MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042688835 · doi:10.1177/1609406920933394

Drawing Out Their Stories: A Scoping Review of Participatory Visual Research Methods With Newcomer Children

2020· review· en· W3042688835 on OpenAlexafffund
Alison Brown, Rebecca Spencer, Jessie‐Lee D. McIsaac, Vivian Howard

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent UniversityDalhousie University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsReflexivityParticipatory action researchCitizen journalismFeelingPsychologyIdentity (music)Process (computing)Quality (philosophy)Computer scienceSociologySocial psychologyWorld Wide WebAestheticsEpistemologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers are increasingly using participatory visual methods (PVM) to gain a deeper understanding of newcomer children’s experiences, sense of identity, relationships, needs, strengths, and aspirations. By taking photos, producing digital stories, creating maps, drawing, sculpting, and other visual-based practices, children can help us understand how they navigate their complex worlds. We conducted a scoping review to explore what is known about participatory visual research with newcomer children. We searched nine databases, screened 692 articles, and included 21 articles for synthesis and analysis. Five common and connected areas were identified as important for consideration when envisioning, planning, and conducting this type of research with newcomer children: PVM provides an opportunity for children to communicate complex feelings and disrupt deficit discourse; participation in PVM research is highly dependent on varying cultural, economic, and relational factors; providing a range and choice of data collection activities permits deeper engagement and higher quality data; PVM can enhance meaningful engagement, reduce power asymmetry, and engender confidence and self-awareness; developing and sustaining trusted relationships are integral to the research process. The review reveals the need for more researcher reflexivity with an explicit attention to assumptions, values, and ethical considerations and suggests opportunities for researchers to better ensure newcomer children can share and shape their own stories.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.872
GPT teacher head0.774
Teacher spread0.097 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207