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:
What’s in focus? A critical discussion of photography, children and young people
John Barker[1] 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
'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 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 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 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 care[2] (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 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 photographs[3]
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 (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.
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 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 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 theexternal 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 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.