What’s in focus? A critical discussion of photography, children and young people
John Barker and Fiona Smith
Correspondence to be sent to:
John Barker
Centre for Human Geography
Social Work Division
Brunel University
Uxbridge UB8 3PH
E-mail: John.Barker@brunel.ac.uk
1
What’s in focus? A critical discussion of photography, children and young people
John Barker1 and Fiona Smith
Abstract
Photography is an increasingly popular research method, used to explore a
number of topics with a wide range of social groups, including children and
young people. Drawing upon two UK research projects, focused on firstly
childcare and secondly children’s mobility, this paper critically considers
photography as a research method with children and young people. Firstly, we
consider the production of photographs and the need to look behind the lens since
this influences the final photographic product. Secondly we argue that the
interpretation of photographs should be undertaken with children to ensure we
explore their intending meaning rather than interpretive meanings given by adult
researchers. Thirdly, we discuss some of the different ways in which researchers
have attributed ownership to photographs published in research publications. In
doing so, we contribute to debates regarding photographic methods for research
not only with children and young people, but also with other social groups.
Keywords
Children; photography; pictures; copyright
1
Corresponding author. Email john.barker@brunel.ac.uk
2
'Doing' photography
A rapid explosion in photographic research has encompassed a diverse range of social
groups, including older people (Rolph et al, 2009), women (Clover, 2006), homeless people
(Radley, Hodgetts & Cullen, 2005), sexual minorities (Myers, 2010) and children.
Photography with children and young people is now well established across a number of
disciplines, including anthropology, human geography, media studies and sociology. Outside
of academic research, photography is increasingly popular in evaluation and policy research,
and amongst practitioners working with children and young people.
Photography has helped explore a diverse range of children's lives, including school and
other educational contexts (Cook & Hess, 2007; Pike, 2008; Walker & Adelman, 1975),
nurseries, play and leisure contexts (McKendrick, Bradford & Fielder, 2000), and family life,
working and street children's lives (Young & Barrett, 2001). Recent approaches to children
and photography implement methodologically much of the spirit of the new social studies of
childhood. Debates in this journal (see Crogan, Griffin, Hunter & Phoenix, 2008; Sanbaek,
1999) and elsewhere (see Holloway & Valentine, 2000) explore how the new social studies
of childhood conceptualises childhood not as a universal biological category, but an
historically and culturally specific social construction (Mayall, 1994). Rather than simply
understood as adults of the future, children are seen as individuals in their own right (James,
Jenks & Prout, 1998), as competent social actors (Holloway & Valentine, 2000).
Furthermore, this approach acknowledges that children do not form a homogenous group, but
have very diverse ranges of experiences (Mayall, 1994).
In relation to photography, the new social studies of childhood might conceptualise children
and young people as social actors taking an active role as photographers. This mirrors
3
broader debates in media studies and elsewhere which critique more established uses of
photography which have given power to professional photographers whilst objectifying
research participants (Croghan et al., 2008). Moreover, the shift to a more collaborative
photographic enterprise (Banks, 2001) has given many diverse voices and social groups the
opportunity to explore, document and make meaning of their own lives through photography
(Clover, 2006).
Photography can capture the ordinary and routine of children’s everyday lives (Kaplin, Lewis
and Mumba, 2007). Photography is often promoted as placing children as subjects at the
centre of research and enabling genuine communication between children and researchers
(Tunstall et al, 2004), although more recent discussions have developed a more critical
perspective to this (Gallacher & Gallagher, 2008). Photography can give participants more
responsibility and choice over what they choose to document (Evans & Becker, 2009; Pink,
2001). Since photography does not require the presence or mediation of researchers
(Sharples, Davison, Thomas & Rudman, 2003), it offers flexibility and autonomy and can
take research into other spaces, environments and times beyond those directly observable by
adult researchers (Gabhainn & Sixsmith, 2006).
Many children (particularly in Western nations) have more than a passing familiarity with
photography (Sharples et al., 2003), and cameras aimed at children are now heavily marketed
as highly desirable products. Moreover, endemic use of mobile phone based cameras in youth
culture and the popularity of websites such as 'flickr' highlight the competency with which
many children (and many other social groups, see Evans, 1999) use photography. In parts of
the world where cameras are not so readily available, researchers have found children quickly
become 'experts' (Kaplin et al., 2007; Young & Barrett, 2001). Photography is engaging and
4
interesting to children as it is task centred rather than talk centred (Evans & Becker, 2009;
Gabhainn & Sixsmith, 2006; James et al., 1998). Children, as other social groups, report that
photography is enjoyable (Clover, 2006; Myers, 2010). Since photography does not require
verbal or written competency, it also facilitates research with children who might be reluctant
to take part in verbal forms of communication (Darbyshire, MacDougall & Schiller, 2005).
Photography can therefore be particularly helpful in research with children experiencing
learning difficulties and for those who find it difficult to articulate abstract concepts.
Using photography requires engagement with philosophical debates regarding the nature of
the social world and how knowledge can be constructed. A realist approach suggests
photographs are authentic records of real world events. As such, photographs are seen to
“speak for themselves” and offer a truthful record of young people's lives. More recently,
however, a more critical approach recognises that the way in which photographs are
interpreted can be complex and contested (Sanders, 2007; Tunstall, Tapsell & House, 2004).
This constructionist approach conceptualises photographs as socially produced artefacts,
requiring critical consideration of the context of photography (see Newman, Woodcock &
Dunham, 2006, for more discussion). This paper contributes to these debates through offering
a more critical consideration of photographic research with children and young people. In
particular, it focuses upon three methodological issues, relating firstly to what photographs
record, secondly the interpretation and analysis of photographs and thirdly to how we
attribute ownership to photographs in published work. In doing so, our discussion considers
the benefits and limitations to photographic research with children.
Methods
This paper draws upon two research projects which used photography. Research exploring
5
UK primary school children’s travel to school (see Barker, 2003) used a mixture of in-depth,
qualitative methods (including photographs, drawing and dairies) with 25 families across five
primary schools in London and the South East of England. Twenty eight children were given
a disposable camera for a week to photograph how they travelled to school and other places
(see Barker & Weller, 2003 for more discussion). At the end of the week, an interview with
each child discussed the photographs and other creative materials they had produced. In the
second project, researchers considering UK children’s perspectives of out of school care2 (see
Barker & Smith, 2001; Smith & Barker, 1999) spent a week in 25 clubs across England and
Wales. As part of a collection of qualitative methods, over 250 children took instant
(Polaroid) photographs of what they liked/ disliked or wanted to tell us about their
experiences at clubs. Each photograph was attached to a piece of card and participants were
asked to write (or the researcher would write) what they wanted to say about the photograph.
In both projects, photography was very popular. Participation in photography in the out of
school care research was limited only by our capacity to work with children during the club's
two hour opening period. We quickly learned we had to make sure the project had enough
capacity to enable all willing participants to take part - researchers need to ensure
expectations of participation in photography are raised appropriately and that potential
participants are not disappointed. All children who had been given cameras for the research
on travel to school took photographs, although some took many pictures whilst others had
taken only one or two. Alderson and Morrow (2004) signify that very low levels of
participation may indicate a loss of interest or a withdrawal of consent, which, whilst
acceptable to us as researchers, was often seen by parents as their child's 'laziness' and failure
2
Typically run in schools or other community premises and accessed for a fee, out of school clubs are
often run by voluntary committees or registered charities and offer play, leisure and care activities before and
after school and during school holidays. Under the New Labour government (1997-2010) out of school care was
the cornerstone of a variety of UK government strategies.
6
to participate 'properly'.
Both projects sought informed consent from parents and children to participate. Verbal
consent was also sought (both when we introduced the project and when we showed
participants their pictures) to publicly use children’s photographs. We also sought permission,
where appropriate, from the leader of each out of school club to use photographs of the club.
In practice, however, many different spaces were photographed, including different parts of
schools (playgrounds, corridors, dining rooms and classrooms), public spaces (streets, parks)
as well as places at home, making it often difficult or impossible to gain informed consent
from all subjects in the pictures (Moss, 2001).
Both research projects assured parents that children would not be identifiable in any
photographs used publicly. Interestingly, many children found this frustrating and wanted
their faces to be clear in published photographs (hoping to see themselves in books and
articles), reminding us that adult pre-occupations about confidentiality may not make sense
to, and indeed may be disappointing for, children (Alderson & Morrow, 2004; Gallacher &
Gallagher, 2008). Two sets of photographs were developed - one for each participant to keep
and one for the researcher.
Taking photographs3
From the two research projects, we have identified five aspects of photography which urge us
to think critically about the process of taking photographs. Firstly, photographs are not a
solitary activity and are both produced within and influenced by a particular social milieu.
Taking a picture can involve negotiation between the photographer and those who appear
3
An earlier version of our discussion of these points can be found in Barker and Smith (in press).
7
(and do not appear) in the final photograph. For example, many children wanted to
photograph their favourite out of school care member of staff. Whilst some staff were willing
to be photographed, others refused. Flewitt (2005) highlights that adult practitioners may
refuse since they may feel that photography might bring their actions and competencies under
scrutiny. Other staff were unwilling to be photographed as a “favourite”, and asked other
members of staff to join the photograph. These negotiations between children and adults were
often lengthy and complex, involving argument, plea and eventual refusal or compliance
(Rolph, Johnson & Smith, 2009). However, none of this social context is apparent in the
finished photograph – we were only aware of these complex processes since we watched
them unfold. Whilst Moss (2001) urges all photographic researchers to consider these points,
we argue they are particularly salient for such research with children and young people, since
children lack autonomy, are increasingly placed with other children by adults in institutional
settings and are rarely free from the supervision of adults (Holloway & Valentine, 2000).
Secondly, since photography is not a solitary activity and pictures are produced within a
particular social context, the intention behind taking a photograph may be more relevant to
research than the actual product. The act of taking a photograph can be undertaken to annoy,
disrupt, embarrass and transgress (Banks, 2001; Sharples et al., 2003). Tom (figure 1,
photograph 1) explained his frustration that his mother used the car's rear view mirror to
watch him constantly on the back seat of the car. Taking a photograph of this was his strategy
to indicate (both to her and to us) his frustration about her surveillance. Therefore, in some
cases the reason for taking a photograph may not relate to the finished product but can only
be understood by focusing upon the process of taking the picture.
8
Thirdly, since adults often control and restrict children's spatial movements (see Holloway &
Valentine, 2000) broader power relations between adults and children may influence the
opportunities for children to use photography. In some places, children may have total
freedom to take photographs (e.g. the home or the street) whereas in other places, such as
schools, nurseries and other institutions, adult imposed rules may not permit or may severely
limit photography (Sharples et al., 2003). For example, out of school clubs based in schools
can only access a limited range of the school premises (typically the playground and the
assembly hall). Children were only able to photograph spaces which they had access to, and
were not able to take pictures of other school spaces (e.g. ICT labs) which they wished the
out of school club could use, since they were not allowed access to these spaces to take the
photograph. Therefore, children's pictures may not represent what children want to
photograph, but reflect “photographs of opportunity” (Croghan et al., 2008, p349). Therefore,
researchers need to be aware that spaces in which children spend time may encode particular
forms of social action (in this case, photography) as (in)appropriate.
Fourthly, “children photograph (only) what is photographable” (Tunstall et al., 2004, p202).
Whilst photographs were effective at capturing the physical layout of places, many aspects of
social action cannot be photographed. The everyday lives of children and young people are
fluid and dynamic, children's interests may be fleeting and events and games may quickly
start and cease. Photographs often taken by children to represent these fleeting moments are
rarely successful. For example, many photographs aiming to show goal-scoring in football
actually only capture the scene seconds after the goal. Photographs record a fixed, static
moment in time, and capturing events that are brief, fleeting and fluid may be very difficult
(Croghan et al., 2008). It is not always possible to have cameras ready to photograph specific
9
moments, and some events are by their nature too short in duration to be photographed in a
naturalistic setting.
These examples also show how photographic equipment can influence the production of
photographs. Whilst instant or disposable cameras may be light and user-friendly, they may
not produce high quality pictures, and may limit the possibilities for taking specific types of
photographs, for example those requiring low light settings (Croghan et al., 2008). As Rolph
et al. (2009) comment, giving participants the option to take colour or black and white
photographs or to edit pictures in post production enables them to make decisions about the
mood and appearance of the final product.
Furthermore, our research highlights the difficulty in photographing abstract ideas or topics.
Daniel’s picture (figure 1, photograph 2) is of an unsafe pathway near his home, although the
picture itself shows nothing of the dangers associated with it. The subject of the photograph is
not present and it is only through discussions that the threat became apparent. Abstract ideas,
concepts or emotions such as danger or “well being” or “peaceful” (Gabhainn & Sixsmith,
2006; Tunstall et al., 2004) are difficult to represent through the medium of photography
(Cook & Hess, 2007). However, interestingly Newman et al. (2006) have a very powerful
image taken by children which represents “hate”, and Banks (2001) discusses metaphor in
photography (using an example of one malnourished African child acting as a metaphor for
child poverty) although he recognises the need to communicate (by a means other than the
photograph) that the photograph acts as a metaphor.
Finally, perhaps not surprisingly, photographs privilege the visual at the neglect of other
senses (Sanders, 2007; Tunstall et al., 2004; Walker & Adelman, 1975). Noise (or conversely
10
adult enforced silences) often is an important part of children's everyday experiences
(Holloway & Valentine, 2000). For example, many children took pictures of the “quiet
corners” of out of school clubs (figure 1, photograph 3). One of our most interesting
observations was that quiet corners were often subject to intense noise generated by children
playing in adjacent parts of the club. Although children may have been able to filter out the
surrounding noise, our observations show that quiet corners were usually anything but - a
sense which is not captured or communicated by photography.
Therefore, collected together these examples indicate that photographs are not simply a
representation of reality. Photographs are socially produced artefacts, constructed within
particular social contexts. Researchers need to focus as much on the process and context of
the production of the photograph as on the final photograph itself.
Interpreting photographs
Much discussion regarding children, research and photography focuses on enabling
participants to use cameras successfully (Cook & Hess, 2007). However, less debate focuses
on how photographs taken by children are viewed and analysed (Gabhainn & Sixsmith,
2006). Photographs are multi-vocal (Hall, 1999) and the interpretation of photographs is
subjective and riddled with ambiguities (Hall, 1999; Walker & Adelman, 1975). Many times
in our research it has been difficult to directly understand the subject or meaning of
photographs. For example, from viewing children's photographs taken in cars, it was often
impossible (figure 2, photographs 4 and 5) to decipher whether the subject was the inside of
the car or the external environment. Subsequent interviews showed these two similar
photographs conveyed very different meanings. Anushka explained that her photograph was
of the dashboard at the front of the car interior, where she keeps her belongings when she
11
travels by car. Jane discussed that her focus was the street which they drove along, not the
inside of the car.
Furthermore, several children took photographs of places which they liked due to a particular
event, even though the actual picture did not include the specific event itself. For example,
one girl's photograph of the field where she liked to stop and talk to the horses failed to
include the horses in the picture. Hence the subject of the photograph may be absent from the
image. These different examples illustrate that photographs are not transparent (Hall, 1999),
do not speak for themselves and that meaning does not lie in the photograph ready to be
collected (Radley et al., 2005). A researcher-led content analysis of these photographs may
well be highly misleading. Indeed, the meanings and intent behind photographs may be
betrayed by the image as much as realized by it (Hallman, Mary & Benbow, 2007) and the
links between photographs and their intent are easily severed.
Therefore, successful use of photography requires mediation and interpretation (Myers, 2010;
Newman et al., 2006) and the photographers’ initial intent and meanings must be recovered
and communicated (Kaplan et al., 2007). Children and young people can communicate their
intended meaning in a variety of ways (Clover, 2006; Kalpan et al., 2007; Sharples et al.,
2003). “Captioning” is the process of asking participants to write a short explanation of why
they took the picture, what it means to them and what meaning they wish to communicate
(Darbyshire et al., 2005). The rationale behind this is not only to inform but also interpret
(Rolph et al., 2009). In our out of school care research we asked children to write an
explanation of each photograph (as figure 1, photograph 3, and figure 2, photograph 6
illustrate). Using instant cameras enabled participants to write their notes directly after they
had taken each photograph. However, this approach requires willingness, competency and
12
confidence in writing. Some children, particularly the younger ones, clearly found this
challenging. Where children did not want to write their explanation, we offered to act as
scribes so their explanations could be noted.
An alternative way of capturing photographers' explanations and commentary is through
verbal discussion. Photovoice (as discussed in Kalpan et al., 2007) and photo-elicitation (see
Banks, 2001; Croghan et al., 2008; Radley et al., 2005) are two examples of this. These
processes enable photographs to be verbally explained and discussed. Using photographs as a
resource for debrief and discussion during in-depth interviews (as also used by Clark, 2005)
in the travel to school research was very useful in enabling participants to communicate their
original intent and meaning for each photograph. Indeed, eliciting children's own meanings of
the photographs which we have used in this paper has only been possible through this follow
up procedure.
However, we also found limitations to this approach. On occasions, children could not
remember why they had taken certain photographs. Technology is also significant, as whilst
instant cameras, digital cameras and mobile phones provide instant images (on paper or on
screen), there may be some time lag between taking a photograph and seeing the result with
other forms of cameras. Furthermore, Tunstell et al. (2004) note that meanings are not fixed;
reflections on and interpretations of photographs may change over time. The assumption that
a photograph can act as a visual trigger to unlock a corresponding verbal explanation is also
problematic (Croghan et al., 2008). Also, verbal debriefing places emphasis on articulate
conversation. Children and young people may have insufficient vocabulary or knowledge to
describe their photographs. Therefore, our reflections mirror those of others (e.g. Cook &
Hess, 2007; Moss, 2001) in acknowledging the need to discuss with children and young
13
people the photographs they produce. Whilst there are a number of different ways of doing
so, it is crucial to understand participants’ intentions, meanings and interpretations.
Sourcing photographs
The ownership and copyright of photographs is a long standing debate (Banks, 2001;
McCauley, 2008). This issue has rarely been discussed by researchers undertaking
photographic research with children and young people (the Young Lives Project, 2008
guidance is one exception). It was brought to our attention when we received a publisher's
query regarding a journal article containing a number of photographs taken by children. Our
approach (also followed in this paper) was to provide information about the photographer
under each picture, with the intention of clearly communicating to the reader that these
photographs were produced by children. However, the publishers were unhappy with this
position and asked us to clarify who owned each photograph. The resultant lengthy
discussion raised interesting questions about ownership, copyright and children's photographs
and indeed brought into focus the complex ethical and legal issues surrounding how
photographs are sourced in academic papers.
The usual assertion is that those who take photographs are its owner and possess copyright,
that is, rights to control how the material is used (see UK Copyright Service, 2005, also
Banks, 2001; Evans, 1999). However, there is little discussion as to whether or how this is
implemented if the photographer is under 18. Our research sought to assert children's moral
ownership of photographs in two main ways. Firstly, as discussed earlier, we ensured that
participants gave informed consent to use photographs (as suggested by Young Lives, 2008
and others), with assurances that faces would not be shown publicly. However, there are
problems with this approach - it is difficult to give consent when neither researchers nor
14
respondents can know all eventual possibilities for publicity. The Young Lives project asks
for permission to use images for 20 years.
Furthermore, seeking consent and permission to use photographs goes somewhat short of
asking participants to assign copyright and ownership to another party (the researchers).
Practically, however, this is what we were asking, since we would make decisions about
publishing photographs and sign copyright forms for publication in academic journals.
Moreover, although the photographer may be the moral owner of the photograph (as stated in
copyright law, see UK Copyright Service, 2005), the materials used to produce photographs
were paid for by external funders (over a ten year period, our research has been funded by
various government and non government organisations) who often in their contract with the
university in which we are employed made a claim for ownership of materials.
Secondly, as also suggested by others (Banks, 2001; Young Lives Project, 2008) we gave
participants a copy of each of their photographs, partly to indicate our appreciation of their
participation. However, this made us consider to what extent this empowers participants,
since this act does not enable them to make decisions about their use. More critically, perhaps
researchers hope that this process reduces any subsequent claim for ownership from
participants, and in doing so (combined with consent) enables researchers to use photographs
freely for a variety of purposes. Furthermore, since we use pseudonyms for research
participants, this makes it difficult for participants to assert intellectual ownership
(McCauley, 2008). For academic papers, the only persons who can assert intellectual
ownership are the academic authors.
15
The Young Lives Project (2008) notes that it is important to credit the photographer when
using photographs publicly. Our discussions with journal publishers described above made us
reconsider how academic papers identify the source. To gain some guidance on this, we
looked through a number of academic journals which have published children's photographs.
The aim here is not to provide a representative overview of how photographs are sourced in
all journal articles, but to critically reflect upon some of the potential ways of providing
different sorts of information about the photograph's source.
A number of papers chose not to provide a source or make a claim about ownership. For
example, neither Clover (2006) nor Croghan et al. (2008) identify adjacent to a photograph its
source, although elsewhere in the papers it is explained that they were taken by the research
team. In some papers, photographs are taken by children although there is no source
attributed (e.g. Einarsdottir, 2005). This approach can be criticised for making invisible
children's contribution to the research. Some papers (e.g. Sharples et al., 2003) provide
substantial information about the photographer - detailing the age, gender, location and
offering a quote from the child which explains the photograph. Providing information about
each child-photographer and their reasons for taking the photograph seems to be an important
step towards recognising and appreciating children's central role in gathering empirical
evidence. Newman et al (2006) use phrases (e.g.”John's picture”) which simultaneously
identify the photographer, make a claim to ownership (in a moral if not legal sense) and is
written in an everyday style which perhaps reflects children's language. Again, this helps to
bring children's voices and perspectives to the centre of the empirical evidence presented.
Some papers use the copyright symbol by the photograph (for example, Holloway &
Valentine, 2000; Rolph et al., 2009). The former is an interesting example as whilst a claim
for copyright is made underneath each photograph, there is no attempt to explain who
16
actually took the photograph, perhaps reflecting more of a concern for legal issues of
copyright, rather than conveying a sense that the photographs have been produced by
children. Digesting these different approaches made us convinced that our approach to
sourcing photographs (indicating pseudonym, age and location) was one which was
appropriate to our methodological goal of developing a collaborative encounter which placed
children's experiences at the centre of the research and one which asserted their moral
ownership over photographers. This exercise has taught us the need to have a well thoughtthrough approach to sourcing photographs which clearly promotes and values children's
contribution as active photographers.
Conclusion
In this paper, we have critically reflected upon our lengthy experiences of using photography
in research with children. Some of the issues raised relate specifically to photographic
research with children and young people, whilst others have wider currency and are
applicable to others engaging with photography. Our discussions indicate that children (like
other social groups) are often willing and very able photographers, and that this method can
be an engaging and empowering process as part of a collaborative research encounter. We
concur with other researchers (Cook & Hess, 2007; Pike, 2008; Sharples et al., 2003) that
photography can be fun and useful to explore children’s experiences of aspects of their lives.
However, despite these advantages, we also urge caution in the use of photography. As for all
methods, photographs provide a partial and incomplete account (see Myers, 2010). They are
not simply an authentic document providing an objective record of children's lives, but are
socially produced artefacts which require critical consideration and reflection (Croghan et al.,
2008). Pictures by themselves never successfully communicate the photographer’s intention.
17
This discussion has shown it is the responsibility of researchers to critically consider the
processes relating to the production, interpretation and publication of photographs.
The examples discussed here indicate the need to consider the production of photographs,
including considering what it is possible (and not possible) to take a picture of, that
photographs can be exercises of power and to explore the social milieu in which they are
taken. The status of the social group and the surrounding social context are significant in
reconfiguring possibilities for photography. Children's status in society (as individuals who
are seldom autonomous, rarely absent from the surveillance of adults, and who spend
significant amounts of time in institutionalised environments) influences their interaction
with and use of photography. They may be approved and sanctioned by adults in more
informal spaces such as the street, the park or the playground, while adults may prohibit
photography in other spaces, including classrooms, due to possible fears relating to
disruption, loss of control over how the picture may be used, and the anxiety of bringing
adults’ professional performance under scrutiny.
Evidence in the paper suggests that researchers need to work carefully with participants to
tease out intended meanings; a complex, sometimes lengthy process which requires
interaction and effective communication between researchers and participants. We have also
begun to discuss the relatively unexplored issue of ownership, copyright and the attribution of
sources in published papers. Whilst participants hold moral and legal copyright over their
photographs, it is difficult for researchers to enable participants to exercise this right in
practice beyond asking them to give informed consent for their photographs to be used
publicly. There is also little consensus or even discussion about how best to source
photographs. We have argued that the ways in which we attribute sources reflect different
18
ways of conceptualising the role of the participants in research. Whilst an approach which
does not explicitly state information about the photographer can be seen as rendering
invisible their contribution, a format which includes relevant personal details can be seen to
value and promote participants' contribution and engender a more collaborative research
encounter. We hope this discussion will prompt others using photographs in their research to
critically consider this often overlooked issue.
19
Figure 1
Photograph 1:
Photograph 3
...Mum watching in the mirror
(source: Tom, 8, Buckinghamshire)
Photograph 2
Caption reads: This is the quiet corner. When you
don’t fell well you can lie there. You can read a
book and you can watch TV. Lisa likes the quiet
zone because it’s quiet.
(source: Daniel, 9, Buckinghamshire)
(source: Lisa, 8, Berkshire
20
Figure 2
Photograph 4
Photograph 6
(source: Anushka, 9, Buckinghamshire)
Photograph 5
Scribed caption reads: I really really like the
Barbies. I always want to play with them. Alex that
comes here plays with me. The best thing here is
the tent. We play Barbies, our secret Barbie game
in the tent. Sometimes I read books in the quiet
area and I really like the paintings. I live nearby
(source: Jane, 10, Buckinghamshire)
(source: Christine, 5, Cheshire)
21
Bibliography
Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2004). Ethics, social research and consulting with children and
young people. Barkingside: Barnardos.
Banks, M. (2001). Visual methods in social research. London: Sage.
Barker, J. (2003). Passengers or political actors? Involving children in transport policy. Space
and Polity, 7, 135-151.
Barker, J., & Smith, F. (2001). Power, positionality and practicalities: Carrying out fieldwork
with Children. Ethics, Place and Environment, 4, 142-147.
Barker, J., & Smith, F. (in press). Photography, school spaces and school lives: Using visual
methods in schools to map the geographies of children and youth. In S. Rizvi (Ed.),
22
Multidisciplinary approaches in educational research: Case studies from Europe and the
Developing World. London: Routledge.
Barker, J., & Weller, S. (2003). ‘Is it fun?’ Developing children centred methods.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23, 33-58.
Cook, T., & Hess, E. (2007). What the camera sees and from whose perspectives: Fun
methodologies for engaging children in enlightening adults. Childhood, 14, 29-45.
Clover, D. (2006). Out of the dark room: Participatory photography as a critical, imaginative,
and public aesthetic practice of transformative education. Journal of Transformative
Education, 4, 275-290.
Croghan R., Griffin C., Hunter J., & Phoenix A. (2008). Young people’s constructions of self:
Notes on the use of analysis of photo-elicitation methods. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 11, 345-356.
Darbyshire, P., MacDougall, C., & Schiller, W. (2005). Multiple methods in qualitative
research with children: more insight or just more? Qualitative Research, 5, 417-436.
Einarsdottir, J. (2005). Playschool in pictures: children's photographs as a research method.
Early Child Development and Care, 175, 523-541.
Evans, J. (1999). Regulating photographic meanings: Introduction. In J. Evans & S. Hall
(Eds.), Visual culture: The reader (pp. 127-138). London: Sage
23
Evans, R., & Becker, S. (2009). Children caring for parents with HIV and AIDS: Global
issues and policy responses. Bristol: Policy Press.
Flewitt, R. (2005). Conducting research with young children: some ethical considerations.
Early Child Development and Care, 175, 553-565.
Gabhainn, S., & Sixsmith, J. (2006) Children photographing well-being: Facilitating
participation in research. Children and Society, 20, 249-259.
Gallacher, L., & Gallagher, M. (2008). Methodological Immaturity in Childhood Research?
Thinking through 'participatory methods'. Childhood, 15, 499-516.
Hall, S. (1999). Looking and subjectivity: Introduction. In J. Evans & S. Hall (Eds.), Visual
culture: The reader (pp. 309-314). London: Sage.
Hallman, B., Mary, S., & Benbow, P. (2007). Family leisure, family photography and zoos:
Exploring the emotional geographies of families. Social and Cultural Geography, 8, 871-888.
Holloway, S., & Valentine, G. (Eds.). (2000). Children’s Geographies: Playing, Living,
Learning. London: Routledge.
James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing Childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.
24
Kaplan, I., Lewis, I., & Mumba, P. (2007). Picturing global educational inclusion? Looking
and thinking across students' photographs from the UK, Zambia and Indonesia. Journal of
Research in Special Educational Needs, 7, 23-35.
Mayall, B. (1994). Introduction. In B. Mayall (Ed.), Children’s Childhoods: Observed and
Experienced (pp 1-12). London: Falmer Press.
McCauley, A. (2008). ‘Merely mechanical’: On the origins of photographic copyright in
France and Great Britain. Art History, 31, 57-78.
McKendrick, J., Bradford, M., & Fielder, A. (2000). Kid customer? Commercialisation of
playspace and the commodification of childhood. Childhood, 7, 295-314.
Moss, G. (2001). Seeing with the camera: analysing children's photographs of literacy in the
home. Journal of Research in Reading, 24, 279-92.
Myers, J. (2010). Moving methods: constructing emotionally poignant geographies of HIV in
Auckland, New Zealand. Area, 42, 328-338.
Newman, M., Woodcock, A., & Dunham, P. (2006). 'Playtime in the Borderlands': Children's
representations of school, gender and bullying through photographs and interviews.
Children's Geographies, 4, 289-302.
Pink, S. (2001). More visualising, more methodologies: On video, reflexivity and qualitative
research. The Sociological Review, 49, 586-599.
25
Pike, J. (2008). Foucault, space and primary school dining rooms. Children's Geographies, 6,
413-422.
Radley, A., Hodgetts, D., & Cullen, A. (2005). Visualizing homelessness: A study in
photography and estrangement. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 15,
273-295.
Rolph, S., Johnson, J., & Smith, R. (2009) Using photography to understand change and
continuity in the history of residential care for older people. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 12, 421-439.
Sanders, R. (2007). Developing geographers through photography: Enlarging concepts.
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31, 181-195.
Sharples, M., Davison, L., Thomas, G., & Rudman, P. (2003). Children as photographer: An
analysis of children’s photographic behaviour and intentions at three age levels. Visual
Communication, 2, 303-330.
Smith, F., & Barker, J. (1999). Learning to listen: Involving children in the development of
out of school care. Youth and Policy, 63, 38-46.
Tunstall, S., Tapsell, S., & House, M. (2004). Children's perception of river landscapes and
play: What children's photographs reveal. Landscape Research, 29, 181-204.
26
UK Copyright Service. (2005). Fact sheet P-16: Photography and copyright. Retrieved from
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright
Walker, R., & Adelman, C. (1975). A guide to classroom observation. London: Routledge.
Ward, C. (1978). The child in the city. London: The Architectural Press.
Young, L., & Barrett, H. (2001). Issues of access and identity: Adapting research methods
with Kampala street children. Childhood, 8, 383-395.
Young Lives. (2008). Young lives photography guidelines. Retrieved from
http://www.younglives.org.uk
27