Reflecting on the use of photo elicitation with children
Data collection Previous     Next

Reflecting on the use of photo elicitation with children

Lisa S Whiting Professional lead, children’s nursing, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK

Aim To reflect on the use of photo elicitation as a data collection method when conducting research with primary school age children (nine to 11 years).

Background There is recognition that children feel an affinity with the visual medium; as a result, visual methods can be useful when conducting research with children. Photo elicitation is one such method, but there has been little discussion of its use with primary school children within a health context. This paper considers the main issues that researchers should consider.

Data sources This paper draws on a research study conducted by the author that used an ethnographic approach and photo elicitation to identify the assets underpinning children’s wellbeing.

Review methods A reflective discussion is used to highlight issues relating to the use of photo elicitation to collect data from primary school children.

Discussion Photo elicitation is not without its challenges: it creates additional ethical considerations, and can be more time-consuming and expensive. However, children value the opportunity to be involved in research and have their opinions sought, and photo elicitation provides a method of collecting data that is appropriate for children’s developmental and cognitive maturational stages.

Conclusion Photo elicitation can be a positive experience for children, and one that is not only fun and engaging, but that is also empowering and valuing of their contributions.

Implications for research/practice Research that uses photo elicitation needs to be carefully planned to ensure that the study is supported appropriately. The visual process can offer a unique insight into children’s lives that allows health professionals to deepen their understanding of children’s experiences.

Nurse Researcher. 22, 3, 13-17. doi: 10.7748/nr.22.3.13.e1283

Peer review

This article has been subject to double blind peer review

Conflict of interest

None declared

Received: 24 September 2013

Accepted: 05 December 2014

Want to read more?

Already subscribed? Log in

OR

Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today

Save over 50% on your first 3 months

Your subscription package includes:
  • Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives
  • Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics
  • RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules
  • RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
Subscribe
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now

Or