Pre-print, accepted version of:

Ali-Khan, C. and Siry, C. (2014). Sharing seeing: Exploring photo-elicitation with children in two different cultural contexts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 194-207.

Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X13001340

Sharing seeing: Exploring photo-elicitation with children in two different cultural contexts.

1. Purpose: New Voices in Old Worlds. 1.1 Introduction

The value of allowing children to have a “voice” in research and teaching is well

documented in educational literature, in particular in the area of research methods (e.g., McTavish, et. al. 2012; Catts et. al. 2007). This focus supports the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which emphasizes that those who work with children respect their views, and that children have the right to express their perspectives freely on matters that concern them (UNICEF, 2009). Including children in research can lead to new relationships between adults and children (Schiller & Einarsdottir, 2009) as well as increased power and authority for children as participants in the process of research (Coad & Evans, 2008). Literature on engaging children as co-researchers has highlighted the value of repositioning children so that they are not simply involved in gathering knowledge, but are active participants in knowledge production (Veale, 2005), including data analysis (Coad & Evans, 2008). In this paper, we explore the value of researching children’s voices as they generate knowledge through photo-elicitation projects as we examine the complexities and possibilities of using photo-elicitation with children. We position images as viable discourse in education (Piper, & Frankham, 2007) as we highlight how photographic images created by children can encourage them to new understandings, and how image-based projects in international contexts can facilitate moving through multiple boundaries to communicate across differences. This work is intended to guide those working in the field of teacher education to consider approaches to increase the use of image-based methods to elicit, listen to, share, and respond to children’s voices, pedagogically as well as methodologically. Our data are drawn from two visual research projects in elementary schools: one in Luxembourg (figure 1); the other in Pakistan (figure 2). Combined, our projects offer insights on how the use of photo-elicitation can provide space for children to move beyond the worlds of print and text, by speaking across differences through the use of images. We bring our research projects together in this paper to consider similar outcomes and shared conclusions, as well as to highlight ways that image-based methods and photo-elicitation can be valuable tools for educators and researchers. We suggest that this type of research contributes to democratic knowledge production and offers pedagogical and methodological insights for teachers, teacher educators, and researchers who seek to deepen their understanding of the lifeworlds and experiences of students.

Figure 1. Luxembourg Figure 2. Pakistan

Sharing seeing

3

1.2 New Voices: Aims and Rationale

Our research is based in visual methodologies (Banks, 2001; Harper, 1998; Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2005; Pink, 2001; Prosser, 1998). Specifically, we utilized photo-elicitation techniques (Downing, 2006; Harper, 2002; Rose, 2007; Wang & Burris, 1994; Wang, Morrel-Samuels, Hutchison, et al., 2004) to access the understandings and lived worlds of children. In photo-elicitation projects, research participants are given cameras to document their environments and experiences in order to provide them with their own visual referent as a

starting point for conversations about their perceptions. These techniques have been successfully used with children to reveal their insights as they contribute meaningfully to the process of research (Ewald & Lightfoot, 2001; Downing, 2006). Research in the health field has employed these techniques as a way to be sensitive to and capture the experiences and understandings of populations through visual, rather than purely verbal, self-reporting (Baker & Wang, 2006; Keller, Fleury, Perez, et al., 2008;

Lightfoot, et al. 2012; Lopez et al., 2005). These methods have been argued to support the democratizing goal of critical pedagogy (e.g. Carlson, Engebretson & Chamberlain, 2006) and have served to empower children (usually adolescents) to speak about their lives (Hubbard, 1991; Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003).

Although arts-based methodologies, including photo-elicitation, can be particularly valuable in teacher education (Jevic & Springgay, 2008), little research exists specifically documenting the value of photo-elicitation projects in encouraging children to speak across multiple differences. We seek to work towards addressing this gap in the literature by:

1) Providing an analysis of the ways that children embraced and/or resisted opportunities to use visual mediums to create their own stories, produce and share knowledge about their understandings of the world.

2) Exploring the ways that images help facilitate the creation of meaning and allowed for new insights to emerge and be expressed.

3) Offering examples of image creation by children that could provide a platform for teachers and teacher educators to better understand children’s perceptions of the worlds they frame.

As critical pedagogues, we conceptualize ‘learning’ as a co-constructed endeavor through

which teachers seek to work with, rather than for students. We utilize Shor’s (1993) Freirean notion of education as something that students do, rather than something that is done to them. Freire argued for “conscientization” – a developing of critical consciousness gained through reflection and action (1970). To this end, he used images to teach literacy and social justice awareness. Using this idea as a guide, we used photo-elicitation with children to encourage them to shift from expressing themselves as knowledge consumers, to expressing themselves as knowledge producers. In previous research (Author B and A, 2011), we illustrated how providing space for students to challenge traditional knowledge production hierarchies (such as

Figure 3. Documenting an investigation

Sharing seeing

4

teacher-student, adult-child) can facilitate new identities in students. In the paper we present here, we use our findings to build upon these ideas and to argue that image-based research with children can democratize educational spaces by removing epistemological authority from adults and placing it within the grasp of children. We suggest that this type of work can specifically contribute to the knowledge base of teachers and teacher educators by encouraging them to consider visual methods as a means to “good teaching”—defined by Kincheloe (2003) as a continual and complex research of praxis. Our work builds from the premise that “even very young children, when encouraged, have the ability to express complex lives visually” (Ewald & Lightfoot, 2001, p. 12). In our analysis, we found similarities across our two projects in children’s ability and desire to express their lives visually, and to, in effect, craft new voices for themselves. These similarities emerged despite distinctly different research contexts (a European city and an Asian rural area). They highlight that providing children with opportunities for visual voices can facilitate their

experiencing and expressing their worlds in new ways. Our studies were iterative research projects, and the primary questions that guided them emerged through the research process. In this paper we describe these processes and we engage in analysis to shed light on the ways that image-based research shaped children’s involvement in research on teaching and learning. In what follows, we present images that were produced, selected, and discussed by children, layered with images we have taken as researchers. Because methodologies and epistemologies that privilege the written word miss the insights of

multi-logical and multi-method approaches (Lemesianou and Grinberg, 2006), we alternate between images and words as we strive towards polysemic and multimodal complexity. In moving between the visual and the verbal; the theoretical and the empirical; the documented and the interpreted, we seek to weave a complex set of perspectives and understandings. We intentionally present images with different degrees of narrative analysis, as images do not contain the same knowledge as words (MacDougall, 2006). Throughout the paper, we focus on the importance of images while we implicitly suggest that an “unconventional text which crosses over between the visual and the verbal” (Chaplin, 1994, p. 273) can be used to break down a variety of barriers that exist for research. We introduce our conceptual grounding and elaborate the project details in the next section before moving into a discussion of our findings and the implications for teachers and teacher educators.

2. Methodology and Methods 2.1 Conceptual Orientations: Messy Knowledge

In this work we draw from cultural studies (e.g., Mirzoeff) and education (e.g., Freire) to create a bricolage of methodologies (Kincheloe, 2001; Berry, 2006). We seek to be storytellers who use visual methods to join science and art, bridge disciplinary separations, and push the

Figure 4. Discussing the cameras

Sharing seeing

5

boundaries of interpretive inquiry (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2005). Law (2004) argues that research tends to superimpose clarity on a rich and messy world, thereby distorting it. We heed his caution and try to be mindful to avoid the reductionist impulse of a will to truth. To this end, we combine images and words to allow for several layers of intersecting knowledge to be presented simultaneously. We hope that this messiness allows for both foreground and background meanings to emerge. In alignment with critical and sociocultural theories, we position all human activity as cultural, social acts. As such, “knowledge” is culturally constructed, and “meanings change over time and from place to place” (Thomson, 2008, p. 9). Through this conceptual framework knowledge is mutable, as well as collective. As such, it is bourn through practices rather than passed down though texts (Roth, 2005). This collectivist epistemological view grounds our perspectives on research. We have employed Freire’s (1970) concept of “generative theme” to create pedagogical moments that encourage questioning. Generative themes are intended to encourage a questioning of the material practices and ideological assumptions buried in normalcy. Challenging the normalcy of adult research perspectives on children’s lives, we align with Cook-Sather (2006) who argues that because children’s perspectives are unique, children should be provided with opportunities to shape their education by being positioned to reveal these perspectives. However we are cautioned by Sensoy (2011) who embraces the complexity of critical visual work with children, yet reminds us to focus not only on its emancipatory possibility, but also on the places where this potential is met with resistance. In adopting these theoretical perspectives we embrace a multi-methodological, multi-theoretical bricolage (Kincheloe & Berry, 2004) and we borrow from Denzin and Lincoln (2008) the notion of research as a path across which interpretative truths can travel back and forth. 2.2 Little Pictures in the Big World of Text

Image-based projects that employ participatory photography can shed important light on the lives and perspectives of children (Downing, 2006; Luttrell, 2006; Wang, Morrel-Samuels, Hutchison, et al., 2004). Yet image-based knowledge is often dismissed, and although the social sciences have taken an increasingly “visual turn”(Thomson, 2008), image-based research has suffered from limited status in research (Prosser, 1998). This is an oversight, as Rose (2007) notes that it is important to study images because social life happens through images. Similarly, Sturken and Cartwright (2001) argue that we invest images with significant power in our daily lives (p.10). Visual methodologies can enrich ethnography (Harper, 1998; Pink, 2001), and enhance personal understandings, as visual images have the “capacity to defamiliarize experience” (Greene, 1988, p. 129). We are surrounded by images. In the 21st century, visual communication is continually on the rise in every area of life (Kenny, 2009; Luttrell, 2006; Banks, 2001). As globalization and corporate consumerism continue to spread, they bring a multiplicity of visual images to both material and electronic spaces. Concurrently with ever cheaper and more accessible technologies, the publication of pictures has become increasingly democratized (Appadurai, 2008; Mirzoeff, 2008). Even in places such as rural Pakistan, twenty-first century changes in knowledge production and transmission are familiar to children who are exposed to and use media technologies (Datoo, 2010) such as cell phones (see figure 5).

Sharing seeing

6

In this era of pictorial

representation and world awash with images, the ubiquity of these images raises questions about “the ability of language (alone) to accommodate conceptions of truth” (Scarry, 1994, p. 3). We acknowledge this by allowing images to speak in the research / learning process.

We aim to create hermeneutic spaces for reader interpretation in this paper, as we position images that work to “disperse authority between author(s), other participants in the project and readers” (Chaplin, 1994, p. 273). Throughout this paper, we offer visual evidence about the contexts, participants, and activities of our work as we aim to engage readers with images as coherent,

independent texts. However, acknowledging that a journal manuscript is to be read on paper and thus necessitates a certain amount of written interpretation, we layer these images with narrative descriptions. Thus, the images and descriptions are intended to come together to create a coherent picture of our research contexts and approaches, yet they ideally are each able to stand alone. 2.3 School Contexts: Old Truths

Our projects took place in countries where both formal schooling and informal societal messages generally position children as empty vessels waiting to be filled with official, adult-sanctioned, knowledge. Children’s knowledge is assessed through formal positivist means. In Pakistan, test scores are perceived by parents to be markers of intelligence (LEAPS, 2007, p. xvii). Simultaneously, teachers typically work in classrooms that are underfunded and have few supplies (e.g. figure 6). Teachers often have little formal training, and they tend to rely on traditional and conservative pedagogies (Mohammed, 2004;

Westbrook et al., 2009). Children (particularly in poor schools where books are scarce) typically

Figure 5. Pakistani village teen on her cell phone

Figure 6. Child participant’s photograph of classroom teaching in Banigala, Pakistan

Sharing seeing

7

sit in classrooms that have few written words and in which they are expected to recite memorized answers when called upon. Although Pakistani schools stand in stark material contrast to those in Luxembourg (where schools are well-resourced), the traditional approach of memorizing and retelling is the preferred method for demonstrating “learning” in both contexts. Both authors repeatedly witnessed classroom lessons in both settings that employed teacher-led instruction and mimicked “banking” education, through which knowledge is deposited and retrieved from students (Freire, 1970).

2.4.1 Focus – Luxembourg.

In the Luxembourg project, data was collected with children ages 4-6 years, who participated in a month-long unit in a Kindergarten classroom that was based on the theme of water. As part of a larger study on children’s interactions in multilingual classrooms, photography was used to document, guide, and assess the learning of science. Children were introduced to the study’s purpose and taught to use Kodak zi8 cameras to record still shots and video. Children used the cameras when and if they felt it necessary, and thus children were often passing the cameras back and forth to each other during the course of one set of investigations.

At the end of each day, data were imported by the researchers into iMovie or iPhoto. Informal interviews were held with children in small groups to discuss the images they collected, and children participated in small group discussions with their teachers in which they examined their photos and chose ones that they felt were the “best” representations of their experiences. Decisions about which photos to use were individual as well as collective, as all the photos from the day were downloaded to a computer and the children discussed with each other and their teacher which

photos they would like to print and use as representations of their science investigations. In doing so, they typically cut out the photo, glued it onto a piece of paper, and illustrated their new products. They created collages using photos and drawings, and then presented this work to their peers and teachers as they discussed the parts of the science unit that were important represent and retell.

Children are often more relaxed with peers than with an adult (Graue & Walsh, 1998) and figure 8 illustrates children working together in a small group. Three girls are retelling a classroom experience in science, and are laughing together as the experiment had taken an unexpected turn. The two girls are narrating their actions. Children’s enjoyment working in small groups is evident in smiles and laughter. In addition to the documentation by the children, research

Figure 8. Children working in small groups

Figure 7. Child’s photo of investigation

Sharing seeing

8

discussions and interviews were conducted in small groups, as group interviews enable children to have more comfortable conversations than in one-on-one interviews (Einarsdóttir, 2007).

2.4.2 Focus - Pakistan.

The data for the Pakistani project were collected over the course of a year in a local k-9 school (figures 9 and 10) and this year included a preliminary trial data collection project with children. There is very little literature available in English, or in general, on the lives of children in the Muslim Middle East (Fernea, n.d., p. 1). A review of the literature revealed an absence of academic publications on the lives of Pakistani children as told by themselves. In the Pakistani project (figures 11 and 12) participants, ages 8-14, were selected by members of the school community. The children participated in a three-month long photo-elicitation project. They met with Author A weekly for 3-4 hours and between these meetings took photographs using disposable cameras. Each child was given a total of 4 disposable cameras each with 27 pictures; they also shared a digital camera, which they each used for a week at a time. Each child took 108 individual photographs; collectively, they took an additional 50 photographs.

Following Ewald and Lightfoot, (2001) with each set of prints the children were encouraged to individually and collaboratively select photographs that they found meaningful,

Figures  9  &  10.  Inside  and  outside  the  classrooms,  Banigala.

Figures 11 & 12. Children’s photographs of their classmates

Sharing seeing

9

and to discuss and interpret the photographs in self-selected groups. They looked for themes and planned the next steps in the research by talking about what they would photograph the following week. They interviewed each other about the meaning of their images. As they participated in analysis of their images, they used connecting strategies (Kenny, 2009) to analyze the relationships between their photographs and narratives and broader issues in their lives and communities. As the research progressed, the children selected 2-3 images each to write about. These images were duplicated, enlarged, and framed. One set was exhibited in their school the other was given to them. 2.5 Modes of Inquiry, Data Sources, and Analysis: Speaking in Shuttered Tongues

We each are personally familiar with the school systems in the research contexts studied, yet are also US-acculturated and were occasionally perceived of as outsiders to the society. From these insider/outsider positions and insights, we were privy to the day-to-day workings of life in our research contexts, yet also had to navigate difference. In both research contexts we lived with our families near the communities in which the research took place. With this in mind our relations with the teachers and the children in the study were formal relationships predicated on the research. Further, there were formidable gaps between our ages and those of our research subjects. Our research was intended to traverse these differences. Children are rarely positioned as having expertise, or even being experts on their own experiences (Dockett and Perry, 2005). Challenging this, in our studies, children were provided access to cameras (both still and/or video cameras) that allowed them to create representations and communicate their ideas as experts on their worlds. They elucidated their understandings of their social context through their own words as they selected and interpreted their photographic images. By giving children cameras and asking them to create narratives around their images we positioned them as authors. We hoped that this vantage point could create the space for children to “skirt the heavy restrictions of adult speech” and from that position “play a symbolic role in questioning hierarchies of power because of their relative freedom to make counterhegemonic observations” (Karimi & Gruber, 2012, p. 291). Our data combined narratives, interviews, and traditional ethnographic field notes, following Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw’s (1995) conventions, to richly describe children’s experiences. Guided by the work of Rose (2007) and Mitchell (2011), we used photo-elicitation to encourage participants to reflect on their worlds through the documentation and discussion of the photos they captured. Noting both denotative and connotative meanings, we viewed photographs taken by research participants as documents that are simultaneously irrefutable and ambiguous, and that call for a hermeneutic understanding of the complexity of the interpretive act. A critical lens to our ethnographies (Carspecken, 1996) supported us as we documented experiences, focusing on issues of power. Using children’s visual images as data can increase children’s power in research, as the process of data collection is in part in their hands as they make decisions about what is important to capture (Einarsdóttir, 2007). Therefore evidence was collected through the children’s own narratives, photo documentation, and visual ethnographies.

Mindful of ethical considerations, we note that an inherent risk in conducting research with human subjects is their right to confidentiality and anonymity. As Denzin (1989) suggests “…The lives and stories that we hear and study are given to us under a promise, that promise being that we protect those who have shared them with us” (p. 83). With young children especially, there is an ethical obligation to ensure parental consent as well as the children’s assent to participate. Parents and children in both studies were informed of the research

Sharing seeing 10

objectives and activities, and participation in both studies was voluntary and participants could withdraw at any time. Participants’ consent and assent were revisited periodically through the study, and children’s and teachers’ right to not participate in the research was respected. All researchers had conversations with the children about their purpose as participants in their classroom, and made as open as possible the decisions about the research design. All information collected from this study was kept private. All information was kept confidential and participants are not identified by their real or full names. 2.6. Bringing Together Two Studies Analytically

Both the contexts and the research methods of Author A and Author B shared similarities. As authors working collectively, we utilized three levels of analysis. We began by conducting individual analyses on our projects. Throughout this individual analytic process we continually shared ideas and interpretation with each other, knowing that our studies shared similar groundings and foci. As a second level of analysis, we came together to re-analyze our findings collaboratively with each other, and also with the teachers in the schools and the children. Finally, from this interpretive perspective we worked together to write and reflect on our work collaboratively. Figure 13 illustrates the analytic process that has led to the findings elaborated in this manuscript. On one level, we collaboratively conducted a hermeneutic interpretation of our researcher perspectives on the challenges and limitations of cross-cultural multi-modal research. Methodologically, the hermeneutic circle served as a lens through which to be able to focus on the parts of the projects (represented by the children’s individual photographic experiences) while also incorporating a focus on the projects as a whole (as framing how / what we can learn about children’s perspectives on their knowledge). In a second layer of analysis, we used digital stills in an intertextual discourse analysis as we considered how the production of texts (which encompasses the verbal and the visual) can transform our understandings and ideas. We investigated the way that photographs and written texts combined to produce meaning (Weintraub, 2009) both for the producer as well as the reader of the text. Camera images on their own only tell part of the story that was intended by the image producer (Einarsdóttir, 2005). Therefore, we combined a variety of layers of images and interpretations by the children. In our own interpretation of these photographs and photographic stills and children’s discussions, we focused on the ways that children reflect on their own knowledge. In a final phase of analysis we considered multi-textual approaches and the ways in which the children’s images reveal their understandings of the world and of knowledge production, and we analyzed the limits of the production of knowledge through such methods as established in our research.

Sharing seeing 11

Figure 13. Our multi-level analytic process

3. Findings: Layered Documentation

Three layers of findings emerged from our collaborative analysis, and in this section we

illustrate these findings using examples of children’s work that typify them. We draw on parallel data from each study to highlight that our findings are not unique to one context. We highlight implications of our findings for those who work in the field of teacher education and seek to learn more about children’s own perspectives of their life worlds. We argue that methodologically, as well as pedagogically, children’s points of view and representations thereof can be richly accessed through their images. This has implications for teachers and teacher researchers who may find it beneficial to move away from a strict fidelity to written text as they plan and reflect on classroom and research decisions. We use the term “layers” of findings, as they are interwoven, and layered upon each other. In our analysis we intertwine connotative and denotative meanings as we act as portraitists (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2005) who navigate multiple research relationships and trace emergent themes. 3.1 First Finding Images can encourage children to speak to adults in ways that challenge knowledge hierarchies.

Our projects provided a platform for children to elaborate on their perspectives and experiences. We found across the two studies that pictures were not viewed as closed texts. Instead they were the places that allowed other conversations to start. As the burden of understanding was placed on the viewer, the children appeared eager to engage in conversations.

Hermeneutic  interpretations  

Examining:  • Researcher  perspectives  • Challenges  of  cross-­‐cultural  research  • Possibilities  of  multi-­‐modal  work  with  children  

Intertextual  discourse  analysis  

Analysing:  • Photos  • Videos  • Artwork  • Narratives  • Conversations  • Interactions  

Multi-­‐textual  approaches  Exploring:  • The  analysis  itself  • The  possibilities  for  revealing  participant  perspectives  • The  limits  of  production  of  knowledge  in  institutional  settings  

Sharing seeing 12

They could no longer ‘get things wrong’ and both authors witnessed children who had been shy verbally begin to use images as a path to dialogue. Children in both projects appeared excited to produce knowledge. As an example, in one instance in Pakistan, children arrived to participate in the research without umbrellas in the pouring rain, and each child expressed that s/he did not want to wait for the rain to end to work. This attitude was evidenced and expressed to the authors by the children in both studies and showed the children’s commitment to their investigations of their texts. Figures 14 and 17 illustrate the children’s engagement in the process of producing knowledge collectively and in new ways as they captured and reviewed their investigations. Our image-based projects allowed children a space from which to formulate and convey sophisticated understandings of their worlds. Acting as authors rather than consumers of texts, they repositioned themselves in the knowledge economy and began to situate themselves as both knowledgeable and capable of conveying knowledge. We each witnessed the children work intensely to think about and create their texts. As an example, figure 14 illustrates the children’s collective engagement as they pointed to their photographs (with Author A), which they then selected to discuss. As Kaplan and Howes (2004) have noted in their work, images can be a node for reflection and discussion, and we have found this to be the case consistently across the two studies. Mitchell (2011) elaborates on the methodology of deliberately remembering as “memory work” which presents the opportunity for reflection, which then can guide knowledge production. In both of our studies, we found that the reflective nature of images created the space for children to rethink their experiences and observations and, through the reflective process, elaborate on their perspectives.

Figure 15 shows the children pretending to be on television as they interviewed each other about their pictures. They built on the relationship between performance and still photography (Mitchell, 2011). As they presented themselves in the role of experts’, their facial expressions, gestures, and voices changed, they stood straighter and their voices were measured and formal; they sounded authoritative (figure 15). In this performative production, we are reminded of Goffmann, who noted “when an individual presents himself to others, his performance will tend to incorporate and exemplify the officially accredited values of the society, more so in fact, than does his behavior as a whole" (1959, p. 35). Image production allowed children to try out the idea of themselves as experts.

Figure 14. Discussing possibilities. Figure 15. Interviewing

Sharing seeing 13

Mitchell (2011) argues that “memory work” can be done with a photographic image as well as with other types of representation. As an example, figure 16 shows a drawing that a child has done to represent a science activity in which children had filled up an aquarium. There is adult writing next to the drawing; a quite typical early childhood school practice in which a child narrates a drawing to a teacher, who then writes the children’s retelling onto the picture. In this case, the child told his teacher about the waves that he had made in the aquarium, and the drawing became the starting point for a conversation about how he managed to “make waves” in an aquarium. In such an exercise, the child is positioned to retell and explain their representation. Here the producer of the drawing explained what he had learned from the experience, and the teacher wrote his points down word-for-word. In essence, she captured his explanation, and held it firm in writing. The image became a central point for exchange, dialogue, and reflection upon what he had learned and experienced. Figure 17 shows a nuanced example of the way that images can serve as a point of documentation, dialogue, and reflection. Here is an image that a child created by using a photo of her and her friends’ investigation into trying to make scissors stay afloat in the aquarium of water. There are smaller drawings around the photo, in which she has drawn images of the aquarium (from the top and from the side) with the items in it that the girls were testing for sinking / floating. The black marks on/around the drawings and the black spots on the children’s faces are significant as they were placed on the image deliberately by Tanya, as she was discussing this with her teacher (who again wrote some notes around what Tanya was saying). Tanya used a marker to point out her classmates in the photo as she narrated the investigation, and outlined the different components of her investigation. The drawings in figures 16 and 17 both became concrete points of discussion, reflection, and dialogue. This process positioned the children as experts as they retold their investigations to the teachers, who in turn further documented the children’s investigations in writing. Children expressed their different ways of knowing in drawings and description—ways that include “wonder, imagination and awe” (Gallas, 1995, p. 78). This process was repeated consistently throughout the research, as dialogue around documentation served to reveal children’s perspectives, and also to position them as producers of knowledge. It is important to note the shift of power during the process of using documents for elicitation of children’s perspectives: the children were positioned to reflect upon their own

Figure 16. Making waves

Figure 17. Document produced through photo-based discussion

Sharing seeing 14

learning and experiences, and the adults were positioned to learn from what the children had to say about their experiences. 3.2 Second Finding Children understand and are able to challenge visual conventions.

In a second layer of findings, we note that tropes and visual conventions were evident in some of the children’s work, yet were sometimes transformed and owned by the children. This suggests to us that children are aware of dominant visual discourses, conventions, and narratives, and perhaps believing that this is expected of them, then produce their own images to fit normative texts. Yet they also appear able to adapt these texts to experiment with new truths.

Figures 18 & 19. Flower background

Figures 18-19 reference the symbolic importance of flowers. Flowers are commonly used in images in Pakistan as symbols of beauty, wealth, and idealized world, following an aesthetic tradition that dates back to the Mughal era (Schuster, 2008). They were also described to Author A as representations of the generosity of God. Flowers are prominent in most public celebrations (e.g. figure 18 shows a participants brother at a wedding). They are a common motif in folk and truck art (Soekefeld, 2008). The use of flowers as a backdrop to frame photographs of individuals was not uncommon in the pictures taken by the children in this project (figure

Figure 20. Flower foreground

Sharing seeing 15

19). However, figure 20 breaks from this convention. The girl who holds the rose in this image does not address the photographer, smile for the camera, or pose. The visual convention of associating flowers with beauty and richness is upheld, yet challenged, as the rose stands in sharp contrast to the background. The image was simply labeled “flower” and the creator of the text chose not to elaborate; however, this title (regardless of intent) does not detract from the fact that the symbolic positioning of the flower breaks from popular visual conventions and creates an ambiguity of meaning.

Tropes were evident in video recordings as well. Children often initially recorded each other in an interview format, with the recorder asking questions of the child being recorded. This is represented in figure 21 in which one child holds a camera as he interviews another child about their collective science experiment; a third child stands off to the side watching the interview process. It appears that these ‘Q & A’ formats for video recording increase as children become older, and perhaps more accustomed to institutional expectations for “school” (Author B, 2012b), yet even at the Kindergarten level, this tended to be the format that children first adopted when provided with cameras. The majority of children’s first video recordings were of them recording a

classmate, as shown in figure 21 (and also introduced in figure 15). This was the format that children most adopted when adults were present; and, perhaps, is the format the children thought was expected of them by their teachers. However, over time, this routine changed, and children moved away from a format of interviewing to use the video cameras primarily for documenting their collective experiments and investigations.

Figure 22 was taken by the children in Pakistan. In this image the children (holding cameras) were giving directions to an adult teacher (wearing blue) to make sure that the content and composition of the photograph they were getting ready to take, fit their vision. This illustrates how the children were beginning to see themselves as directors and authors of their imaged-based scripts and were making decisions in that role.

Figure 22. Posing the teacher

Figure 21. Interviewing each other

Sharing seeing 16

Similarly, in the Luxembourg project this notion of being the director of the ‘script’ or ‘performance’ was evident in a video that was taken in a first grade class and shows two children retelling their experiences of a science investigation with a sinking and floating experiment earlier in the day. This video was recorded by a third child. As one girl held the video camera and filmed, the two other children were retelling their experiences – there are no adults visible in the camera shot, as the children were in a hallway outside of their classroom. While Tim began to retell, Anne, the videographer, instructed him to speak louder, as she could not hear him. He elaborated on which items

in their investigation sank, and which floated. An offprint from this video is seen in figure 23. At this point, the child at the fore, Maria, walked straight up the camera with a smile. Suddenly, she looked at Tim and used her arms as a director would use a clapperboard in a film, to say “cut!”, and made the clapperboard motions with a load, sudden “TSSSCHT!” sound. She then turned to the camera and began to retell her experiences with the sinking and floating experiment. Collectively these images illustrate that children were aware of the conventions in image production and their work reflects their exposure to visual tropes. The children revealed an understanding of symbols, the physical language of authority, and the conventions of visual image production including interviewing and directing. The more typical roles of visual production were represented in their images, but they were also able to use photographic technology to take control of knowledge production. Although the children utilized visual conventions, they also were able to adapt them to tell personal and idiosyncratic stories. 3.3 Third Finding Image production creates generative space.

Our third finding is that as photographs “stand still” long enough to allow for reflections on the social construction of meaning (Fasoli, 200, p.43), the children’s images operated as generative space and opened up broader questions for the research participants. This finding builds on the previous two, and we see it as representing the powerful possibilities for research and teaching. Normative assumptions were challenged throughout the two studies, both between the children, and between the children and us as researchers. In the Luxembourgish study, for example, one exchange between (Author B) and a boy named Richard is illustrative of how our expectations as researchers can position us to not always “see” what children are intending in their documentation. In one of the Kindergarten classes that was focusing on water, the children had gone out after a rainstorm with the video cameras to explore and document their ideas of water in this context. After this episode, the videos were collected from the children and imported into iMovie. (Author B) noticed when she was reviewing the movies that many of the video clips were difficult to hear or watch, as the children were very active when outside with cameras. One of the main purposes of the videos taken by the children was to document science investigations in order to look back on them, discuss, and question what was happening in the

Figure 23. Maria

Sharing seeing 17

videos. To that end, the videos need to have a certain level of steadiness so that the children could view them again. In discussion with the teachers and the children, Author B decided to find a few videos to use for discussion with the children to highlight what types of filming strategies result in videos that could be watched afterwards. She selected one of the videos of approximately 40 seconds which appeared to have been taken as a child held the camera to face the ground, quickly swished it up to the sky, and then held it back to the pavement. The movement from ground to sky and back again made the video difficult to watch, and it actually appeared to be taken in error, perhaps when the camera was dropped and picked up again. Sitting with one group of children, Author B showed the video and asked the children what they thought was happening in the video, and what their comments on the video were. Antonio’s face lit up into a broad smile as he excitedly said, “This is my video!” Author B

responded with, “Really? How can you tell?” The other two children nodded, and Nuria pointed out, “There you can see Antonio’s sneakers, Miss, and listen to hear his voice.” Author B played the video again, and sure enough, there were Antonio’s shoes and his voice was evident in the video. “So what’s going on here Antonio? It is really hard to see what you are doing here,” Author B asked, assuming he would comment that he had perhaps dropped the camera. Her researcher perspective expected that a science investigation would result in “clean” video that was relatively easy to watch, and

instead, this video was nearly impossible to view as it could make a viewer feel nauseous. In the discussion, however, Antonio clarified that this video was very important as it represented his experiment with a raindrop. He and his classmate had “caught” a raindrop in their hands, thrown it up towards the sky, and then watched it. “Look, here you see it going back to be a part of the puddle.” This was a critical turning point in this study, as the video and resulting conversation challenged Author B’s assumptions of the children’s videoing, and the video instead became an important starting point for her in interacting with children like Antonio to hear about their investigations, expectations, and perspectives. In the Pakistani project, the potential of image-based work as a tool for critical pedagogy and Freire’s (1970) conscientization (or critical consciousness) became clear in the picture produced by Kirin (figure 25). Kirin, at the time of this research, was a 12 year-old girl who had approximately four years of schooling. In figure 25, her text juxtaposes evidence of wealth and poverty as her photographs of rich people’s homes and poor people’s homes in her neighborhood were laid side by side. She carefully selected these images—talking about them and retaking them during the research—and she created the text with the input of her peers after much deliberation about language and word choice. She expressed that she wanted her text to highlight “poor people is a problem.” In this text she does simply comment on the images as local facts and evidence of her surroundings, but specifically points out that they illustrate a problem for the country. She notes the importance of education (an education that, given her social class, she is likely to have no access to beyond her current grade school). Kirin’s image, comprised of three

Figure 24. Examining a video.

Sharing seeing 18

photographs is directly confrontational and agentic. She strengthens her visual argument with text that describes the difference between a life of wealth and of poverty in Pakistan. By contrasting the rich and poor neighbors she pushes viewers to think about her claim of happiness as tied to wealth, in the context of rural Pakistan. The image challenges the doctrine of universality that is contained in the commonly held (Western) assumption that ‘a concern for money is superficial’. The images and text that Kirin presents dares viewers to consider her claim carefully.

In the Pakistani project Kirin positioned herself as a knowledge producer and used her photograph and accompanying text to question the inevitability of things as they are. As such she exhibited an understanding of systems of oppression as normalizing inequity in which rich people are happy with their education, jobs, and big houses, while poor people lack the basics such as education, jobs, and medicines. As she created, selected, titled, and added narrative to these photographs (while collaborating with her peers) she evidenced active resistance to the ideologies that present the children’s environments as acceptable, and wealth inequity as immutable. In the Luxembourgish project, the children used their images to position themselves as knowledge producers, and also to represent their complex understandings of science processes (e.g., Author B, 2012a). We find it significant that in both of these projects the use of images challenged notions of what children “can” and “cannot” do and know. In addition the images produced were able to facilitate rich dialogues as they encouraged children to communicate across differences in age, culture, languages, and life experiences. Across both studies, it is consistently evident that the production of visual documentation (in photos, videos, and artwork) also became a generative space for problem posing for children, both individually and collectively.

4. Discussion 4.1. Finding and Losing

Figure 25. The neighborhood through a child’s eyes – Banigala

Sharing seeing 19

Although we highlight the ways that the act of producing images seemed to empower children, it is equally important to note the limitations of our research. We find four main points for reflection and learning. First, although we argue that using photo elicitation with children across cultures can be a way for children to express complex polysemic and critical knowledges, we also acknowledge that the material limitations of the medium can hinder understanding. Our participatory methods limited the sample and selection of images. In addition, pictures are not always easy to reproduce and disseminate in high quality format, and significant details can be lost in reproduction. Second, the subjectivity of hermeneutic interpretations is inherently problematic. On the one hand, the analysis of documents by the research participants and authors is grounded in a lived understanding of the context; but on the other hand, images are open to multiple interpretations. Our claims are one set of interpretations in a world of interpretations; they are intended to highlight the complexities of social life. As interpretations they are also, by definition, refutable. This is the power of hermeneutic work, as it highlights the complexities of social life and interpretations thereof. We present layered analysis, but also we wish to point out that we acknowledge “tensions between accepting children’s own analysis and locating findings within wider social and economic factors” (Coad & Evans, 2008, p. 43). Third, we are aware that the images produced by photo-elicitation techniques are always products of the task (Croghan et al., 2008). As such they should not be interpreted as absolute understandings or “truths”. Given that critically grounded research highlights both patterns and contradictions, there is much to be learned from considering contradictions as they emerge (Tobin, 2006). For example, in keeping with findings from recent research on using photo-elicitation methods with children for critical pedagogy (Sensoy, 2011), our findings confirmed that children did not necessarily embrace the opportunity to say new things through their photographs, and sometimes relied on tropes and conventions, (as described in our second finding). Fourth, we note that there is an inherent seductive pleasure in performing knowledge, which may not align with what is actually learned (Hunter, 2011). Although the children performed as experts we do not have access to how significant this role may (or may not) be to them as they move forward. In addition to these points, we acknowledge that it is only possible to present a sampling of these projects in order to show their congruity. Although our projects shared many similarities, we recognize that a broad claim of universality would be simplistic. While we are aware of these limitations and caveats we are optimistic that our research contributes to strengthening the case for visual methods in educational research and practice.

4.2 Democratizing Knowledge Production by including Children’s Voices.

We do not intend this work to universalize. However, with that in mind, we do find it

significant that although our contexts were very different, our research lead us to similar claims. We conceive of this as a strength of drawing across two seemingly discrepant contexts and studies. In both projects, the value of using visual work as a tool for democratic knowledge production became clear. Our combined work also illustrates the value of child-created image-based communication as a tool to help children re-see, critique, and challenge the world. In short, images empowered children to see and to speak, while it fostered in them an apparent confidence that in the space of pictures, adults would hear what they had to say. This is in keeping with the transformative focus of critical pedagogy. Photo-elicitation can serve as a generative space that allows children to produce knowledge that questions the world and encourages them to share this questioning across the boundaries of age and culture. Further, photo-elicitation techniques can

Sharing seeing 20

highlight the impact of dominant visual cultures as visual tropes are reproduced or adapted in children’s images. As noted in our introduction, children’s voices are seldom apparent in knowledge production. We see it as pedagogical significant that photographic image production with children appeared to afford them new ways of seeing and communicating the world. The images children produced, and their discussion about these images, suggests that photography provides children the opportunity to highlight moments and conventions that might otherwise pass unnoticed. Not only did the photo-elicitation appear to encourage higher-order (detailed, evaluative, analytical) thinking in children but it also encouraged children to engage in this process collectively. Figures 26 and 27 below illustrate this process as the children used their images to collectively construct a world of knowledge.

4.3. Significance to Teacher Education

The broadest significance of our work to teachers and researchers of teacher education lies in the possibility that research such as this will encourage educators (particularly critical educators) to reconsider the value of visually rich pedagogical and research methods. This can provide a strong focus to teacher educators as they work to bring new pedagogical methodologies into their work with pre- and in-service teachers. In our studies, we were seeking to inform our understandings through children’s perspectives. This type of work can prove just as valuable in informing teaching with the voices and ideas of children. This work has illustrated to us that the power of visual methodologies that use child-generated texts lies in their ability to open spaces for adults, including teachers, teacher educators, researchers, to learn from and with children about their perspectives. Significant to teacher education, and specifically to pedagogical practice, is our central claim that allowing children to express their worlds through multiple modalities and languages allows them to express a more nuanced and complex rendering of reality than they normally express in educational spaces. Tufte (2006) argues, “evidence that bears on questions of any complexity typically involves multiple forms of discourse” (p. 83). However as we noted earlier, visual discourses are often dismissed and therefore not a part of teacher practices. As the 21st century takes an increasing visual turn we suggest that it is important that teachers and researchers learn to communicate through, rather than exclude, the language of images. The ocularcentrism of the last couple of centuries (Gronbeck, 2008) is increasing, and educators who wish to respond can look to research such as this as base from which to form their own line of

Figures 26 & 27. Constructing knowledge together

Sharing seeing 21

inquiry. By providing complex ethnographic evidence of the lives of children though images, and by facilitating voices not heard, we see this work as highlighting the possibilities of improving social and educational dialogue between adults and children. In the international contexts that our research took place, children’s voices are seldom legitimized and such research can serve to open the spaces for children to develop a new understanding of themselves as capable of knowledge production.

5. Concluding Thoughts

Through this research, we worked to create spaces from which children could learn to frame and reframe their worlds. This can shed light on the value of positioning children as capable research participants who are moreover capable of producing “unprecedented knowledge about the world” (Kincheloe, 2008, p. 21). As we have explored the children’s work with image-based projects, we have “zoomed-in” (Roth, 2005) to look more closely at the ways in which these projects facilitated opportunities for the children to express themselves in complex and nuanced ways. We examined the texts they produced for evidence of the children’s agency as knowledge producers. We sought to consider how this type of research, in these international contexts, can push against institutional structures to create generative spaces, and how these spaces point to the possibility of eventually challenging inequities by democratizing knowledge production. We stress the importance of not only working towards providing students with a venue for their “voices”, but that in the facilitation of “student voice” through visual images, ensuring that these voices are listened to, and acted upon (Cook-Sather, 2006; Author B, 2013). The work of the children in these projects can serve as evidence that steps toward a critical consciousness are possible with photo-elicitation methods, even with young children in contexts where critical stances are discouraged in schools. As knowledge hierarchies are challenged and insights are shared through research like this, we hope for a future in which children who have developed a critical lens will continue to have the skills and vision to challenge the worlds they see. Our studies provided a space for children to go beyond what they knew as they explored new languages and found new voices. We hope that we as teachers and teacher educators can continue to create spaces for new voices to emerge, while in response, we find new ways of listening.

Sharing seeing 22

References Author B & Author A (2011) Author B in press Author B (2012a) Author B (2012b) Appadurai, A. (2008). Here and now. In N. Mirzoeff (Ed.). The visual culture reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 173–180). London and New York: Routledge.

Baker, T. A., & Wang, C. C. (2006). Photovoice: Use of a participatory action research method to explore the chronic pain experience in older adults. Qualitative Health Research, 16(10), 1405-1413. Banks, M. (2001). Visual methods in social research. London: Sage. Berry, K. (2006). Research as bricolage: Embracing relationality, multiplicity and complexity. In K. Tobin and J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Doing educational research: A handbook, (pp. 87-116). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishing.

Catts, R., Allan, J., & Smyth, G. (2007). Children’s voices: How do we address their right to be heard? Retrieved from http://ser.stir.ac.uk/pdf/190.pdf

Carlson, E. D., Engebretson, J. & Chamberlain, R. M. (2006). Photovoice as a social process of critical consciousness. Qualitative Health Research. DOI: 10.1177/1049732306287525 Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge. Chaplin, E. (1994). Sociology and visual representation. New York: Routledge. Checkoway, B. & Richards-Schuster, K. (2003). Youth participation in community evaluation research. American Journal of Evaluation. DOI: 10.1177/109821400302400103 Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: “Student Voice” in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359-390. Coad, R., & Evans, J. (2008). Reflections on Practical Approaches to Involving Children and Young People in the Data Analysis Process. Children and Society, 22(1) 41–52. Croghan, R., Griffin, C., Hunter, J., Phoenix, J. A. (2008). Young people’s constructions of self: Notes on the use and analysis of the photo-elicitation methods. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 11(4), 345–356.

Sharing seeing 23

Datoo, A. K. (2010). Media and Youth Identity in Pakistan: Global- Local Dynamics and Disjuncture. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 2(1), 192-215 Dockett, S. & Perry, B. (2005). Researching with children: Insights from the Starting School Research Project. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 507-521. Downing, R. (2006). Love through the eyes of Baltimore youth: Photovoice as a youth empowerment tool. Kellogg Community Health Scholars Program. Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health. Retrieved from Center for adolescent health online materials library, http://sites.google.com/site/cahjhsph/yac-photovoice-project Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2008) Introduction. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 1-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Einarsdóttir, J. (2007). Research with children: Methodological and ethical challenges. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(2), 197-211. Einarsdóttir, J. (2005). Playschool in pictures: Children’s photographs as a research method. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 523-541. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ewald, W. & Lightfoot, A. (2001). I wanna take me a picture: teaching photography and writing to children. Boston: Beacon Press. Fasoli, L. (2003). Reading Photographs of Young Children: looking at practices. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4 (1) 32-47 Fernea, E. W. (n.d). Childhood in the Muslim Middle East. Retrieved from isc.temple.edu/neighbor/world/muslim-childhood.pdf Freire, P. (2005/1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. 30th anniversary ed. New York, NY: Continuum International. Gallas, K. (1994). The languages of learning: How children talk, write, dance, draw, and sing their understanding of the world. New York: Teachers College Press.

Goffman, E. (1959/1990). Presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin Books.

Graue, M. E., & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Studying children in context: Theories, methods and ethics. London: Sage. Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York: Teachers College Press. Gronbeck, B. (2008). Foreword. Visual rhetoric studies: Traces through time and space.

Sharing seeing 24

In L. C. Olson, C. A. Finnegan and D. S. Hope (Eds.), Visual rhetoric: A reader in communication and American culture (pp. xxi-xxvi). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Harper, D. (1998). An argument for visual sociology. In J. Prosser (Ed.), Image-based research: A sourcebook for qualitative researchers (pp. 24-41). London: Falmer Press. Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13-26. Hubbard, J. (1991). Shooting back: A photographic view of life by homeless children. New York: New York Press. Hunter, L. (2011). Re-embodying (preservice middle years) teachers? An attempt to reposition the body and its presence in teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 187-200. Ishat, H. (2010). Pakistan’s growth experience. IBA Business Review, 5(2), 11-34. Jevic, L. L., & Springgay, S. (2008). A/r/tography as an ethics of embodiment: Visual journals in preservice Eeducation. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(1), 67-89. Kaplan, I., & Howes, A. (2004). ‘Seeing through different eyes’: Exploring the value of participative research using images in schools. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(2), 143-155. Karimi, P. & Gruber, C. (2012). Introduction: The politics and poetics of the child image in Muslim contexts. The Journal of Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, 32(2), 273-293. Keller, C., Fleury. J, & Perez, A. (2008). Using visual methods to uncover context. Qualitative Health Research, 18(3), 428-436. Kenny, K (2009). Visual communication research designs. New York: Routledge. Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Describing the bricolage: Conceptualizing a new rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 679-92. Kincheloe, J. L. (2003). Teachers as researchers : Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment . New York: Routledge Falmer. Kincheloe, J. (2008). Knowledge and critical pedagogy. The Netherlands: Springer Press. Kincheloe, J. L. & Berry, K. (2004). Rigour and complexity in educational research. London: Open University Press. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. New York: Routledge.

Sharing seeing 25

LEAPS Report: Pakistan. Learning and educational achievements in Punjab Schools. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.leapsproject.org/site/publications/ Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2005). Reflections on portraiture: A dialogue between art and science. Qualitative Inquiry, 11, 3-15. Lemesianou, A. & Grinberg, J. (2006). Doing educational research in a complex world. In K. Tobin and J. Kincheloe (Eds.) Doing Education Research. (pp. 211-234). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Lightfoot, A., Woods, B. A., Jackson, M, et. al. (2012). “In my house”: Laying the foundation for youth HIV prevention in a black church. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 6(4), 451-456. Lopez, E. D., Eng, E., Randall-David, E., & Robinson, N. (2005). Quality-of-life concerns of African American breast cancer survivors within rural North Carolina: Blending the techniques of photovoice and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 15(1), 99-115. Luttrell, W. (2006). Making culture visible: Children's photography, identity and agency. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association, Retrieved November 13, 2008, from SocINDEX with Full Text database. MacDougall, D. (2006). The corporeal image: Film, ethnography and the senses. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

McTavish, M., Streelasky, J., & Coles, L. (2012). Listening to Children’s Voices: Children as Participants in Research. International Journal of Early Childhood. 44(3), 249-267. Mirzoeff, N. (2008). The subject of visual culture. In N. Mirzoeff (Ed.), The visual culture reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 3–23). London and New York: Routledge. Mitchell, C. (2011). Doing visual research. London: Sage. Mohammed, R. F. (2004). Practical constraints upon teacher development in Pakistani schools. Journal of In-service Education, 30(1), 101-114. Pink, S. (2001). Doing visual ethnography: Images, media and representation in research. London: Sage. Piper, H. & Frankham, J. (2007). Seeing Voices and Hearing Pictures: Image as discourse and the framing of image-based research. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 28(3) 373-387 Prosser, J. (Ed.). (1998). Image-based research: A sourcebook for qualitative researchers. New York: Routledge.

Sharing seeing 26

Roth, W. M. (2005). Doing qualitative research: Praxis of method. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Rose, G. (2007). Visual methodologies. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Scarry, E. (2004). Resisting representation. New York: Oxford University Press. Schiller, W., & Einarsdottir, J. (2009) Special Issue: Listening to young children’s voices in research – changing perspectives/changing relationships. Early Child Development and Care, 179(2), 125-130.

Schuster, M. (2008). Field of flowers, Mughal carpets and treasures. Textile society of America symposium proceedings. Paper 132. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=tsaconf Sensoy, Ö. (2011). Picturing oppression: Seventh graders’ photo essays on racism, classism and sexism. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(3), 323-342. Shor, I. (1993). Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Soekefeld, (2008). Moving images: Truck art in Pakistan. Tsantsa, 13, 174-190. Retrieved January 15, 2013, from http://epub.ub.uni---­‐muenchen.de/13150/1/soekefeld_13150.pdf Sturken, M. & Cartwright, L. (2001). Practices of looking: An introduction to visual culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Tobin, K. (2006). Qualitative research in classrooms. In K. Tobin and J. Kincheloe (Eds.), Doing Educational Research: A handbook. (pp. 15-58). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Thomson, P. (2008). Children and young people: voices in visual research. In P. Thomson (Ed.), Doing Visual Research with Children and Young People. (pp. 1- 19). New York: Routledge. Tufte, E. R. (2006). Beautiful evidence. Connecticut: Graphics Press. UNICEF (2009). The state of the world’s children special edition: Celebrating 20 years of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, executive summary. Accessed on February 25, 2013 at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/index_51777.html Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1994). Empowerment through photo novella: Portraits of participation. Health Education Quarterly, 21(2), 171-186. Wang, C., Morrel-Samuels, S., Hutchison, P. S., Bell, et al. (2004). Flint photovoice: Community building among youths, adults and policymakers. American Journal of Public Health, 94(6), 911-913.

Westbrook, J., Shah, N., Durrani, N., et al. (2009). Becoming a teacher: Transitions from

Sharing seeing 27

training to the classroom in the NWFP, Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(4), 437–444 Weintraub, D. (2009). Everything you wanted to know but were powerless to ask. In K. Kenny (Ed.), Visual communication research designs. (pp. 198-221). New York: Routledge. Veale, A. (2005). Creative methodologies in participatory research with children. In Sheila Greene and Diane Hogan [Eds]. Researching children's experience. (pp. 253-272). London: Sage.