Two Modes of Graphic Elicitation Interviews to Explore Factors that Impact on Research Master’s and Doctoral Studies

Author(s):

Salome Schulze(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

22. Research in Higher Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

22 SES 01 D, Development of Research & Teaching: Tools and Practices

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-23

13:15-14:45

Room:

NM-J104

Chair:

Helen Avery

Contribution

This paper evaluates two modes of graphic elicitation interviews that were used to explore the factors that impact on students’ learning progress. Sparked by a concern over the slow throughput and high dropout rate of research master’s and doctoral students at the University of South Africa (Unisa), two research projects were undertaken within the interpretative and constructivist paradigm. In the first project the aim was to enhance the insight into the factors that socialised students to success; in the second investigation the aim was to explore the reasons for the students’ procrastination.

Since student learning and development are personal and social processes, interviews are often used to explore the factors that impact on the learning behaviour of the students. In this regard Banks (2007) believes that visuals can enrich interview data, and should be considered by social researchers in any project. The advantages of using visuals in research include the fact that visuals ensure a relaxed beginning and progression of interviews, stimulate memory, are particularly invitational for stories and reveal the relevant whole-part structures of topics. Accordingly, participant-created visuals (diagrams or drawings) were used in the graphic elicitation interviews to collect data in the abovementioned projects conducted at Unisa.

In both instances referred to above, social learning theories were considered and were useful in interpreting the data. In the first investigation, with successful students, the sociocultural theory was particularly valuable. According to the sociocultural theory, pedagogy in a relational sense refers to the initiation of relationships and actions across multiple spaces which provide the potential to learn. Student learning and development occur through social experiences when the students interact with people (using language), artefacts (e.g., books and journals), situations, work contexts or academic institutions and practices. In the second project, with procrastinating students, the situated learning theory, the social capital theory and the self-regulated learning theory were suitable to interpret the interview data. The situated learning theory, e.g., learning in communities of practice, indicates that learning is influenced by the culture, context and activities in which it takes place, and that social activity is a key ingredient of learning. Through activities in the academic community, praxis is renewed and insights are generated by the participating students. The social capital theories demonstrate how the social networks in an academic community are sources of information about norms or expectations and thus function as a source of social capital. Other valuable resources for research students are their peers and supervisors. The self-regulated learning theory explains why and how students learn independently, and what they need to know about themselves and their academic learning tasks. Self-regulation refers to the degree to which the students are actively involved in their own learning on a meta-cognitive, motivational and behavioural level, and involves setting goals, organising their learning, and consistently reflecting on and monitoring their learning progress.

With regard to the use of visuals in research on postgraduate student learning and supervisory practices, there is a dearth of publications which used visuals. One Finnish study used timelines to study engaging and disengaging doctoral experiences (Pyhältö, & Vekkaila & Lonka 2014), and a South African study used metaphor drawing in research on ideal supervisory practices with a group of supervisors as participants (Van Laren, Pithouse-Morgan, Chisanga, Harrison, Meyiwa, Muthukrishna & Naicker, 2014). This study found that the exercise supported the participants to reconsider their own supervisory practices.

Against the above as background, the aim of this paper was to compare the value of the two modes of graphics (diagrams and drawings) that were used at Unisa to explore the factors that impact on research master’s and doctoral studies.

Method

Twenty-one students in the field of Education at Unisa participated in the research done within the interpretative and constructivist paradigm. The first context involved 11 students who were particularly successful in the completion of their studies. With reference to the sociocultural theory, the students completed a three-column, ten-line table, according to set conditions. Thereafter they used the information in the tables to complete a diagram (a relational map consisting of five concentric circles), according to pre-set notations. Placing themselves in the centre, they were required to position close to them the people, artefacts or processes that were most influential in their success, with those that were least significant further away. The maps were used to elicit interviews which were tape-recorded. The method was successful in enhancing insight into the factors that socialised the students to success. It identified three key factors which were related to mediation, internalisation and the Zone of Proximal Development. The transcripts of the interviews indicated the significant role of supervisors and institutions, the students’ language proficiency, and their ability in self-regulated learning to be able to internalise the insights that they had gained. It illustrated that the students could deliver conceptually complex research outputs through interaction in academic learning communities. In the second context ten procrastinating students were involved. In replication of a Finnish study (Vekkaila et al. 2014), the students were instructed to reflect on and complete drawings (timelines) that illustrated their research journeys since registration to the time of the interview. They were guided by three questions that focussed on the events that motivated or challenged them; when, where and why these occurred, and what happened thereafter. The drawings were used to elicit interviews which were recorded. In this respect the social learning theories that included the situated learning theory, the social capital theory and the self-regulated learning theory were useful in the identification of broad themes in the narratives. The researcher could identify three main themes with reference to student disengagement: a lack of self-regulated learning; feelings of being isolated from the academic community; and situational factors at work or at home. The study also identified three main themes in respect of why the participants remained in the system and continued with their studies after periods of inactivity: research problems that were personally meaningful; the ability to regulate their own learning; and their involvement in the academic community in some way or another.

Expected Outcomes

Both modes of graphics (diagram and drawing) enabled the researcher to gain insight into the factors that either facilitated the successful learning of research master’s and doctoral students, or that caused procrastination, even though the students remained in the system and continued with their studies at a later stage. The visuals were useful icebreakers to start and conduct discussions, since they functioned as a neutral third party that prevented awkwardness; they facilitated reflection and recall; and enabled the participants to identify key people, artefacts or processes that impacted on their progress. Both approaches enabled the researcher to identify main themes in the interview transcripts. Since the graphics were generated by the participants, they gave the participants voice and power. The graphics were also visible proof of the findings and thus enhanced the trustworthiness of the research. A comparison of the value of the two modes of graphics indicated advantages and disadvantages to gaining insight into factors that impacted on student progress. The relational maps (a diagram) which indicated distance between the participant and significant others, provided useful information on the strength of a factor that impacted on student development and presented the investigator with outcomes not anticipated. However, the greater flexibility of drawings, such as the timelines that were used, allowed for easier expression of thought and delivered richer data, for example, when the drawings contained visual metaphors of emotions. However, key questions were needed to ensure that the research was focussed, and thus remained on track. Because drawings afforded the participants with more power than diagrams, the participants were better able to inform the researcher about their experiences and what they meant. Recommendations for the future use of visuals in research on student learning behaviour in higher education are presented.

References

Bagnoli, A. 2009. Beyond the standard interview: The use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods. Qualitative Research, 9(5):547-570. Banks, M. 2001. Visual methods in social research. London: Sage. Banks, M. 2007. Using visual data in qualitative research. The SAGE qualitative research kit. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Blackwell, A.F. 2001. Thinking with diagrams. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic. Crilly, N., Blackwell, A.F. & Clarkson, P.J. 2006. Graphic elicitation: Using diagrams as interview stimuli. Qualitative Research, 6(3):341-366. Ellis, J., Hetherington, R., Lovell, M., McConaghy, J., & Viczko, M. Draw me a picture, tell me a story: Evoking memory and supporting analysis through pre-interview drawing activities. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(4):488-508. Fischman G.E. 2001. Reflections about images. Visual culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 30(8):28-33. Galman, S.A.C. 2009. The truthful messenger: visual methods and representation in qualitative research in education. Qualitative Research, 9(2):197-217. Guell, C. & Ogilvie, D. 2015. Picturing commuting: Photovoice and seeking well-being in everyday travel. Qualitative Research, 15(2):201-218. Han, J. & Liang, N. 2015. In their own eyes and voices: The value of an Executive MBA program according to participants. Journal of Management Education, 39(6):741-773. Kesby, M. 2000. Participatory diagramming: deploying qualitative methods through an action research epistemology. Area 32(4):423-435. Kuehne, G. 2013. “I don’t know what’s right anymore”. Engaging distressed interviewees using graphic elicitation. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 14(3): Art. 2, 1-21. Pink, S. 2006. Visual methods. In: The Sage dictionary of social research methods, ed. V. Jupp. London: Sage, 320-322. Rapley, T.J. 2001. The art(fullness) of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analysing interviews. Qualitative Research, 1(3):303-323. Rose, G. 2012. Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Sheridan, J., Chamberlain, K. & Dupuis, A. 2011. Timelining: visualizing experience. Qualitative Research, 11(5):552-569. Theron, L. Mitchell, C., Smith, A. & Stuart, J. 2011. Picturing research. Drawing as visual methodology. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Van Laren, L., Pithouse-Morgan, K., Chisanga, T., Harrison, L., Meyiwa, T., Muthukrishna & Naicker, I. 2014. ‘Walking our talk’: Exploring supervision of postgraduate self-study research through metaphor drawing. South African Journal of Higher Education, 28(2):639-659. Varga-Atkins, T. & O’Brien, M. 2009. From drawings to diagrams: maintaining researcher control during graphic elicitation in qualitative interviews. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(1): 53-67. Vekkaila, J., Pyhältö, K. & Lonka, K. 2014. Engaging and disengaging doctoral experiences in the behavioural sciences. International Journal for Research Development 5(1):33-55.

Author Information

Salome Schulze (presenting / submitting)

University of South Africa

Psychology of Education

Pretoria

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.