Playing with meaning: using cartoons to disseminate research findings

Abstract

Cartoons are a ubiquitous form of visual communication. Yet they are often overlooked in methodological debates about dissemination. In this article, the potential of cartoons as a vehicle for processing and transmitting qualitative research findings is explored and some methodological advantages and concerns of using cartoons in this way are outlined. Discussion stems from a small-scale, experimental ‘knowledge transfer’ project located within a larger qualitative study about higher functioning men and women with dementia who campaign for social change. It concludes that cartooning can bring to life in a playful way serious issues, but as form of visual communication, cartoons are not for everyone, and must therefore be used judiciously to disseminate research findings.

Keywords

cartoons dementia knowledge transfer public engagement research dissemination

Introduction

What right do we have (as researchers) to speak for others? To write their lives? (Richardson, 1990: 27)

Cartoons, like photographs and film, saturate our cultural landscape, and yet they are rarely used to disseminate research findings. The ‘visual turn’ in qualitative sociology has so far neglected this form of transmission. This is perhaps surprising as cartoons clearly have the potential to present findings from scholarly research in a visually engaging way. For example, cartoon humour can help to clarify thinking and spark conversations about different ideas and beliefs (Lockyer and Pickering, 2009). Further, a cartoon image can usefully represent and challenge cultural norms (Prosser, 1998). In this article, the potential of cartoons as a vehicle for disseminating qualitative research is explored, and some methodological advantages and concerns of using cartoons in this way are outlined. The intention is to stimulate thinking within the qualitative research community about the role of cartoons for conveying research insights, and to argue for more playful approaches to meaning making and conveying research findings.

Central to discussion is the issue of dissemination. Codes of ethical practice require researchers to report on data collected and to share their findings as widely as possible (e.g. Economic and Social Research Council, 2010). At the same time, calls for (social) scientists to transmit their findings and make their research relevant to the wider public are steadily growing (e.g. Davies, 2010; Dean, 2009; Richardson, 1990; Simpson, 2007; Woods, 1999). No longer is it acceptable to talk only to the academic community: knowledge gained from qualitative research must be ‘transferred’ as widely and as appropriately as possible.

In recent years, qualitative researchers have begun to experiment with alternative ways of disseminating scholarly findings. Rather than relying solely on written text researchers are embracing other dissemination methods to reach non-academic audiences. For example, dramatic performance has been used to transmit research findings on the personhood of people with dementia (Kontos and Naglie, 2006), findings from the Living Resemblances Project was disseminated via a public exhibition (Burke, 2008), and art practices generally are advocated as a useful way of reaching larger audiences (Richardson, 2003). An art form, like a cartoon, for instance, can be ‘powerful, thought provoking and potentially disarming’ (Burns, 2006: 18). Clearly, the dissemination of research findings to the wider public is an essential, but arguably least well established aspect of the qualitative research process (Barnes et al., 2003).

This article contributes to contemporary debate about dissemination methods and practice. It stems from a small-scale, experimental ‘knowledge transfer’ project funded by the School of Health Studies, University of Bradford. The project was located within a larger qualitative research study on the campaign activities of people with dementia (2008–2010). The article documents the rationale for, and process of, creating a set of cartoons with which to disseminate selected findings from the research study. The project was undertaken to try-out cartoons as a way of communicating findings and to allow the visual artist and I – a visual sociologist – to work together (for the first time) and rehearse the process of preparing for an exhibition based on research findings.¹ Discussion begins with a brief discussion of the value of cartoons in popular culture; it then describes in more detail the larger qualitative study behind the cartoon project. This contextualises the explanation which follows, as to where the idea of using cartoons came from. The creative process of developing the cartoons is then described before conclusions are drawn about the methodological advantages and concerns of using cartoons to disseminate scholarly findings.

The role of cartoons

Cartoons are a ubiquitous form of visual communication. They are produced on a daily basis and offer a window into the world depicted (Pauwels, 2010). From a socio-cultural perspective, cartoons and the humour inherent within them have an important role to play in popular and academic culture. On a superficial level they serve to amuse in an undemanding way. For example, ‘(newspaper) cartoons are designed to be humorous – a diversion from life’s serious concerns, and since they are presented in a pictorial form, they make small demands on the reader’s attention and intellect’(Dines-Levy and Smith, 1988: 235). In addition, cartoons are frequently used on mainstream greeting cards (see Figure 1). Whether such imagery is funny or not is not the issue here. The point is that cartoons are widespread. Even in academia – in open learning materials and medical/health related texts, for instance, of which, Chambers et al. (2007) is indicative – cartoons are used to amuse the reader and highlight salient points (Rowntree, 1999).

Figure 1.

A cartoon depiction of ‘senility’ in popular culture.

Cartoons can provoke serious debate, as well as amuse (Rowntree, 1999). Like other forms of visual communication they allow the viewer to gain insight to and/or speak about a complex or thorny issue. Take the political cartoon. One only has to think of Kurt Westergaard’s cartoon depiction of the prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban, which sparked riots throughout many Muslim countries and communities, to realise how contentious this form of visual communication can be (Olesen, 2009).Whatever one thinks of Westergaard’s cartoon, or of political cartoons in general, cartoons, as a visual form of communication in popular culture, have the power to capture in a single image, socially vexing issues which are deeply contentious and/or taboo (Dines-Levy and Smith, 1988).

Cartooning and dementia is a volatile mix. Using cartoons in relation to people with any kind of disability has the potential to offend or cause harm to those affected. In the past, disability scholars have argued that cartoon characters like Mr McGee – who was partially sighted, and Elmer J Fudd – who spoke in an unusual way, carried negative messages about impairment and identity, which undermined peoples’ experiences of disability (Shakespeare, 1994). On the other hand, however, when produced insightfully, cartoons can be a simple and powerful means of communication, usefully challenging and pushing the boundaries in relation to phenomena which are feared, such as dementia (Corner and Bond, 2004). The fact that people with a disability themselves are creating cartoons to show the barriers they face is further evidence of the potential of this form of communication (see, for example, http://www.crippencartoons.co.uk/index.shtml).

In summation, cartoons are widespread and play a useful role in popular culture. Not only do they provide light relief from the written word, they can illustrate and open up debate about serious and/or sensitive topics. Furthermore, as a ‘visual form they are simple but ideas rich’ (Prosser, personal communication), making them a potentially useful device with which to communicate findings from qualitative research to non-academic audiences.

The research behind the cartooning

The cartoon project was located within a larger ethnographically orientated study about higher functioning men and women with dementia who campaign for social change. The central aim of this study was to discover what leads people with dementia to take social action (such as writing letters to newspapers, speaking out in public and lobbying politicians) and to explore the impact it has on individuals, particularly in terms of their well-being. Sixteen ‘activists’ with dementia took part in the study and data were collected through a combination of diary-interview method (Zimmerman and Weider, 1975) and participant observation (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998). This combination of methods allowed for a symbiotic exploration into the inner (private) and external (public) lifeworlds of participants who were campaigning for social change. Sensory methods, including photo and audio diaries were used to gain a more dynamic and performative understanding of the topic (Pink, 2007) and to enable participation (for a more detailed discussion of methods see Bartlett, in press). As the focus of this article is on the cartoon project, there is limited scope for detailed discussion of the methods used, the analytical process, or study findings. Essentially though, the study used thematic and content analysis techniques, and found that participants were ‘fighting back’ – they were taking action in response to structural problems and fundamentally challenging cultural (mis)perceptions about dementia (Bartlett, forthcoming).

During the course of fieldwork it became apparent that some participants used humour. Like other social activists, they used humour in several strategic ways (Gouin, 2004; Hiller, 1983); for example, to make a point, alleviate tension, and to counter negative stereotypes about being a ‘sufferer’ with dementia. A strand of humour was evident throughout the dataset, as the following selection of excerpts show:

I don’t know if I’ve got Alzheimer’s so I say it’s old timers disease. I make a joke out of it. (man with dementia, retired businessman, age 57)

Martin Luther King didn’t say ‘I have a strategy’ (text on PowerPoint slide) (woman with dementia, retired software consultant, age 55)

I’m looking for a new secretary because I’m the one with dementia and she’s as confused (man with dementia, retired health and safety officer, age 68)

I’ve got a better life than I had before dementia, so I’d recommend it [Laughter] (man with dementia, retired pilot, age 69)

Participant:

The NICE² committee they approve drugs don’t they?

Res:

Yeah.

Participant:

I call them Not So NICE (man with dementia, retired surveyor, age 68)

Self-deprecating humour, plays on words, joke telling and laughter featured a lot in the corpus of data. Other researchers whose fieldwork involves people with dementia have found this too (Whitfield and Wismer, 2006). Some people involved in the main study took humour very seriously; they were working on a joke book, a compilation of their favourite jokes, which has now been published (Scottish Dementia Working Group, 2010). In addition, the person with dementia involved in the cartoon project had created a set of cartoon characters to illustrate his campaign group’s website and reports. Humour and the visual representation of dementia was clearly an important means of communication for these participants. Maybe it was a sign of resistance (Weaver, 2010).

Using cartoons to disseminate research

Despite the ubiquitousness of cartoons and humour, with few exceptions they are seldom used to disseminate qualitative research (Lea, 2010; Peterson et al., 2006). These scholars used cartoon narrative in health-related projects to ‘free participants up’ to discuss sensitive topics (Peterson et al., 2006: 201) and to open up otherwise ‘closed spaces’ by making serious theoretical content accessible (even funny) (Lea, 2010). The decision was taken to use them in a study about dementia activism for similar methodological reasons. In particular, cartoons were used to provide a visual experience and open up other (non-linguistic) ways of knowing that cannot be achieved with the written word; as the visual artist who worked on this project said: ‘cartoons allow you to play a lot more with meanings and representations’ (Hick, personal communication). Second, the process of creating cartoons was designed to enable people with dementia to participate in the dissemination process, specifically with the process of interpreting data. Finally, the approach allowed me to indulge my ‘progressive impulse to give voice (in a whole new way) to those who have been silenced’ (Richardson, 1990: 27). In sum, spending time in the field, coupled with a desire to work in synergy and in a participatory and creative way with people with dementia, led to the decision to cartoons to disseminate knowledge gained from this study.

Creating the cartoons

Once the decision had been made to use cartoons, a creative process for developing them was set in motion. The creative process involved me working with the following people: a professional cartoonist; a person with dementia who was involved in the main study; my mentor – a visual sociologist, and the University’s Fellow in Visual Art. None of whom met during the process; instead I played a meditating role. Everyone was informed at the outset that the plan was to create a set of cartoons based on research findings and to exhibit these cartoons in a gallery space.

The first step in the creative process was to recruit people to the cartoon project. This involved commissioning a professional cartoonist to actually create the cartoons.³ The cartoonist was briefed as to what the study was about and the research questions it was seeking to address. At his request he was given a sample of anonomized textual (as opposed to visual) data to work with. The data in this sample were organized around basic themes relating to the research questions and literature, and included issues such as what motivates and demotivates people to campaign, and the impact of activism on peoples’ well-being. At the same time, all 16 people with dementia who were involved in the main research study were invited to get involved in the cartoon work. Participants were informed in a research update letter that the cartoon work was about to commence and were asked to return a reply slip if they were interested in getting involved. Three participants initially accepted the invitation – one of whom did become involved in the process. The other two participants were unable to work with us on this project in the end.

The second step in the creative process was to engage with the rough drafts. The cartoonist produced a rough draft of six cartoons which I shared and discussed with my mentor. There was just one we both quite liked, which was of a red carpet being rolled out by a man in a black suit and bow tie, for an older man and women, as shown in Figure 2. For us, the implied message with this cartoon was a positive one; it was about treating people with dementia as VIPs.

Figure 2.

A cartoon produced to communicate findings on a study on dementia activism.

However, the image did not convey any of the themes constructed from the analysis of data; it was merely the cartoonist’s interpretation of the sample of anonomized textual he had received. The other rough drafts did not work or reflect the themes identified either. So, my mentor and I drafted a completely new set of cartoons. Not a process I had anticipated, but which proved to be critical, certainly in terms of being able to instruct the professional cartoonist more clearly about the findings to disseminate. This process involved me describing the salient themes that had been constructed from the analysis of data and my mentor creating a rough sketch to represent it. For example, I explained how the research had found that people with dementia were ‘fighting back’ and a ‘force to be reckoned with’, and that participants used language such as ‘dementia fraternity’ to convey their collective strength. My mentor listened while at the same time sketching out an image of a troop of people on horse-back holding English and Scottish flags, with the principal rider holding a flag saying ‘Dementia Fraternity’, charging towards two people, one of whom has his back to the troop, and is saying: ‘cut the dementia budget, they won’t cause us any trouble’ – and the other person (who can see the troop) has their mouth open and looks aghast. In around 60 minutes we sketched eight new potential cartoons, with a different theme, which had been constructed the analysis of data, being conveyed in each one.

The third step in the creative process was to discuss all the cartoons that had been roughly sketched with the person with dementia. His initial response to the cartoons produced by the professional cartoonist was that that they ‘were okay but very simplistic’. Interestingly, the cartoon my mentor and I both liked, he did not, it made him think of a ‘carpet shop’ (see Figure 2). Next, we reviewed the sketches my mentor and I had created, which were more complex, and hence triggered a deeper discussion about authenticity. For instance, the sketch involving the horses led to a somewhat unexpected conversation about socioeconomic status. On seeing this sketch he said he did not like the horses – ‘horses are too glorious’ he said, ‘bikes are more real – everyone’s got a bike (McLaughlin, personal communication). As he explained, when he was growing up in Glasgow only wealthy upper middle-class families could afford a horse but everyone had a bike. Together we began to imagine a group of people on lots of different types of bikes (e.g. butcher’s bikes, chopper bikes and so forth) wearing tin hats, and what he called ‘making do’; further, it made more sense to the person with dementia if people in the scene were carrying a flag bearing the name of the type of dementia they had (e.g. Lewy Bodies, Alzheimer’s disease) rather than the part of the country they were from. In his view it was this – a dementia diagnosis – which united and activated people.

Figure 3.

Final drawing of cartoon to convey the theme: ‘helping others to help oneself’. R Bartlett (under review).

The fourth and final step in the creative process was to give the professional cartoonist a clear set of instructions as to what it was I wanted him to draw. Instructions were based on the sketches my mentor had created and the subsequent conversations I had about them with the person with dementia. This changed the shape of the cartooning process once again. The professional cartoonist did not like the one involving the bikes; he thought it was too complex for a cartoon drawing. Instead he created others, which we he thought did constitute a cartoon. One, for example, conveyed the theme ‘helping others to help oneself’, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Exhibiting the final results of the cartoon project.

In total, the cartoonist produced a set of five cartoons. These were framed and formed part of the gallery exhibition (see Figure 5). The whole process took 3 months to complete.

Figure 5.

The interactive storyboard.

Ethical issues in cartoon representation

Formal ethical approval for the main study was obtained from a University Ethics Committee. As this approval covered the dissemination of findings for research and educational purposes, additional ethical approval was not sought for the cartoon project. In addition, the person with dementia involved in the cartoon project gave me permission to use his name. Nevertheless, using cartoons is a highly experimental form of representation. Extra attention was therefore paid to ethical issues during the cartooning project. As well as abiding by the basic ethical principles of research (e.g. avoid causing harm) (ESRC, 2010), I drew on an ethical principle specifically guiding the use of humour – namely, to ‘not promote a lack of concern for something about which there should be concern’ (Lockyer and Pickering, 2009: 74). Like Gouin (2004: 29), and other researchers conscious of the power of research, I paid close attention to what I ‘presented to outside audiences’ and did not sanction any cartoons that could ‘potentially harm the participants or contribute to their continued oppression’. Consultations with the person with dementia proved extremely useful in this regard. However, ultimately it was up to me, as Principal Investigator, to decide where I was comfortable on the continuum of satire and edginess (Prosser, personal communication). In addition, I followed the advice of Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) and sought to avoid publishing anything which may have caused embarrassment or distress. Obviously one can never be absolutely sure whether something will cause embarrassment or distress and so I used my best judgement. Intuition plays an important role in qualitative research (Wolcott, 1994) – particularly when the methods used are non-conventional.

It has been suggested that visual researchers need to be more self-critical of their research practices (Pauwels, 2010). It is only by analysing and reflecting on one’s own motives and practices that a more ethical way of research can develop. With this in mind I should add that I found working on this project an exciting and unsettling experience. At times I found the process very energising and creative, enjoying in particular, the pace with which it moved, the stimulating discussions with the other people involved and the mediating role I played. At other times, however, I seriously questioned my motives and wondered whether what I was doing was worthwhile. For instance, I remember recoiling when I saw the first set of rough drafts cartoons sketched by the professional cartoonist, as I was concerned about how data were being represented. Overall though, the project was worthwhile in that it allowed me to build an effective working relationship with the Fellow in Visual Arts – an inter-disciplinary collaboration that some of the people with dementia involved in the main study have subsequently benefited from.⁴

A serious case for humour: the exhibition

An exhibition entitled ‘A Serious Case for Humour’ was launched in Gallery II at the University of Bradford, England. The exhibition showed the creative process of working in collaboration to create a set of cartoons with which to disseminate selected study findings. At the core of the exhibition was an interactive storyboard where visitors were encouraged to add their thoughts and comments to the piece as an essential element of the collaborative research process, as shown in Figure 5. As a result, dialogue was quite literally transferred into a visual interpretation which was fluid and open-ended (Hick, personal communication).

The resultant exhibition was experimental, and like all pieces of social research and artistic practices, completely open to interpretation. It ran for 10 weeks and was viewed by different groups, including psychology students, school children, academic staff and university administrators. Feedback about the exhibition was gained via a Visitor’s comments book; the 20 or so comments made were generally positive and in the vein of ‘this really made me think’.

Summing up: methodological advantages and concerns

In this article, discussion has been about the way in which a person with dementia, health researcher, visual sociologist, and cartoonist, co-operated to create a set of cartoons with which to address some misconceptions and issues with regard to dementia. Rather than sparking conversations about the campaign activities of people with dementia, as I thought it might, the process gave way to meaningful discussions about representation and the nature of cartoon art (a topic that was beyond the scope of this paper, see McCloud, 1993 for detailed discussion). This suggests that cartoons may have a wider application in qualitative research; particularly studies which aim to engage research participants in a playful way in the meaning making and dissemination process (see Gauntlett, 2007 for an overview of creative approaches to qualitative research).

Completing this project, which culminated in a public exhibition, demonstrates that as a form of visual communication, the cartoon has a viable role to play in qualitative research. Disseminating research findings via an exhibition, that includes cartoons, can draw people in, and provide opportunities for learning that are visceral and flowing – that is, involving all the senses (not just mental) (Falk and Dierking, 2000). Such ontological opportunities are still relatively rare in qualitative research but increasingly important given the aforementioned expectations on, and willingness of some scholars to engage the wider public in research.

However, using cartoons in qualitative research raises methodological concerns too. First, the outcome of the process can seem too contrived and the cartoons are not that funny. As Lockyer and Pickering (2009: 77) point out, ‘the more obvious it is that humour is being used to accomplish a goal, the less likely the humour is to be successful’, which obviates the whole point of cartoons. Second, a cartoon is not everyone’s favourite medium. One woman with dementia who declined the invitation to take part in cartoon work said she would prefer to see ‘normal text’; the majority simply declined the invitation to get involved. The person with dementia who was involved said he experienced a negative reaction to his cartoon characters. Written articles and reports are not for everyone; neither are cartoons. Given what we publish (and exhibit) has power (Simpson, 2007), it is important that however findings are disseminated – the process does not alienate or disempower people still further. Cartoons should therefore be used judiciously to disseminate research findings.

Finally, it is incumbent upon me to point out the major omissions in this account of using cartoon narrative in qualitative research. First, the project involved just one person with dementia, who was a cartoonist himself. Thus, the acceptability of this approach (particularly to people with dementia) was not fully explored. Second, other than the professional cartoonist, we were all novices. The field of comic art was certainly new to me. Hence, some aspects of this account may seem naïve or underdeveloped to a cartoon scholar. That said, the project was an experimental one, and arguably it is only by openly trialling and documenting new ways of working and thinking that more effective and creative modes of dissemination can be achieved.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Edward McLaughlin, Jon Prosser, and Caroline Hick for their many ‘words of wisdom’ and indirect help with preparing this manuscript. Thanks are also due to the other participants, their spouses, befrienders and support workers who took part in the main study. I would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers of an earlier version of this paper for their very helpful comments.

Funding

The main study was funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council under the First Grant Scheme Ref: RES 061 25 0270 and the cartoon project was funded with a knowledge transfer grant from the School of Health, University of Bradford.

Notes

Author biography

Ruth Bartlett is a sociologist and Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton. She researches, teaches, and provides consultancy in the area of mental health, specifically dementia studies. Ruth’s research interests are varied and broadly around health activism, ageing, critical disability studies and participatory methods; from this vantage point she focuses on issues facing men and women with dementia.

References

Barnes

Clouder

Pritchard

. (2003) Deconstructing dissemination: dissemination as qualitative research. Qualitative Research 3(2): 147–164.

Bartlett

(in press) Modifying the diary interview method to research the lives of people with dementia. Qualitative Health Research.

Bartlett

(forthcoming) The emergent modes of dementia activism.

Burke

(2008) Toolkit 2: Putting on an exhibition about your research. Real Life Methods: 1–8.

Burns

(2006) Seriously are you really an artist? Humour and integrity in a community mural project. In: Barndt

(ed.) Wild Fire: Art as Activism. Toronto, ON, Canada: Sumach Press.

Chambers

Boath

Rogers

(2007) Clinical Effectiveness and Clinical Governance Made Easy. 4th ed. Abingdon: Radcliffe Press Ltd.

Corner

Bond

(2004) Being at risk of dementia: fears and anxieties of older adults. Journal of Aging Studies 4: 143–155.

Davies

(2010) Qualitative research and creative approaches to public engagement (Video). Available at: www.manchester.ac.uk/realities

Dean

(2009) Am I Making Myself Clear? A Scientist’s Guide to Talking to the Public. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10.

Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) (1998) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Dines-Levy

Smith

(1988) Representations of women and men in playboy sex cartoons. In: Powell

Paton

(eds) Humour in Society: Resistance and Control. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd, pp. 234–259.

12.

Economic and Social Research Council (2010) Framework for Research Ethic. Swindon: ESRC.

13.

Falk

Dierking

(2000) Learning from Museums: Visitor Experience and the Making of Meaning. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.

14.

Gauntlet

(2007) Creative Explorations: New Approaches to Identities and Audiences. London: Routledge.

15.

Gouin

(2004) What’s so funny? Humour in women’s accounts of their involvement in social action. Qualitative Research 4(1): 25–44.

16.

Hammersley

Atkinson

(2007) Ethnography: Principles and Practice. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

17.

Hiller

(1983) Humour and hostility: a neglected aspect of social movement analysis. Qualitative Sociology 6(3): 225–265.

18.

Kontos

Naglie

(2006) Expressions of personhood in Alzheimer’: moving from ethnographic text to performing ethnography. Qualitative Research 6(3): 301–317.

19.

Lea

(2010) Using visual methods to explore policy controversies from within organisations: some preliminary ideas on cartoons as a means of opening closed spaces. Paper presented at the 2nd international and interdisciplinary conference. ‘Vital signs: engaging research imaginations’. University of Manchester.

20.

Lockyer

Pickering

(2009) Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

21.

McCloud

(1993) Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. New York: Harper Perennial.

22.

Olesen

(2009) The Muhammad cartoons conflict and transnational activism. Ethnicities 9(3): 409–426.

23.

Pauwels

(2010) Visual sociology reframed: an analytical synthesis of visual methods in cultural and social research. Sociological Methods & Research 38: 545–581.

24.

Peterson

Mason

Bhana

. (2006) Mediating social representations using a cartoon narrative in the context of HIV/AIDS. Journal of Health Psychology 11(2): 197–208.

25.

Pink

(2007) Doing Visual Ethnography. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

26.

Prosser

(1998) The visual representation of school culture. Communication & Cognition 31(2/3): 243–264.

27.

Richardson

(1990) Writing Strategies: Reaching Diverse Audiences. Newbury Park, CA; London: Sage.

28.

Richardson

(2003) Writing: a method of inquiry. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 499–542.

29.

Rowntree

(1999) Teaching Through Self-Instruction: How to Develop Open Learning Materials. London: Kogan Page.

30.

Scottish Dementia Working Group (2010) Why Am I Laughing? A Classic Collection of Short Jokes and One Liners for All the Family. Kilmarnock: Waverley Books Ltd.

31.

Shakespeare

(1994) Cultural representation of disabled people: dustbins for disavowal. Disability & Society 9(3): 283–299.

32.

Simpson

(2007) Hearing voices? Negotiating multiple ethical commitments in development research. In: Smith

(ed.) Negotiating Boundaries and Borders: Qualitative Methodology and Development Research. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 155–176.

33.

Weaver

(2010) The ‘Other’ laughs back: humour and resistance in anti-racist comedy. Sociology 44(1): 31–48.

34.

Whitfield

Wismer

(2006) Inclusivity and dementia: health service planning with individuals with dementia. Healthcare Policy 1(2): 120–134.

35.

Wolcott

(1994) Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis and Interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

36.

Woods

(1999) Successful Writing for Qualitative Researchers. London: Routledge.

37.

Zimmerman

Weider

(1975) Diary-interview method. Urban Life 5(4): 479–498.