the draw-and-write technique
The draw-and-write technique is an arts-informed, visual
research method. Participants are prompted to perform a drawing activity along
with a writing exercise, interview, or focus group (Pridmore & Bendelow,
1995). It was first developed in the UK during the 1980s for studies of
children's health. Typically, the draw-and-write technique is administered to
children by teachers and/or researchers in the classroom. Variations of the draw-and-write technique have also been
used in research on adults. As a mode of communication for adults, drawing
often takes the form of diagramming or graphic ideation, that is, the process
of quick freehand sketches to increase self-understanding (McKim, 1980).
Advocates of the draw-and-write technique assert that it is compatible with a variety of research interests; can be used to triangulate other forms of data; is a relatively easy form of data collection; and is often enjoyable for participants to perform. Above all, it generates an unusually rich and unique visual data set, "Drawings offer a different kind of glimpse into human sense-making than written or spoken texts do, because they can express that which is not easily put into words: the ineffable, the elusive, the not-yet-thought-through" (Weber & Mitchell, 1995, p. 34).
Problems with the draw-and-write technique have also been registered (Brackett-Milburn & McKie, 1999). One critique pertains to validity, that is, the degree to which the activity measures what it is meant to measure. Subjects may draw what is easy to depict; be affected by the proximity of others; and/or desire to please the researcher. There is evidence, too, that the drawing exercise may be experienced as unpleasant by a minority of subjects. The strongest objection to the draw-and-write technique concerns the analysis and interpretation of the resulting visual data, which can be time consuming (Umoquit, Tso, Burchett, & Dobrow, 2011). Mair and Kierans (2007) asserts that studies thus far have taken naive positivist or interpretivist analytical approaches. Finally, there are open questions about ethical protocols related to consent, privacy, and the use of the images during and after the study.
Advocates of the draw-and-write technique assert that it is compatible with a variety of research interests; can be used to triangulate other forms of data; is a relatively easy form of data collection; and is often enjoyable for participants to perform. Above all, it generates an unusually rich and unique visual data set, "Drawings offer a different kind of glimpse into human sense-making than written or spoken texts do, because they can express that which is not easily put into words: the ineffable, the elusive, the not-yet-thought-through" (Weber & Mitchell, 1995, p. 34).
Problems with the draw-and-write technique have also been registered (Brackett-Milburn & McKie, 1999). One critique pertains to validity, that is, the degree to which the activity measures what it is meant to measure. Subjects may draw what is easy to depict; be affected by the proximity of others; and/or desire to please the researcher. There is evidence, too, that the drawing exercise may be experienced as unpleasant by a minority of subjects. The strongest objection to the draw-and-write technique concerns the analysis and interpretation of the resulting visual data, which can be time consuming (Umoquit, Tso, Burchett, & Dobrow, 2011). Mair and Kierans (2007) asserts that studies thus far have taken naive positivist or interpretivist analytical approaches. Finally, there are open questions about ethical protocols related to consent, privacy, and the use of the images during and after the study.
