As I was preparing a presentation talking about my use of "rich pictures" in my PhD research, it occurred to me that I had a good example of an event that was represented in quite different ways by the different methods of data collection. My participant had described what happened in writing in her event diary. She had also drawn a picture of the event, in which she had drawn herself and the other parties along with some of the details of what the event was about. I also had interview data in which she re-told the story of what happened as well as explaining the contents of the rich picture. Putting extracts of all three data sources side-by side gave quite an astonishing contrast between them. The event diary entry was quite factual and matter-of-fact in the way the event was described. The interview revealed a few hesitancies over whether or not a colleague could be fully trusted to carry out a certain delgated responsibilty. It made the situation as originally described not quite so clear cut. The picture presented the event from quite a different perspective. It revealed even more misgivings about the situation.
The other thing I've noticed when looking at the rich pictures is that the participants drew themselves in the picture. This wasn't at all a surprise, as they were all clearly part of these events, but it does offer unexpected opportunities to consider what this might tell me about their personal and professional identities, and also that of their colleagues sometimes. It also brings the body into focus. the body is often overlooked when people talk about their practice, but it is clearly visible in the pictures I've been given.
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
