Conducting participatory photography with children with disabilities: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This review summarized studies that used participatory photography with children with disabilities, including those with communication impairments, and described modifications made to the methodology to facilitate their participation in qualitative research.Methods: In the fall of 2016, we searched Psycinfo (OVID), ERIC, CINAHL and Web of Science to identify studies that used participatory photography with children with disabilities. The search was repeated in January 2018 to retrieve any new publications. The first author extracted data that described the characteristics of each study and the modifications used.Results: Of the 258 articles identified, 19 met inclusion criteria. Participants ranged from 4–21 years old and had a variety of disabilities. Study topics included education, leisure activities and adulthood. Researchers modified participatory photography to enhance accessibility by: modifying cameras; providing individual training; teaching consent through role play; allowing children to direct adults to take photographs; including additional forms of media; using diaries and questionnaires; providing individual interviews with simplified questions; using multiple forms of communication; and modifying how photographs are shared.Conclusions: Participatory photography can be an effective method for studying the lived experiences of children with disabilities, particularly those with communication impairments. Methodological modifications can enhance the accessibility of this approach for this population.Implications for RehabilitationParticipatory photography may be an effective qualitative research method for learning about the perspectives and experiences of children with disabilities on a wide array of topics.There are many specific modifications that researchers can use to support the inclusion of children with disabilities in participatory photography research.The findings of studies that use participatory photography methodology may provide rehabilitation professionals with important insights into the lives of children with disabilities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".