MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1559154035 · doi:10.11575/ajer.v58i4.55541

Draw me a picture, tell me a story: Evoking memory and supporting analysis through pre-interview drawing activities

2012· article· en· W1559154035 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Ellis, Randy Hetherington, Meridith Lovell-Johnston, Janet McConaghy, Melody Viczko

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Calgary · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)PsychologyVisual researchInterpretation (philosophy)Qualitative researchNarrativePresentation (obstetrics)Visual artsPedagogySociologyArtLinguisticsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In interviews for interpretive inquiry or interpretive case studies, researchers hope to grasp participants’ perspectives and learn about the nature and meaning of their experiences. There are many challenges or requirements for useful or successful interviews. In this paper we identify important aspects of interviews and examine the helpful contributions of using pre-interview activities. Pre-interview activities were drawings or diagrams that participants completed about the experiences of interest. Participants brought the completed drawings to their interviews and the interviews commenced with presentation and discussion of these visuals. This paper presents four studies that illustrate how the use of pre-interview activities can support participants in identifying central ideas in their experiences. In the interviews, the participants spoke at length about the visual representations they produced and in these reflections they identified central ideas or key themes in the experiences. Some drawings were a source of visual metaphors for discussing the experience and some highlighted whole-part relationships that informed interpretation. The findings contribute to conversations about how to “invite stories” rather than “request reports” from participants, how images other than photographs can serve as evocative and potent visuals to support memory and reflection in interviews, and how researchers can better or more directly access a participant’s meaning. Lors d’entrevues dans le contexte d’enquêtes interprétatives ou d’études de cas interprétatives, les chercheurs espèrent comprendre les perspectives des participants et de se renseigner sur la nature et le sens de leurs expériences. Les entrevues utiles ou réussies impliquent de nombreux défis et plusieurs exigences. Dans cet article, nous identifions certains aspects importants d’entrevues et examinons les contributions utiles des activités pré-entrevues. Les activités pré-entrevues consistaient en des dessins ou des diagrammes complétés par les participants et portant sur des expériences qui les intéressaient. Les participants sont arrivés aux entrevues avec leurs dessins terminés; les entrevues ont débuté par une présentation et une discussion de ces illustrations. Cet article présente quatre études qui illustrent la mesure dans laquelle l’emploi d’activités pré-entrevues peut appuyer les participants dans l’identification des idées qui sont centrales à leurs expériences. Lors des entrevues, les participants ont longuement parlé au sujet des représentations visuelles qu’ils avaient produites; au cours de leurs réflexions, ils ont identifié les idées centrales, ou thèmes clés, de ces expériences. Certains dessins étaient sources de métaphores visuelles servant d’appui à l’expérience; d’autres mettaient l’accent sur les relations partie-tout qui éclairaient leurs interprétations. Les résultats viennent contribuer aux conversations sur la façon d‘inviter les participants à « raconter des histoires » plutôt que de leur « demander des rapports », sur le rôle que peuvent jouer les images (autres que les photos) comme illustrations évocatrices et puissantes qui appuient la mémoire et la réflexion lors d’entrevues, et sur les moyens pour les chercheurs d’avoir un meilleur accès, ou un accès plus directe, au sens que veulent communiquer les participants.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.022
Scholarly communication0.0100.014
Open science0.0050.017
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.228
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of CalgarySame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207