Experimentando con tareas visuales para investigar las representaciones infantiles sobre la familia en contextos de diversidad familiar.

  1. Poveda, David 1
  2. Jociles, María Isabel 2
  1. 1 Departamento Interfacultativo de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
  2. 2 Departamento de Antropología Social y Psicología Social, Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Journal:
Sociedad e Infancias

ISSN: 2531-0720

Year of publication: 2021

Issue Title: Métodos participativos en la investigación con niños

Volume: 5

Issue: 5

Pages: 49-60

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5209/SOCI.71196 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Sociedad e Infancias

Abstract

In this article we discuss the process of methodological experimentation that led to the construction of a visual instrument ("the family poster/mural") to explore views of the family and family experiences in children from non-conventional families. We review the potentials of different visual approaches to the concept of family that have developed over the past few decades and we situate our proposal as an alternative that responds to some of our theoretical and methodological needs. In short, to develop a device that allowed us to work flexibility and collaboratively with families, that was sensitive to an ecological perspective on the family and that explored the possibilities of family photographs as an analytic device. We showcase ways in which the family poster has been used and, especially, we discuss strategies to analyze the "family poster". We close the paper situating our methodological process within broader debates in ethnography and child studies about collaboration and experimentation in qualitative research.

Bibliographic References

  • Aguirre, A., Moliner, L., Traver, J. (2017). Repensando la etnografía desde lugares de artesanía y construcción colectiva. ETNIA-E: Cuadernos de Investigación Etnográfica sobre Infancia, Adolescencia y Educación del IMA / FMEE, 12, 1-15.
  • Alonso, E. (2012). Proceso de construcción de una familia adoptiva: Relato de dos familias. Papers infancia_c, 2, 1-25.
  • Bohnsack, R. (2008). The Interpretation of pictures and the documentary method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-9.3.1171
  • Bourdieu, P. (1990). Photography: A middle-brow art. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742.
  • Brown, S; Reavey, P., Brookfield, H. (2014). Spectral objects: Material links to difficult pasts for adoptive families. En P. Harvey, E. Casella, G. Evans, H. Knox, C. McLean, E. Silva, N. Thoburn, K. Woodwards (eds.), Objects and materials: A Routledge companion (pp. 191-200). Londres: Routledge.
  • Cappello, M. (2005). Photo interviews: Eliciting data through conversations with children. Field Methods, 17(2), 170-182.
  • Clark, A. (2010). Young children as protagonists and the role of participatory, visual methods in engaging multiple perspectives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1-2), 115-123.
  • Estalella, A., Sánchez-Criado, T. (eds.) (2018). Experimental collaborations: Ethnography through fieldwork devices. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
  • Estalella, A., Sánchez-Criado, T. (2019). DIY anthropology Disciplinary knowledge in crisis. ANUAC, 8 (2), 143-165.
  • Ferro, L., Poveda, D. (eds.), (2019). Arts and ethnography in a contemporary world: From learning to social participation. Londres: The Tufnell Press.
  • Flewitt, R. (2020). Ethics and researching young children’s digital literacy practices. In O. Erstad, R. Flewitt, B. Kümmerling-Meibauer, I. Pires, I. (eds), The Routledge handbook of digital literacies in early childhood (pp. 64-78). Londres: Routledge.
  • Gardner, H. (2004). Perceptions of family: Complexities introduced by foster care part 1: Childhood perspectives. Journal of Family Studies, 10(2), 170-187.
  • Gillen, J., Cameron, C., Tapanya, S., Pinto, G., Hancock, R., Young, S., Gamannossi, B. (2007). ‘A day in the life’: Advancing a methodology for the cultural study of development and learning in early childhood. Early Child Development and Care, 177(2), 207–218.
  • Golombok, S. (2015). Modern families: Parents and children in new family forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hammersley, M. (2008). Questioning qualitative inquiry: Critical essays. Londres: Sage.
  • Handler, L., Habenicht, D. (1994). The kinetic family drawing technique: A review of the literature. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62(3), 440-464.
  • Hertz, R., Rivas, A., Jociles, M. I. (2016). Single mothers by choice in Spain and the United States. En C. L. Shenan (ed.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of family studies (pp. 1-5). Nueva York: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Holloway, D., Stevenson, K. (2017). Parent as field collaborator when interviewing the pre-verbal and early verbal child. DigiLitEY Blog, 24 enero 2017 (en línea).
  • https://digilitey.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/parent-as-field-collaborator-when-interviewing-the-pre-verbal-and-early-verbal-child/
  • Jociles, M. I. (2006). La imposición de los puntos de vista durante la entrevista etnográfica. Antropología Portuguesa, 22, 9-40.
  • Jociles, M. I. (ed.) (2016). Revelaciones, filiaciones y biotecnologías: Una etnografía sobre la comunicación de los orígenes a los hijos e hijas concebidos mediante donación reproductiva. Barcelona: Bellaterra.
  • Jociles, M. I., Medina, R. (eds.) (2013). La monoparentalidad por elección: El proceso de construcción de un modelo de familia. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
  • Jociles, M. I., Poveda, D., Rivas, A. (2013). Revelación de los orígenes en las familias de madres solteras (MSPE) por elección que han recurrido a la donación de gametos. En M. I. Jociles, R. Medina (eds.), La monoparentalidad por elección: El proceso de construcción de un modelo de familia (pp. 67-92). Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
  • Kress, G., van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The grammar of visual design. Londres: Routledge.
  • Kullman, K. (2012). Experiments with moving children and digital cameras. Children's Geographies, 10(1), 1-16.
  • Kullman, K. (2013). Geographies of experiment/experimental geographies: A rough guide. Geography Compass, 7(12), 879-894.
  • León, O., Montero, I. (2015). Métodos de investigación en psicología y educación, 4a edición. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.
  • Mitchell, C. (2011). Doing visual research. Londres: Sage.
  • Mayall, B. (2008). Conversations with children: Working with generational issues. En P. Christensen, A. James (eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (pp. 109-122). Londres: Routledge.
  • Mendoza, K., Morgade, M. (2018). Talleres artísticos como dispositivos de investigación con migrantes adolescentes. Disparidades: Revista de Antropología, 73(2), 365-385.
  • Minich, J. (2016). Enabling whom? Critical disability studies now. Lateral, 5(1) (en línea). http://csalateral.org/issue/5-1/forum-alt-humanities-critical-disability-studies-now-minich/
  • Moscoso, M. (2018). Arte-grafías migrantes de la ciudad: Experimentos metodológicos y 'mucho power on the field'. Revista de Antropología Experimental, 18, 135-149.
  • Mraz, J. (1999). Fotografía y familia. Desacatos, 2, 143-146.
  • Navarro, J., Escobar, M. (2018). Family maps: Building a concept of family and kinship between single mothers by choice and their children in Chile. ASAC 2018 Seventh Biennial Conference. Formations: Thinking Kinship Through Adoption. Oakland, EEUU, 18-20 de octubre.
  • Neal, J., Neal, Z. (2013). Nested or networked? Future directions for ecological systems theory. Social Development, 22(4), 722-737.
  • Pavez, I., Sepúlveda, N. (2019). Concepto de agencia en los estudios de infancia. Una revisión teórica. Sociedad e Infancias, 3, 193-210.
  • Potter, J., Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(4), 281-307.
  • Poveda, D. (2020). Researching digital literacy practices in early childhood: Challenges, complexities and imperatives. En O. Erstad, R. Flewitt, B. Kümmerling-Meibauer, I. Pereira (eds.), The Routledge handbook of digital literacies in early childhood (pp. 45-63). Londres: Routledge.
  • Poveda, D., Jociles, M. I., Rivas, A. (2011). Monoparentalidad por elección: Procesos de socialización de los hijos/as en un modelo familiar no convencional. Athenea Digital: Revista de Pensamiento e Investigación Social, 11(2), 133-154.
  • Poveda, D., Jociles, M. I., Alonso, E., Morgade, M. (2015). Strategies for socialization into a non-conventional family project. ETNIA-E: Cuadernos de Investigación Etnográfica sobre Infancia, Adolescencia y Educación del IMA/FMEE nº 8, 1-15.
  • Poveda, D., Moscoso, M. F, Jociles, M. I. (2018). From reflexivity to normalization: Parents and children confronting disclosure in families formed through assisted reproduction involving gamete donation. Human Organization, 77(1), 10-21.
  • Poveda, D., Matsumoto, M., Morgade, M., Alonso, E. (2018). Photographs as a research tool in child studies: Some analytical metaphors and choices. Qualitative Research in Education, 7(2), 170-196.
  • Poveda, D., Jociles, M. I., González-Patiño, J. (comps.) (2015). Deseos, hadas, magos y semillas: Cuentos para comunicar los orígenes en familias que han acudido a la donación reproductiva. Papers Infancia_c, 8, 1-38 (libro electrónico - impresión bajo demanda).
  • Rabinow, P. (2011). The accompaniment: Assembling the contemporary. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Rivas, A. (2009). Pluriparentalidades y parentescos electivos. Presentación del volumen monográfico. Revista de Antropología Social, 18, 7-19.
  • Roe, A., Bridges, L., Dunn, J., O'Connor, T. (2006). Young children's representations of their families: A longitudinal follow-up study of family drawings by children living in different family settings. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(6), 529-536.
  • Rose, G. (2008). Visual methodologies, 2nd edition. Londres: Sage.
  • Ruppert, E., Law, J., Savage, M. (2013). Reassembling social science methods: The challenge of digital devices. Theory, Culture and Society, 30(4), 22-46.
  • Samuelsson, M., Thernlund, G., Ringström, J. (1996). Using the five field map to describe the social network of children: A methodological study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19(2), 327-345.
  • Schalk, S. (2017). Critical disability studies as methodology. Lateral, 6(1) (en línea). http://csalateral.org/issue/6-1/forum-alt-humanities-critical-disability-studies-methodology-schalk/
  • Silverman, D. (2013). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research, 2nd edition. Londres: Sage.
  • Sturgess, W., Dunn, J., Davies, L. (2001). Young children's perceptions of their relationships with family members: Links with family setting, friendships, and adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(6), 521-529.
  • Tasker, F., Granville, J. (2011). Children's views of family relationships in lesbian-led families. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7(1-2), 182-199.
  • Trost, J. (1999). Family as a set of dyads. Marriage and Family Review, 28(3-4), 79-91.
Data source: Dialnet