First, many researchers in the field of Photovoice prefer to reserve this label for research that is linked of participatory action research, and to use the term "photo elicitation" for studies that apply photographic methods more generally. This distinction could be helpful with regard to epistemological issues.

Second, at a technical level, most of the major qualitative data analysis programs will allow you mark and code the content of photographs, in a similar fashion to how the operate with textual materials.

Thank you David. Just focusing on the first part of your answer, are you familiar with any trends, common epistemological approaches that qualitative researchers use when working with 'photo elicitation' methods?

Much appreciated.

Most of the work I know on photo elicitation concentrates on specific research questions rather than epistemological issues.

That's interesting, thank you. The two are not mutually exclusive; are they? I wonder what is stopping people from sharing their epistemological positions?

If you have a strong research question and an appropriate set of methods, then why would anyone worry about your epistemological position? In my opinion, the whole debate over the relevance of epistemology is very old fashioned.

That's interesting and I sense a pragmatic perspective. But I am curious as to how one defines a set of methods as 'appropriate' without also articulating how the methods align with the theoretical foundation.

I argue for following pragmatism as an explicit philosophy, which does not ask questions about the nature of reality or the potential for truth. Instead, it concentrates on questions about: What difference would it make to act one way rather than another?

Applying that principle to research design would mean evaluating the outcomes from the choice of using different methods to meet your goals, i.e., what difference would it make to use one method rather than another? Such evaluations are inherently context dependent and uncertain ("probabilistic"), but they are best we can do with our available knowledge.

Greetings,

This does not completely or exclusively address the question of data analysis for photos (or epistemology), but I find the discussion interesting, and the following article to offer a useful critical perspective on Photovoice (and other photo elicitation methods). I came across it in preparing to include participatory video in a new research project. I'd be happy to hear other perspectives.

Liebenberg, L. (2018). Thinking Critically About Photovoice: Achieving Empowerment and Social Change. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918757631

Liebenberg suggests that if one chooses Photovoice (often erroneously used as a catch-all phrase for photo elicitation research), one should heed principles and practices of participatory action research. The observation that "empowerment of participants does not happen because they are provided with cameras" suggests that if one identifies Photovoice as ones methodology, participants need to be involved in data interpretation and analysis (e.g., photo elicitation interviews), and in a process that is meaningfully engaging, empowering, and applying knowledge to effect social change. The approach to data analysis is based on ones stated methodology and objectives--and, to me, perhaps 'epistemology', but not necessarily. (Importantly, the author does not claim that ALL data analysis under this methodology is aptly characterized as participatory, nor that all photo elicitation research needs to be undergirded by PAR to be valid. For me, that's where 'epistemology' claims can become overly prescriptive and constraining.)

I suppose from a pragmatic perspective, ones aim in adopting this approach would include meaningful participation (including data analysis and interpretation), empowerment and social change as outcomes, in addition to other forms of knowledge dissemination--both the process and the more traditional products of research. But I might choose a different methodology tomorrow for a different (or even similar) purpose without encountering or engendering an epistemological earthquake. :)

Hi Peter,

Thank you for sharing your insights into the use (misuse) of photovoice.

Because I am not adopting an emancipatory paradigm, as per photovoice, I am 99% certain that I shall be adopting a phenomenological approach to my PhD photographic analysis . I am currently considering a Hermeneutic Phenomenological approach, following Zoe Boden, Zoe Boden and Virginia Eatough (attached), with a critical twist (Langdridge, 2007) following Paula Reavey (see link below).

https://www.routledge.com/Visual-Methods-in-Psychology-Using-and-Interpreting-Images-in-Qualitative/Reavey/p/book/9780415483483

I am also attending in July the conference of the British Psychological Society Qualitative Methods in Psychology, History and Philosophy, which will be addressing some of these issues, I believe. However, this is in Cardiff, UK, so I guess a little far for you Peter!

https://www.bps.org.uk/events/qualitative-methods-psychology-history-philosophy-psychology-conference-2019

Thank you for the great exchange!

Dear All,

Interesting discussion. I don't have the methodological skills to answer the analysis question, but can share anecdotally. As an REC/IRB chair and reviewer, when I raise the question "How will the photovoice data be analysed?" the response, ~80% of the time, is that the researcher withdraws the technique from the proposal. My untested impression is that sometimes PI's fall in love with a technique but don't really know what they want from it. I also ask about risk/benefit ratio, especially in socially sensitive research (stigma, inadvertent outing of third parties, respect for and consent of persons captured in images, etc). Another distinction (that the relavent literature probably covers) is whether the images remain as archived raw data only or are also put in the public domain in reports and publications, and whether such publicaton is scientfic or frivolous.

I agree with Peter A. Newman that it is useful to differentiate photovoice as a technique devoted to participatory action research from photo elicitation more generally. That was certainly the position of the developers of photovoice, Wang and Burris (1997).

Your questions Douglas are spot on. Interestingly I have had some intense discussions with participant photographers who feel very strongly about not being censored by the risks of being in the public domain. These open and honest conversations have to happen before the participant agrees to engaging with the project, and at each step of the way; clear contracting (verbal and written) is essential throughout. Of course, ethics over ride what ever philosophical position underpins the study and we must also not forget the researcher's professional, ethical governance. Both the participant and the researcher need to engage in an informed, open dialogue so as to appreciate and operationalise what will best protect each other, and their wider systems, now and what can be foreseen in future.

Greetings,

This article may be of interest Pollard, C. (2015). Interpretive visual inquiry – Methodological review. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 22(3) 219-221. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12172 .

Thank you Cheryl.

Thank you Cheryl.