While I cannot provide specific quotes, if you check in the vast research of the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, particularly on the Nambikwara peoples of the Brazilian Amazon (look in his book Tristes Tropiques) you will find that he often used what Westerners would term "unconventional" techniques, similar to the draw and write technique that you mention. He often used this when interviewing people whose system of recording information did not involve alphabetical techniques. More information can be found on this in Jaques Derrida's work Grammatology, which focused on Levi-Strauss' interactions when interviewing Nambikwara subjects.

Hi Harry.  I'm not familiar with draw-and-write as a research technique though I have seen it used in learning.  However, I have a lot of experience with what I presume are similar techniques; variously called elicitation of projective techniques.  One technique I have used a fair bit is  asking people to draw a picture and then talk about it, rather than write.  I find it very effective.

I am on the road at the moment and don't have references to hand but Dawn Mannay published a paper on a very similar technique in Qualitative Research in 2010 (I think).  I wrote on the use of the technique, among others, in an article 'Recreating Experience: improving the validity of data'  in the Evaluation Journal of Australasia, (which can be accessed through RG).  If you are interested in lessons from this sort of technique I suggest you also look at Jenkins et al Qualitative Research (2010) and Breivik and Supphellen. 

If you are interested in some of the theoretical issues I can share some material with you directly, or you could have  a look at the paper I gave to the American Evaluation Association Conference 'Understanding the Subjective: Eliciting Hidden Meaning'  (available through RG)

In summary I suggest starting the interview with the drawing technique and then asking questions afterwards;  try to make the drawing task as close as possible to the experiences of the children, something they see a relevant.  In your scenario, I would probably start by asking them to think about their experience of managing their condition and then asking them to draw a picture that summarizes those experiences.

Thank you so much for your input. It really gives me something to think about.

Sharonah - this sounds interesting. I haven't looked at it yet but looks like a method used in anthropological/ethnographic studies. It probably shares the same stream as I am using the tool to communicate with children, albeit, able to communicate in verbal and written English. However, I will have a look as it might have a common theme of making abstract concepts more accessible, which, is also an aim of my study.

David - I will definitely look at these references. I have read about projective techniques as well and personally find it outside my comfort zone/expertise. That technique sounds more psychological than the sociological stream that I am trying to aim at. The article on improving the validity of data is definitely on my next reading list. It would help me strengthen my methodology as rigour is slightly different in my chosen methodology. I am still pondering whether I am using it as a triangulation tool or is it part of a continuum of a method that is trying to elicit the same thing. I need to be clear on it in order to make my writing and defense more robust. 

I am also very interested on those papers pertaining to theoretical issues. I agree that using the method as an elicitation prior to an interview is more viable. This is under the assumption that the children/young persons are willing to draw and that what they draw would have a direct or at least tangential relationship with the actual experience. Saying that, I have discussed with my supervisor and I find that in a way, the drawing is another method to give something of a common ground between the participant and the researcher. With my methodology, grounded theory by Charmaz with roots on constructivism and symbolic interactionism, it seems very apt.

I have also envisioned on using the drawing as you have suggested. I have read works of Sandelowski and she suggested that for younger participants, anchoring the interview in something familiar will be helpful as a preface to more abstract discussions. I plan on asking an exploratory question of "Think about your experiences growing up with IBD. Would you please draw something about these experiences?" In your experience, how do participants specially younger ones react to the method? 

Again, thank you so much for your help and looking forward to hearing from you.

Hi Harry. 

I have mostly used the techniques with adults, though I have used them with people as young as 15.  For different groups of teenagers the most successful techniques were  a photo-journalist approach and street theatre.   Mannay used a drawing technique with young children and Keats and Patton also suggest using elicitation techniques with children.

If you send me your email address I will send you a draft of a Chapter that canvasses some of the literature and issues around using elicitation techniques and has many of the references I would suggest to you. Another Chapter deals with how schemata might affect the way people respond to research tasks such as drawing but I don't know if you are interested in that side of things.

I would be wary of assuming that a drawing has a direct relationship to actual experience (you will see why if you read my Chapter).  However, it may tap into a perspective similar to those experienced by the participants; or use schemata similar to those they use in everyday life. On the other hand, the younger the individuals the fewer schemata they will have developed (see Piaget) so it is possible that young people's drawings may be closer to their experience than might be the case for adults.

Thanks David.

I have obtained some literature on its use in paediatrics and in the healthcare setting. There is a researcher in one of the children's hospital here in London who has done it in palliative care for young cancer patients. I am hoping to apply a similar approach to my IBD patients. The canvass of the literature would be immensely helpful to further my literature review.

The chapter re: schemata would be very interesting. Although, my methodology is driven towards the sociological perspective of the experience, schemata may have a role to play in deepening my analysis. I am saying this with caution because it is discussed right at the beginning of the study that we do not want to pursue the psychological stream but instead focus on the sociological aspects. However, grounded theory in itself should be open to possibilities and guided by data. So having knowledge of the psychological aspect will be beneficial. Again, many thanks for your correspondence.

Harry.  I think you are right to keep your thesis limited in scope.  You can explore other ideas that take your fancy later. 

My concerns are more methodological and probably not relevant to your thesis.  My reasons for exploring elicitation techniques are that they are used in social research, including my own; but with little understanding of how they work, how they could be made more effective and what limitations should be placed on analysis.  My starting point is that one cannot understand what people tell you unless you understand the schemata informing what they say and how those schemata relate to the schemata such people use in everyday life, or the subject of inquiry

So I am looking at cognitive processes to test some of the methodological assumptions made by social researchers.

By the way, I think elicitation techniques are ideal for grounded theory because they are exploratory and inductive in nature and don't inherently impose categories of understanding.  I should add that my interest in this area is over 30 years old.  It came in part from Mead's discussion on 'Me' and 'I' and from talking to Anselm Strauss about his work on the significance of identity in social research (particularly Mirrors and Masks which is available through http://sociologypress.com/books/interest/mirrors_and_masks.htm or the Grounded Theory Institute).  His idea of negotiated order (see Negotiations and also Bourdieu's notion of habitus) also led me to consider the underlying dynamics of negotiation and realising that negotiation and identity  are key elements in the research process as well.  Identity and negotiation affect what people say at least as much as their experiences.

I started unsuccessfully trying to dig out an article by Gluckman on the importance of situation in informing interactions and came across an article by J Clyde Mitchell that reminded me of Turner's argument about the revalatory value of non-verbal events such as social drama. Clyde Mitchell's article 'Case and Situation Analysis', Sociological Review  (1983) contains an interesting discussion on how interpretations of Rorschach tests may be informed by the analysts' implicit theories; a warning for the analysis of data from elicitation techniques.

I'll email you a draft of the chapter on schemata as well.  Much of it focuses on the schema concept and isn't relevant to you, except the last section which may be useful for your analysis.  It is very preliminary but I sketch out some of the issues with analysing data from elicitation techniques. Let me know if I need to unformat the references for you.

Thanks David,

I share the same concern about the methodology in particular regarding philosophical bases and assumptions. I think as a budding qualitative researcher reflexivity in the methods (i.e. draw/write or elicitation technique) is essential. I spent hours staring into nothingness in various coffee shops whilst thinking about my research design, why do I do what I do? and how does this fit in the grand scheme of things? Your insights on the theory of schemata may well prepare me for my analysis by adding another lens (i.e. a cross between psychological and sociological). This discussion only highlights the "messy" puddle qualitative researchers are in and the multidimensional nature of phenomenon. As I progress in this dissertation, it has only made me realise that the idea of robustness and rigour is about being able to justify how what you do fits with what you intend to do and limiting knowledge claims within a boundary of certainty. Again, many thanks for your help.