene being captured, or whether they were aware that they might be identifiable in the pictures (although their faces cannot be seen very clearly).

This also raises the question of whether, in addition to research participants, researchers should obtain informed consent from “incidental” subjects in the photos (i.e., individuals who are not research participants). Unfortunately, few previous studies have offered a considered discussion on how to obtain informed consent from incidental subjects, particularly in the case of participant-driven photos. While one option is to train participants to obtain informed consent from the subjects in their photos, there are clear logistical challenges here that may threaten the feasibility of research.

Anonymization is essential in visual studies because of researchers’ lack of ability to predict participants from potential harm resulting from the use of identifiable images (Wiles et al., 2012). Previous researchers mentioned a few strategies to circumvent issues related to identifiable images, including blurring and pixilating faces (Dockett et al., 2017), or converting photos into simple drawings (e.g., Määttä et al., 2016). However, these approaches might be seen as dishonest if the researchers inappropriately distort the original representation, which might raise further ethical concerns (Nutbrown, 2011). Negotiating with participants regarding the ownership of photographs taken for specific research purposes and finding acceptable ways of editing the photos and presenting them in written work could go some way towards addressing these ethical concerns related to the reproduction and presentation of photos and respecting participants’ rights (Dockett et al., 2017; Mitchell, 2012).

Addressing Methodological Concerns

A number of the reviewed studies (e.g., Kwadzo, 2014; Legg & McWilliams, 2021; Sanagavarapu, 2017) demonstrate that careful design of PEI can mitigate ethical concerns and increase the contextual validity of the research. Specific strategies include briefing participants, piloting the method, adopting appropriate analytical strategies, explicitly addressing the researcher’s subjectivity, and member checking.

Briefing

Holding a briefing session with participants offers various benefits. First, it offers a chance for the researcher to explain to the participants the purpose of the project and the nature of their involvement, and to obtain informed consent. In doing so, the researcher and participants may also have the opportunity to discuss the appropriateness and potential consequences of using photos. Second, it offers a chance for the researcher to distribute cameras and give instructions on how to use them. Third, it allows an opportunity for the researcher to clearly explain the focus of the photos, and when/where they need to be taken (Danker et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2010). Finally, a briefing provides an opportunity to explain how the photos will be used, as well as to field questions and discuss the possible impact that the use of photos might have on individuals (Wiles et al., 2012).

Piloting

Conducting a pilot study typically allows researchers to evaluate the appropriateness of the research design and make amendments (Kim, 2011). Although most of the reviewed studies did not make much mention of piloting, it is possible that it was simply not reported. It may also be, however, that the complex procedures of the photo-elicitation method, involving multiple stages and the taking and selecting of pictures ahead of interviews, as well as the challenges associated with finding participants and negotiating access to research sites, create obstacles to piloting. Nevertheless, though piloting is undoubtedly time-consuming and requires effort, it offers a unique means to enhance the rigor of the methodological design, while also flagging up logistical and practical considerations and providing an opportunity for practice and the development of prompts. In Ruto-Korir and Lubbe-De Beer’s (2012) study, for example, piloting alerted them to technical problems with the camera, and gave them an idea of how long it would take to obtain informed consent in the main study.

Data Analysis and Triangulation

PEI offers a range of possibilities for eliciting information from participants, but the richness of the gathered information can also pose challenges for the researchers in data analysis.

In the reviewed studies, the data was typically analyzed in one of three ways in the reviewed studies. First, in some studies (e.g., Sanagavarapu, 2017; Walton & Niblett, 2013) photos seemed to function only as a stimulus for interview topics, encouraging more detailed responses or triggering discussion about participants’ perspectives on particular issues. Data analysis mainly concentrated on the elicited oral or written narratives, coding them and identifying emerging themes. The second approach (e.g., Scott, 2014) was to separate the analysis of the photographs from that of the photo-elicited verbal accounts, but using the analytical results to complement each other in understanding the researched phenomenon. Finally, the third approach (e.g., Buck, 2016; Wang et al., 2018) involved analyzing and displaying (while writing the findings) photo-elicited narratives alongside reviews of the photos, allowing each data source to speak to the other in presenting the findings.

Elliot et al. (2017) classified photographs used in PEI into two major categories based on Cronin’s (1998) photographic theory. Images that contain critical elements of a significant experience are referred to as “informative photos”. Other images that do not intend to straightforwardly introduce critical elements of an experience for the research context are referred to as “symbolic photos”. These do not directly represent reality, but often serve to elicit participants’ feelings and insights on a concept or a specific experience the researchers want to understand (Elliot et al., 2017; Radley, 2011). In the reviewed studies, researchers who used “symbolic photos” as stimuli to elicit personal experiences and thoughts paid more attention to the photo-elicited narratives than to the content of the photos in their analyses (e.g., Walton & Niblett, 2013). In contrast, “informative photos” usually contained critical elements in their contents that could provide important information related to the research findings. Thus, these photo elements were analyzed separately from the elicited narratives (e.g., Scott, 2014).

Except for a series of assumptions underpinning the usage of photos in research proposed by Cronin (1998), so far, there has been no theoretical framework to inform a systematic integrated analysis of photos and photo-elicited narratives. Developing such an analytical framework would require a theoretical understanding of photography, the relationship between photos and reality, and the “socially constructed nature of photographic meanings” (Cronin, 1998).

To ensure the trustworthiness of research findings, the information generated from PEI was sometimes triangulated with data from other sources. For instance, McGowan (2016) used photographs to explore African American men’s interpersonal relationship development and the influence of race on their relationship decisions in college. The triangulation between interview and PEI data enabled the researcher to discover discrepancies and uncover the unconscious influence of race on the participants’ relationship decisions. In the initial semi-structured interview, many participants were unaware of the impact of race on their relationship decisions, but in the later photo-elicitation interview they acknowledged the impact of race.

Significantly, researchers who included multiple data sources (e.g., De Lisle & McMillan-Solomon, 2017; Ramos & McCullick, 2015) needed to carefully consider how to triangulate data appropriately and transparently discuss the triangulation process in their papers. De Lisle and McMillan-Solomon (2017) presented an example of using a matrix table to explain how meta-themes were derived from the emergent themes generated from different data sources. Clarifying the triangulation process in published research contributes to a culture of transparency, thereby enhancing the quality of research more widely.

Addressing Researcher Subjectivity

The discussion of photographs could occur within either a “realist” or a “symbolist” folk myth (Sekula, 1975; cited in Cronin, 1998). The realist believes that photos mirror reality, capture authentic elements, and operate as proof, while symbolists hold that photos only have meanings when interpreted (Cronin, 1998). Radley (2011) argues that talking about photos “is not simply a description of what is given on the print”; rather, “it is a justification of the act of picturing”. From this perspective, photographs used in PEI are more of a stimulus to inspire narratives of experiences and the expression of emotions than “a record-making device” (Harper, 1988, p. 66). For a better understanding of elicited emotions and experiences, Pilcher et al. (2016) argue in favor of the importance of understanding the context of photo production and the subjectivity of the interpreters.

However, only some of the reviewed studies addressed these complexities around researcher subjectivity and positionality in PEI. Investigating African American college men’s interpersonal relationships, McGowan (2016) recognized his own potential biases and their possible impact on the research, particularly on his interpretation of the participants’ stories. Therefore, the author kept a reflexive journal throughout data collection and analysis, focusing on how his position as an African American man shaped his interpretations of his participants’ relationship stories. Although the author did not explain how these reflections were specifically used to increase the study’s trustworthiness, the process of reflection would have raised the researcher’s awareness of possible bias, supporting greater transparency.

Keeping a reflexive journal enables researchers to be explicit about their subjectivity and potential biases, and helping them to critically evaluate the potential impact of these factors on the data collection and analysis processes (Miller, 2016; Standen, 2021). It also offers a valuable starting point from which to acknowledge these biases in the dissemination of research, thus working towards transparent and robust research practices to ensure the contextual validity of interpreting the photo-elicited information.

Member Checking

Member checking is the process of “taking data and interpretations back to the participants in the study so that they can confirm the credibility of the information and narrative account” (Creswell & Miller, 2000, p. 127). This process can contribute to the validity of findings as it offers researchers the opportunity to examine the authenticity, trustworthiness, and representativeness of photos, their interpretations of them, and the rest of the elicited information.

Some authors of the reviewed studies have reported the use of this mechanism. For instance, Kwadzo (2014) investigated international students’ study and work experiences, and used a member-checking process to ask participants to confirm that the interpretations of the photos used in the findings represented authentic portrayals of their overseas study and work experiences. Similarly, Shaw (2013) sought feedback and comments on her interpretations of photos and photo-elicited information both from the student participants and their advisors. Member-checking offers an opportunity to mitigate researchers’ subjectivity in analyzing data and reporting findings, and thereby increases the validity of the data.

Discussion

To date, the use of PEI has contributed to education researchers’ understanding of individuals’ perceptions and experiences of teaching and learning in various ways, through stimulating hidden memories and emotional responses and empowering participants as well as supporting more collaborative and equitable approaches to research. Nevertheless, existing studies employing PEI still suggest several challenges with implementation.

Previous studies have identified several methodological challenges relating to contextual validity in applying PEI. The findings of this review indicate that the photographers’ subjective decisions can shape the production/selection of photos (Olson et al., 2023; Pilcher et al., 2016), thus affecting research validity. Reavey and Johnson (2017) suggest that particular attention should be paid to not only interpreting the photo itself, but also examining the context in which a photo is produced, exploring the boundaries, and examining the researchers’ and participants’ impacts on the research process.

In addition, Olson et al. (2023) noted that a photo itself can only be “a slice in space and time”, representing what is happening at a specific moment in a particular context. Researchers might ask participants to take and present a photo that captures their meaningful experience, but there is always the possibility that the meanings and importance of the photo will be skewed by immediate past or ongoing experiences (Olson et al., 2023). Knowledge of why the photos are produced and the specific contexts where they are produced would be necessary for the researchers to understand the photographers’ intention to highlight specific events and thus to better understand the meanings attributed to the specific moments captured in the photos. In the reviewed studies, authors using participant-driven photos tended towards transparency regarding when/where/how the pictures were taken (e.g., Agbenyega, 2008; Scott, 2014), while those using pre-existing images and researcher-driven photos offered considerably less detail on the selection of photos and less explicit reflection on the possible influence of the researcher on the production of the photos. Future researchers should pay attention to the influence of their personal experiences and intentions on how they observe and represent reality (Torre & Murphy, 2015), transparently discussing their subjectivity to ensure the rigorous implementation of PEI.

So far, there is no common theoretical framework that education researchers can apply to instruct the analysis of photos and elicited narratives. Based on Cronin’s (1998) theoretical assumptions of photographic meaning, Elliot et al. (2017) classified photos used in PEI into two categories (informative and symbolic photos). In the reviewed studies, informative photos that contained contextual elements were often coded separately from the elicited narratives (e.g., Izumi-Taylor et al., 2016). Furthermore, the findings from analyzing these photos could sometimes be used to triangulate with photo-elicited narratives (e.g., Scott, 2014). Symbolic photographs, in which meanings are not apparent, were often regarded as visual stimuli to elicit the participants’ metaphorical responses about their feelings, thoughts, and reflections on particular experiences (e.g., Kahu & Picton, 2022). These photos were not usually analyzed, but instead were integrated with the interpretation and representation of the results (e.g., Wang et al., 2018). Considering the multi-layered process of analyzing data in visual research and the complexity of people’s experiences, more work might need to be done to arrive at a theoretical understanding of the nature of photography and photographic meaning, the relationship between photos and reality in particular research inquiries.

In the reviewed studies, researchers used different strategies to address methodological concerns in producing and interpreting photos, as well as in data analysis and the representation of findings. Some researchers included questions on the reasons why photos were taken or selected in their interview prompts (e.g., Shaw, 2013; Smith et al., 2010). In addition, some researchers kept journals throughout the research process, reflecting on the possible impacts of their own experiences, thoughts, and attitudes on the production and interpretation of photographs (e.g., Ketelle, 2010; McGowan, 2016). Furthermore, this review also identified member-checking as a practical strategy to enhance the trustworthiness of research findings. This approach was used in some of the reviewed studies to verify the accuracy of photo-elicited information, and to obtain feedback and comments from participants on the research findings (e.g., Kwadzo, 2014; Shaw, 2013).

The review also identified various ethical challenges arising from the use of photos in PEI research. Being required to take photos may put participants in complex and even confrontational situations, especially if other people in the research setting are not used to being photographed (Prins, 2010). The presentation of photos can also raise significant ethical concerns, particularly when photos contain identifiable elements, such as the faces of non-consenting “incidental” subjects or identifiable features of the research setting (Mitchell, 2012). This mainly requires consideration while conducting research in instructional settings, which almost always involve groups of young children and students whose images must be carefully protected.

No matter what techniques are applied to conceal the identities of the photographed subjects, the imperative remains for researchers to respect the rights of participants and/or the inadvertent subjects of photographs. This requires researchers to construct informed consent procedures mindfully, and to carefully explain the research and its purposes to participants from different age groups as well as any other related stakeholders in the educational settings before data collection, outlining how photos will be produced and used. Beyond informed consent for using photos in publications, researchers may also negotiate with participants to determine acceptable ways of editing and presenting photos. This would create possibilities for greater authenticity by including participants’ voices.

Conclusion

The history of photo elicitation can be traced back to anthropology and sociology (Harper, 2002). Previous researchers argue that photo elicitation has the potential to be applied in studies relating to human experience, supporting and enriching data collection by expanding on questions and probing into deeper levels of human consciousness (Clark-Ibáñez, 2004; Harper, 2002). This review has sought to provide a detailed critical consideration of using PEI to explore education issues; to understand the development and fundamental use of PEI, interested readers are directed to Harper (2002), Richard and Lahman (2015), and Dockett et al. (2017) for further reading.

PEI has been applied in various disciplines (e.g., nursing, psychology, education, social work) and has been used with various participants (Drotsky et al., 2021; Epstein et al., 2006; Platzer et al., 2021). This review of studies that have used photo-elicitation to explore students’ and education practitioners’ perspectives and experiences points to the fruitfulness of PEI as a tool for generating multi-dimensional insights into their experiences across sectors and in diverse educational settings. Photos empower the participants, reinvigorate their memories of experiences, trigger emotional reactions, and contribute to revealing the multimodalities of investigated phenomena.

This review recognizes the benefits of photo-elicitation to education research, but this does not mean that we see PEI as a panacea method to gather information on any and all lived experiences. Not everything can be captured by photographs (Olson et al., 2023), and there are several methodological limitations associated with PEI’s application. Although this review has focused on examining the application of PEI in educational contexts, the findings might also be helpful for researchers in other areas to reflect on the affordances and challenges of this visual approach in fields beyond education. However, future researchers should be aware of methodological concerns to do with contextual validity and ethical considerations, including some that are specific to the use of photos in research. This review has identified several key strategies to respond to these challenges and increase the rigor of methodological designs, including participant briefing, piloting tools and procedures, careful design, planning and implementation of analytical strategies, reflexivity on researchers’ subjectivity, and member checking.

Despite the insights on PEI offered in this review, our understanding of this method’s application in the educational field still requires further systematic exploration. An improved theoretical understanding of the nature of photographic meaning and the relationship between photos and reality will be significant for a more rigorous implementation of PEI. Future researchers could also investigate possible ways to critically and reflexively evaluate the potential impact of the researcher’s subjectivity on data collection and analysis, to enable a more transparent and valid application of the PEI method.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - A Review of Using Photo-Elicitation Interviews in Qualitative Education Research

Supplemental Material for A Review of Using Photo-Elicitation Interviews in Qualitative Education Research by Yuying Zhang,and Mairin Hennebry-Leung in International Journal of Qualitative Methods.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

ORCID iD

Yuying Zhang

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Agbenyega

J. S.

(2008). Developing the understanding of the influence of school place on students’ identity, pedagogy and learning, visually. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 4(2), 52–66. http://www.wholeschooling.net/Journal_of_Whole_Schooling/IJWSIndex.html.

Birkeland

Å.

(2013). Research dilemmas associated with photo elicitation in comparative early childhood education research. Research in Comparative and International Education, 8(4), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2013.8.4.455

Block

(2015). Becoming a language teacher: Constraints and negotiation in the emergence of new identities. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature, 8(3), 9–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.648

Buck

(2016). In their own voices: study habits of distance education students. Journal of Library and Information Services in Distance Learning, 10(3-4), 137–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2016.1206781

Caldeborg

(2022). Physical contact in physical education – immigrant students’ perspectives. Sport, Education and Society, 27(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1816539

Casesa

(2019). Latinx students’ perceptions of bicultural identity in English-Only and Two-Way Immersion elementary programs. Schools, 16(1), 84–108. https://doi.org/10.1086/702840

Clark-Ibáñez

(2004). Framing the social world with photo-elicitation interviews. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(12), 1507–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764204266236

Cleland

MacLeod

(2021). The visual vernacular: Embracing photographs in research. Perspectives on Medical Education, 10(4), 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00672-x

Creswell

J. W.

Miller

D. L.

(2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

10.

Cronin

Ó.

(1998). Psychology and photographic theory. In Processer

(Eds.), Image-based research: A sourcebook for qualitative researchers (pp. 69–83). Routledge.

11.

Daher

Carré

Jaramillo

Olivares

Tomicic

(2017). Experience and meaning in qualitative research: A conceptual review and a methodological device proposal. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 18(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-18.3.2696

12.

Danker

Strnadová

Cumming

T. M.

(2017). Engaging students with autism spectrum disorder in research through participant-driven photo-elicitation research technique. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2016.7

13.

De Lisle

McMillan-Solomon

(2017). Using multiple methods to investigate eleven-year-olds’ experiences of preparing for a high-stakes public examination in Trinidad and Tobago. Education 3-13, 45(4), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.1095778

14.

Dockett

Einarsdottir

Perry

(2017). Photo elicitation: Reflecting on multiple sites of meaning. International Journal of Early Years Education, 25(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2017.1329713

15.

Doecke

Brown

Loughran

(2000). Teacher talk: The role of story and anecdote in constructing professional knowledge for beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(3), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00065-7

16.

Drotsky

L.-M.

Sonday

Gretschel

(2021). Photo-elicited interviews: A method to create open communication for mothers raising children with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211040980

17.

Einarsdottir

(2005). Playschool in pictures: Children’s photographs as a research method. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430500131320

18.

Elliot

D. L.

Reid

Baumfield

(2017). Capturing visual metaphors and tales: Innovative or elusive? International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 40(5), 480–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2016.1181164

19.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

20.

Epstein

Stevens

McKeever

Baruchel

(2006). Photo elicitation interview (PEI): Using photos to elicit children’s perspectives. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500301

21.

Eskola

Tossavainen

Bessems

Sormunen

(2018). Children’s perceptions of factors related to physical activity in schools. Educational Research, 60(4), 410–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1530948

22.

Harper

(1988). Visual sociology: Expanding sociological vision. The American Sociologist, 19(1), 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692374

23.

Harper

(2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860220137345

24.

Henny

(2012). Trend report: Theory and practice of visual sociology. In Hughes

(Eds.), Sage visual methods. Sage.

25.

Hill

(2015a). Girls’ active identities: Navigating othering discourses of femininity, bodies and physical education. Gender and Education, 27(6), 666–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2015.1078875

26.

Hill

(2015b). ‘If you miss the ball, you look like a total muppet!’ Boys investing in their bodies in physical education and sport. Sport, Education and Society, 20(6), 762–779. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2013.820695

27.

Hockings

Tomaselli

K. G.

Ruby

MacDougall

Williams

Piette

Schwarz

M. T.

Carta

(2014). Where is the theory in visual anthropology? Visual Anthropology, 27(5), 436–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/08949468.2014.950155

28.

Holm

(2008). Visual research methods: Where are we and where are we going? In Nesse-Biber

S. N.

Leavy

(Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 325–341). Guilford Press.

29.

Izumi-Taylor

Ito

Krisell

(2016). American and Japanese kindergartners’ views of play through the use of photo elicitation interviews (PEIs). Research in Comparative and International Education, 11(3), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499916663379

30.

Izumi-Taylor

Y. S.

Han

Ito

(2017). Japanese and Korean kindergartners’ perspectives of play using photos. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.17583/ijep.2017.2049

31.

Kahu

E. R.

Picton

(2022). Using photo elicitation to understand first-year student experiences: Student metaphors of life, university and learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787420908384

32.

Ketelle

(2010). The ground they walk on: Photography and narrative inquiry. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 547–568.

33.

Kim

(2011). The pilot study in qualitative inquiry: Identifying issues and learning lessons for culturally competent research. Qualitative Social Work, 10(2), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010362001

34.

Kwadzo

(2014). International students’ experience of studying and working at a northeastern public university in the US. Journal of International Students, 4(3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v4i3.467

35.

Legg

McWilliams

(2021). Exploring the lived experience of the contemporary college student through photo elicitation. SCHOLE: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 36(1-2), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/1937156X.2020.1760750

36.

Määttä

Mykkänen

Järvelä

(2016). Elementary schoolchildren’s self-and social perceptions of success. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2016.1143418

37.

McGowan

B. L.

(2016). Interpersonal relationships: Exploring race and relationship decisions among African American college men. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 53(3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2016.1118381

38.

Miller

(2016). Learning about children’s school preparation through photographs: The use of photo elicitation interviews with low-income families. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 14(3), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X14555703

39.

Mirzaee

Aliakbari

(2018). They now respect me and send me to the best schools!”: Identity construction of an Iranian EFL teacher. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 15(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2017.1327794

40.

Mitchell

(2012). On a pedagogy of ethics in visual research: Who’s in the picture? In Hughes

(Eds.), Sage visual methods (pp. 307–327). Sage.

41.

Mukeredzi

T. G.

(2016). Teacher professional development outside the lecture room: Voices of professionally unqualified practicing teachers in rural Zimbabwe secondary schools. Global Education Review, 3(4), 84–106. https://ger.mercy.edu/index.php/ger/article/view/271.

42.

Nutbrown

(2011). Naked by the pool? Blurring the image? Ethical issues in the portrayal of young children in arts-based educational research. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410389437

43.

Olson

Fryz

Essemiah

Crawford

King

Fateye

(2023). Mental health impacts of COVID-19 lockdown on US college students: Results of a photo elicitation project. Journal of American College Health, 71(2), 411–421. Epub 2021 Mar 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2021.1891921

44.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Moher

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(89), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

45.

Parker

Patton

Sinclair

(2016). ‘I took this picture because: Accessing teachers’ depictions of change. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2015.1017452

46.

Pilcher

Martin

Williams

(2016). Issues of collaboration, representation, meaning and emotions: Utilising participant-led visual diaries to capture the everyday lives of people in mid to later life. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(6), 677–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1086199

47.

Platzer

Steverink

Haan

de Greef

Goedendorp

(2021). The bigger picture: Research strategy for a photo-elicitation study investigating positive health perceptions of older adults with low socioeconomic status. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20(8), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211040950

48.

Prins

(2010). Participatory photography: A tool for empowerment or surveillance? Action Research, 8(4), 426–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750310374502

49.

PRISMA Flow Diagram (2022). PRISMA Flow Diagram. https://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram

50.

Pyle

Alaca

(2018). Kindergarten children’s perspectives on play and learning. Early Child Development and Care, 188(8), 1063–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1245190

51.

Radley

(2011). Image and imagination. In Reavey

(Eds.), Visual methods in psychology: Using and interpreting images in qualitative research (pp. 17–28). Routledge.

52.

Ramos

N. C.

McCullick

B. A.

(2015). Elementary students’ construct of physical education teacher credibility. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34(4), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2014-0052

53.

Reavey

Johnson

(2017). Visual approaches: Using and interpreting images. In Willig

Stainton Rogers

(Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 354–373). Sage.

54.

Richard

V. M.

Lahman

M. K.

(2015). Photo-elicitation: Reflexivity on method, analysis, and graphic portraits. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 38(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2013.843073

55.

Ruto-Korir

Lubbe-De Beer

(2012). The potential for using visual elicitation in understanding preschool teachers’ beliefs of appropriate educational practices. South African Journal of Education, 32(4), 393–405. http://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v32n4a661

56.

Sanagavarapu

(2017). Young children’s knowledge of food allergy and transition to school. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1304617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1304617

57.

Scott

C. M.

(2014). The use of photo elicitation interviews in summer science programs to determine children’s perceptions of being a scientist. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 4(2), 147–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2013.789148

58.

Sekula

(1975). On the invention of photographic meaning. Art Forum, 13, 37–45.

59.

Shaw

(2013). A new look at an old research method: Photo‐elicitation. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 785–799. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.108

60.

Smith

E. F.

Steel

Gidlow

(2010). The temporary community: Student experiences of school-based outdoor education programmes. Journal of Experiential Education, 33(2), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382591003300204

61.

Standen

C. H.

(2021). The use of photo elicitation for understanding the complexity of teaching: A methodological contribution. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 44(5), 506–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2021.1881056

62.

Taylor

E. W.

(2002). Using still photography in making meaning of adult educators’ teaching beliefs. Studies in the Education of Adults, 34(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2002.11661466

63.

Torre

Murphy

(2015). A different lens: Using photo-elicitation interviews in education research. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(111), 1–23.

64.

Vänskä

Sipari

Haataja

(2020). What makes participation meaningful? Using photo-elicitation to interview children with disabilities. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 40(6), 595–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/01942638.2020.1736234

65.

Walton

Niblett

(2013). Investigating the problem of bullying through photo elicitation. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(5), 646–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2012.733810

66.

Wang

Leen

Hannes

(2018). How do south American international students experience student life in Flanders? A photo elicitation project. Journal of International Students, 8(2), 742–768.

67.

Wellington

(2000). Educational research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches. Continuum International Publishing Group.

68.

White

Drew

(2011). Collecting data or creating meaning? Qualitative Research Journal, 11(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1101003

69.

Wiles

Coffey

Robinson

Heath

(2012). Anonymisation and visual images: Issues of respect, ‘voice’ and protection. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2011.564423

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

0.45 MB