Community Concept Drawing: A Participatory Visual Method for Incorporating Local Knowledge into Conceptualization

Abstract

Concepts can provide researchers and communities with common ground for communicating and building understandings about the world. However, researchers who engage with communities often encounter unexpected interpretations of concepts in the field. This article introduces Community Concept Drawing (CCD), a participatory visual method aimed at facilitating a deep understanding of how local communities make sense of complex concepts often central to social research. We present the methodological foundations, protocol, and utility of CCD while drawing examples from our case studies in Senegal, Nepal, Morocco, and Kenya to examine the concept of empowerment. While CCD was created to open opportunities for studying empowerment within the field of international development, this article concludes by offering applications for using CCD to examine other concepts in various fields of study.

Introduction

In 2013, the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) emerged as an exciting quantitative tool for measuring women’s empowerment in agrarian livelihood contexts (Alkire et al. 2013). The index aimed to open opportunities for scaling up empowerment-oriented agricultural interventions in the Global South by measuring social change across geographic contexts. While the WEAI reflects hard-fought efforts to consider gender among top development priorities, its capacity to capture the complex social processes central to empowerment remains highly contested.

Like other quantitative measures of empowerment, the WEAI excludes locally contingent features of empowerment in favor of generalizable conceptualizations. Some scholars have argued that this detaches concepts from context and contributes misleading depictions of community experiences (Kabeer 2000). We consider communities to be small social units that are linked by a sense of fellowship and shared norms, attitudes, and goals (Mulder and Coppolillo 2018). Others have added that the power dynamics embedded in concepts like empowerment contribute unfavorable outcomes for communities when they are coopted by development institutions (Batliwala 2007). These concerns have led development practitioners to exercise caution when utilizing quantitative measures of empowerment (see OECD 2007) while motivating continued inquiry into contemporary metrics (O’Hara and Clement 2018). In light of recent calls to “[inform] standardized measures of empowerment with an assessment of local meanings and values,” we offer a methodological proposal for bringing local concepts closer to the center of development research (Clement et al. 2019:160).

Background

This article introduces Community Concept Drawing (CCD), a participatory visual method for capturing the dynamic and culturally contingent features of complex concepts like empowerment. We consider concepts to be terms that represent specific ideas, events, and experiences and conceptualization to be the culturally contingent process of interpreting and ascribing meaning to them. Concepts can provide researchers and communities with common ground for communicating and building understandings about the world. However, as researchers explore their field sites, they often encounter diverse and unexpected interpretations of concepts that diverge from normative understandings within development and academia. Because different research methods capture different dimensions of a concept, the ability of scientists to untangle conceptual complexity is inextricable from the tools they select to do so (Law 2004).

CCD was developed during the first author’s dissertation fieldwork, which employed a modified WEAI questionnaire to examine the empowerment status of women in Morocco and Kenya. While in the field, she noticed that the questionnaire tended to elicit responses that reproduced normative ideas of empowerment within international development and seemed to misalign with local ideas. In light of these observations, she developed a field method to reorient the process of conceptualization to the local level. While the WEAI begins with a definition of empowerment established a priori, CCD starts from the ground up by engaging participants in the conceptualization process through simultaneous illustration and discussion. Through a four-year collaboration with the second and third authors, we developed the theoretical foundations of CCD and a protocol for implementing it in the field. We tested, modified, and validated the tool through case studies conducted in Kenya, Morocco, Senegal, and Nepal. In this article, we present the outcome of this collective process: the novel research method we now call CCD.

Foundations of CCD

Since the 1970s, scientists have proposed diverse research strategies to better represent local ideas by bringing forward multiple ways communities interpret concepts (Denzin 2009). We locate CCD at the intersection of three of these methodological traditions: (1) visual methods; (2) participatory methods; and (3) storytelling.

1. Visual methods. The connection between CCD and visual methods is immediately apparent in the kind of data they produce: visual and narrative. Like other visual methods, CCD expands the possibilities of empirical research by asking the participants to process information visually as well as verbally (Schwartz 1989). In doing so, CCD elicits multiple ways of making sense of the world. According to Banks (2007), visual methods can be categorized as researcher created, participant created, or collaborative. CCD resonates with the latter because participants and researchers co-produce the findings together as researchers facilitate participant-generated drawings.

CCD holds particularly strong connections to concept mapping, a visual method for concept formation typically conducted with a single participant. Concept mapping was originally developed to create and evaluate science education programs for youth (Novak 1990) but was later adapted for use in group settings and across a variety of academic disciplines and topics including the study of empowerment within international development (Bisung and Dickin 2019). Like concept mapping, CCD involves a structured process of conceptualization in which ideas are generated to produce pictorial representations of concepts. In CCD, this involves a four-step process: brainstorming, elaboration, reflection, and transformation. While recognizing the synergies between the two methods, CCD produces concept drawings rather than a concept map. This distinction is important because illustration is an open-ended endeavor that supports CCD in elucidating multiple visions of a concept. Later, we consider how these differences shape the information generated by CCD.

2. Participatory methods. CCD also draws on participatory methods, a collection of research strategies with deep roots in the field of international development. Participatory methods were first created in response to claims that development programs were “being pursued in the absence of adequate knowledge about and consultation with local communities” (Campbell 2002:20). While CCD itself is participatory method, it also can be used to support participatory research, which aims to engage communities at multiple stages of the research process. CCD may be particularly useful in assessing local interests early in the research process.

CCD falls under the umbrella of participatory visual methods (PVM), one juncture where participatory methods encounter the visual methods described earlier. Some PVMs, like photovoice and photo-elicitation, are facilitated by technology including cameras or video. CCD fits within the category of non-mechanical PVMs, which rely on pen, paper, and even sculpture to elicit participant-generated or collaborative visual material. Group-based concept mapping, participatory mapping, and participatory drawing also fall under the category of non-mechanical PVM (Literat 2013). At the highest degree of specificity, CCD is a type of participatory drawing. Like participatory drawing, CCD promotes co-production of knowledge—a process for which the participation of local communities is critical to creating and using goods or, in this case, concepts (Ostrom 1996). Co-production encounters arts-based methodologies during the elaboration, transformation, and reflection phases of CCD. The arts-based approach embedded in CCD enables researchers to highlight local conceptualizations that are imbued with participants’ creative interpretations of local life.

Presenting CCD as a kind of participatory drawing is useful for understanding the skills it requires of researchers, which are akin to those needed for a well-facilitated focus group discussion (FGD) with drawing. Practices like forming homogeneous participant groups, ensuring equitable participation, observing group dynamics, and mediating conflict support the researcher in mitigating biases that can accompany group-level data collection (O. Nyumba et al. 2018). In contrast to the question-and-answer mode of facilitation typical to FGDs, CCD participants “are given time to reflect on their responses, which encourages active conceptualization and contemplation” (Literat 2013:88, citing Gauntlett 2007).

3. Storytelling. Because concepts are steeped in the histories of local people, listening to participants’ stories is integral to conceptualizing with them (Bamberg and Georgakopoulou 2008). Stories are “linguistic performances that are simultaneously rhetorical and embodied” and are “informed by an awareness of social and political-economic relationships” (Sletto 2009:445). The storytelling features of CCD highlight the temporal dimensions of concepts. This is particularly useful for examining verb–nouns like empowerment that are both states of being and socially mediated processes. As a performative act, attention to body language also generates rich, textured data (Denham and Onwuegbuzie 2013). Drawing can enrich the storytelling process by alleviating some of the anxiety that can accompany direct responses. Participant-generated illustration can enable researchers to address difficult topics including trauma and oppression during CCD (Stock et al. 2012).

CCD as a Novel Method for Conceptualizing with Communities

While CCD draws on participatory, visual, and storytelling methods, three points of difference distinguish it from its predecessors: (1) the empirical basis for analysis; (2) the data-gathering process; and (3) how data are represented. Ultimately, these features shape the kind of information the CCD provides researchers.

First, a prominent critique of arts-based methods like CCD is that researchers may be tempted to overextend the empirical reach of drawings within their analysis. However, the visual materials generated by CCD are not a substitute for participants’ voices (Literat 2013). Instead, CCD contends with these critiques by utilizing a combination of materials—concept drawings, group narratives, and facilitator notes—as the foundation for analysis. Because these materials are collected simultaneously, each provides unique insights into how conceptualization unfolded during the CCD session. While many group-level data collection methods commonly rely on recordings and (less often) on images, facilitator notes documenting participants’ use of color, their physical positioning and repositioning in space, and researcher–participant dynamics are particularly central to enhancing communication across visual and text materials. In addition, this practice enables researchers to address critiques related to the subjectivity of arts-based methods by triangulating gathered materials so that both visual and verbal dimensions of participants’ narratives and real-time observations inform the study findings (Sharafizad et al. 2020).

Second, CCD involves a reflexive and iterative process of data collection. Participants often return to segments of their drawings to make adjustments as they refine their ideas, make connections, and identify conceptual contradictions. This process is fluid, taking place as researchers facilitate CCD and as participant discussions and explanations inform further questioning. By returning to earlier stages of their drawings, participants can change their minds and voice the rationale behind their illustrations. In doing so, CCD fosters participant reflexivity and helps bring forward the internal and external narratives that shape drawings (Banks 2007).

The empirical basis of concept mapping is the concept map, which organizes participant responses into hierarchies of nested ideas (Novak and Cañas 2007). Meanwhile, CCD culminates in a concept drawing, a comparatively open-ended visual representation of participant discussions. While concept maps dissect the components of a single concept, CCD is intentionally tolerant of multiple visions of a concept. Thus, concept drawings may portray multiple iterations of a concept, each with its own mutable domains

While drawing on the empirical features of its predecessors, CCD represents a novel strategy for advancing scholarly and social goals. With respect to the former, CCD advances the position of local concepts alongside the dominant institutional interpretations employed in development research by allocating significant control to participants, who guide the direction and pace of conceptualization. With respect to the latter, former participants have reported that CCD, itself, is empowering. In this way, CCD may open new opportunities for supporting local communities through our methodological choices.

Methodology

In the following section, we describe CCD beginning when the researcher arrives at the field site with a blank piece of paper, markers, and a focus question. For our research, we asked: How does empowerment look in this community? During the activity, groups of seven to 10 participants deliberate the characteristics of a concept by drawing on their collective and individual experiences and draw them within a 2 × 3 matrix (see Figure 1, Appendix B, Supplemental Material). In total, CCD sessions take approximately two hours to complete, providing for a short break. Supplemental Appendix A provides a detailed guide on how to facilitate CCD using empowerment as the concept of inquiry.

Preparing for a CCD Session

Two facilitators should be present to facilitate CCD. Facilitator 1 plays a crucial role in ensuring the participation of all members, facilitating dialogue and productive debate, and asking probing questions. Facilitator 2 is responsible for taking notes, recording audio and/or visual documentation, and monitoring time. Before beginning a CCD session, researchers should carefully consider how their positionality—gender, age, ethnicity, and other factors—may influence their interactions with participants. As with any group-level data collection method, such factors can sway participants’ willingness to share openly during a CCD session.

Like a traditional FGD, the CCD is carried out with relatively homogeneous participant groups. This practice facilitates equitable participant engagement by minimizing power differences within the group. It also allows for increased understanding of how concepts vary within a population by providing a point of comparison across CCD sessions. In the CCD sessions referenced in this article, we organized participants into groups based on gender, age, ethnicity, and caste. However, researchers may delineate groups in other ways, according to locally relevant positions of difference.

Careful attention must be given to the translation of the concept under study because linguistic equivalencies vary across languages and even among speakers of the same language. In our case study in western Kenya, kuwezesha (to cause to be able) was used as the direct translation for empowerment. Because kuwezesha is also heavily utilized in women’s empowerment campaigns led by local NGOs, CCD sessions in this area strongly reflected development rhetoric. In other regions of Kenya, participants did not hold this association. Thus, illustrations of kuwezesha reflected distinct conceptualizations even among speakers of the same language. Researchers may also need to compare the findings of CCDs conducted in different languages. Our case studies compare findings across CCDs conducted in English, Swahili, Nepali, Wolof, French, and Moroccan Arabic. It is important to recognize that different cultures may use words that hold distinct conceptual foundations. For example, some cultures may associate empowerment with power—as is the case in English—and connect the term to control or enacting one’s will. Others, as in the Kenya case, may use a word derived from a verb “to be able to,” a reflexive phrase that directs attention toward the facilitators of action.

Finally, while our purpose here is to share a method for data collection, it is crucial that researchers who are interested in utilizing CCD enter the process with a plan for analyzing visual and verbal data. As with other PVMs, a vast array of analytical methods can be applied to examine the rich materials generated during a CCD session. In our case studies in Kenya and Morocco, for example, we applied content analysis (Bell 2011) while in Nepal we utilized a three-step method for text and visual analysis described by Oliffe et al. (2008). Just as the selection of data collection methods shapes the findings of a research project, so, too, does the selection of analysis methods. Thus, it is up to the researcher to determine how to best examine the materials gathered in the field in light of the study aim.

Conducting CCD

CCD involves a four-step method for facilitating participant discussions and drawings: brainstorming, elaboration, reflection, and transformation. This process guides participants’ conceptualization through simultaneous drawing and narrative in response to a focus question. In a 2 × 3 matrix, participants are asked to draw the concept of interest along a continuum. In our research, our participants drew empowerment along a left-to-right continuum using three columns. We used this matrix to capture the concept as it manifests for the least, intermediate, and most empowered person in their community. Because we used CCD to conduct a gender analysis of empowerment, we use two rows to ask participants to draw both men and women’s empowerment. Later, we discuss how the 2 × 3 matrix enables researchers to examine the intersectional dimensions of concepts.

Brainstorming. Facilitator 1 begins the CCD session by asking a focusing question. In the context of our case studies, we asked participants if they have ever heard of empowerment. This opening question provides space for participants to share their initial ideas about the concept. Next, the facilitator asks a series of follow-up questions and deepens participants’ discussion into related terminology. This brainstorming phase accomplishes two foundational steps: first, it sets the groundwork for the group discussion of the concept by establishing common terminology; second, it encourages participants to begin thinking about how a concept typically manifests in their community.

Elaboration. In the next step, participants use drawing to elaborate on the typical manifestations articulated during the brainstorming stage. Visual elaboration, when accompanied by probing questions and dialogue between participants and the researcher, can help researchers draw out thoughts that may be overlooked or unsaid (Suffla et al. 2012). Placing a blank poster on a wall, table, or the floor, the facilitator draws a 2 × 3 matrix and then, indicating the top left square, invites the participants to draw an empowered man in their community. The researcher begins with probing questions that are relatively tangible (e.g., how does he look, where does he live) and become increasingly abstract to examine contextual nuances of the concept (e.g., norms and expectations). When all ideas about the most empowered man have been drawn, the facilitator repeats the process by asking the participants to draw the least empowered man in the square in the top-right of the matrix, again asking probing questions as needed. Finally, the facilitator asks whether there are any intermediate categories between the most empowered man and the least empowered man. If there are, the facilitator repeats the exercise for these categories in the top-center square of the matrix, recognizing there may be one or more intermediate levels of empowerment (Figure 2, Appendix B, Supplemental Material).

Reflection. Next, participants rank the most important features of the concept. In our case studies, we designed this ranking around the key determinants of empowerment by asking “What are the five most important factors that make him (most empowered man) empowered?” The ranking is less important from an evaluative standpoint, rather it serves to force a discussion around group values. During this stage, participants review what has been discussed and often edit their drawings to reflect ideas that emerge during this debate. As participants struggle to negotiate the values represented in their drawing, key differences within the group begin to materialize.

Transformation. Finally, the facilitator leads a discussion about the ways each drawing of empowerment (most, least, and intermediate) are interconnected as dynamic constructs on a continuum. The facilitator asks, “Can this person (least empowered) become like this person (intermediate)? How?” The same questions are posed to understand the conditions necessary for transitioning from a position of intermediate to high empowerment. On one hand, these questions can provide space for discussion about structural features that influence empowerment within a community. On the other, they provide insight into concepts that are both nouns and verbs and, therefore, both states of being and processes.

Lessons Learned from CCD

In the following section we explore the value of using both the verbal and visual approaches for the analysis of complex concepts through CCD. We do so by demonstrating how CCD can illuminate the contextual nuances of local concepts in connection to intersectional identities, positionality, by engaging participant and researcher reflexivity, and, potentially, fostering empowerment in itself.

Examining Concepts as Contextually Contingent

Particularities and variation in CCD drawings are contextually situated. In some cases, participants used size to demonstrate tangible differences in abstract concepts. For example, in response to the facilitator’s question of whether the disempowered man’s children usually went to school, the young women in the Morocco CCD session responded that if his wife is strong, his children will attend school. The facilitator pressed further, pointing at the disempowered man’s wife: “Is this woman strong?” One woman responded, “Look at how big we drew her compared to her man. Of course, she is strong!” Indeed, the figure of the disempowered man’s wife was noticeably larger than that of her husband (see Figure 3, Appendix B, Supplemental Material). The use of imagery and artistic references thus became a means of indicating subversive or unspoken power relations—in this case, between a husband and wife.

In another example, nearly all women participants in Nepal drew the most empowered woman in red, the color of the jewelry and sari traditionally worn after marriage, though also signifying festivals, holidays, and other celebrations. In the transcripts from these discussions, women emphasized the primacy of marriage for women’s empowerment verbally and directly. Meanwhile, their illustrated depictions of status (e.g., marital, economic, religious) and happiness were symbolically conveyed using the color red. The facilitator asked probing questions to better understand the significance of red in this context, to which participants responded by explaining the centrality of red in Nepali celebrations and its association with positive emotions—e.g., happiness. In this way, red was used to imbue their drawings with affect, distinguishing their understanding of empowerment from institutional visions that are seemingly devoid of the emotionally charged features of the concept.

Drawing Connections between Intersectionality and Conceptual Plurality

CCD can be an effective tool for magnifying the ways intersectional identities—our overlapping and interdependent social identities that shape how we see and experience the world—fosters conceptual plurality in communities. By framing discussions and drawings within a comparative matrix, participants elaborate their personal experiences and their perceptions of how a concept is experienced by differently positioned individuals. In our case studies, we utilize this platform to conduct a gender analysis of empowerment. By drawing their own gender, participants reflect on their individual and group experiences. When drawing a different gender, participants reflect on group understandings of social norms, values, and expectations prescribed to others in their community. However, researchers may adapt the matrix to examine a variety of intersectionalities. These varied identities provides depth and tension within a given social concept—resulting in its many, and sometimes contradictory, interpretations.

For example, Senegalese women described the most and least empowered women as having many children. When asked why, it became clear that having a large family was variably perceived as empowering because of distinct intersectional experiences that occur along the lines of gender, education, and class. According to participants, the least empowered woman was uneducated and lacked the decision-making power to negotiate family size with her husband. Meanwhile, the most empowered woman chose to have many children and was able to support them financially. This case illustrates the how intersectionality can amplify multiple meanings of one indicator—even in the same community.

Participants may identify plural conceptualizations during the course of the CCD session by elucidating conditions that modify meaning. In a CCD conducted with young men in Morocco, empowerment was initially described in terms of social relations. For men, empowerment hinged on being well-respected, trustworthy, and sharing wealth. However, the conversation shifted when participants began to consider the importance of economic status. They decided that two forms of empowerment were operating in their community: one that was linked to social capital and another linked to economic prosperity. The participants also specified that economic empowerment is only favorable if social networks are maintained. If wealth increases at the expense of social relations, participants considered high economic status a determinant of dis-empowerment. To uncover shifts in the conceptualization process, as described above, researchers implementing CCD should direct attention to participants’ decisions to erase and revise sections of their drawings. These seemingly minor material choices can signal conceptual tension within the group.

Positionality. Feminist and post-structural research has long engaged with the issues of power that are entangled with sociocultural, economic, religious, ethnic, and other differences between researchers and participants. Visual–verbal methods can serve to address power relations that marginalize some voices in academic research (Hill 2013). By considering both discursive and material expressions of subjectivity, CCD opens opportunities for tracing orientations of power between participants and facilitators as they shift during the research process.

As described in the following scene from the field, these shifts can be noted by changes in physical placement of bodies in space. During a CCD exercise with Nepali men, facilitators were alerted to changes in researcher–participant relations when participants moved their drawing from the floor to the wall and turned their backs to the researcher before continuing with the activity. The participants adapted the drawing process and space by repositioning the paper, making the drawing less visible to the researchers. The participants took control of the session, pausing to explain their work while physically increasing the distance between the drawing and the facilitators. Though subtle, these movements reflect powerful alterations in the participant–researcher relationship.

Reflexivity. One of the aims of CCD is to create the conditions necessary for “seeing” multiple visions of a concept. This involves providing a framework that encourages researchers to step away from the guise of empirical distance and pursuits of unbiased investigation. While reflexive praxis is never possible without the thoughtful intent of the researcher, CCD can facilitate an iterative process that supports self-reflection by bringing specific researcher roles into view.

During CCD, participants drive the discussion and drawing exercise while the facilitators actively interpret and probe the elaboration and transformation of a concept and participant reflection. Cross-referencing visual and verbal material from a CCD activity can reveal the critical moments when the course of a drawing or discussion shifted. In this way, researchers can visually track the emergence of different ideas. In our Nepal case study, women of one community requested more paper to begin a new drawing after a probing question complicated their initial idea of the most empowered woman. In this case, CCD opened opportunities for the researcher to reflect on her role in eliciting information during data collection.

CCD as Empowerment in and of Itself. In Nepal, we had the opportunity to conduct follow-up FGDs with former participants three months after conducting the initial CCD session. After reminding the participants of our previous visit by showing them their completed drawings, we asked whether their initial ideas still resonated. We learned that discussions about the activity had continued long after we left the village and that empowerment even became a dinner table discussion among family members. Former participants considered the CCD itself to be empowering because it enabled them to begin these discussions. On one hand, this interaction demonstrates that conceptualization is dynamic and may continue to evolve long after the researcher has left the community. On the other, it suggests that CCD, like other PVM, may have a subtle, albeit tangible positive impact on communities (Literat 2013). CCD moves beyond contemplative nature of self-analysis to pursue its transformative dimensions by supporting community members to share their perspectives and learn from each other (Popa and Guillermin 2017).

Methodological Considerations

As with the implementation of other PVMs, researchers should be aware of several methodological considerations when choosing to use CCD. Researchers may face challenges identifying appropriate vocabulary and tracing terms that represent the concept of interest. While it is ideal for researchers to be proficient in the local language, we recognize that it is not always possible. In such cases, CCD must be co-facilitated with a translator (as was done for our Nepal case study) and researchers should work closely with interpreters to identify relevant terminology.

Preparation for CCD takes time, which can be a limiting factor for many researchers. During our case studies conducted in Kenya and Morocco, we spent six months in the field so that by the time we conducted CCD, we were well-versed in the local terms related to empowerment and were able to anticipate challenges during the activity. However, in Nepal and Senegal, our ability to refine our word choice was limited by our brief time in the field. Despite working with experienced local facilitators in Nepal, we became aware of translation issues that occurred. In light of these challenges, we encourage scientists interested in CCD to maintain open lines of communication with communities and partner organizations during analysis to enable follow-up.

Another set of methodological considerations rests with the facilitators. First, researchers should possess adequate facilitation skills to conduct group-level data collection to mitigate potential biases. Second, facilitators may need to adjust the layout of the tool to examine their particular concept of interest. Our case studies utilized a 2 × 3 matrix to guide participants’ drawings at three points along an empowerment continuum and according to two gender categories. However, this matrix is a guide, not a blueprint. Researchers may include additional axes of comparison by adding more rows or extend the conceptual continuum by adding more columns. Finally, although the tool is designed to facilitate reflexivity, it does not ensure that the researchers will practice reflexivity. It is possible for researchers to conduct CCD without engaging the collaborative findings that it can yield. Poorly facilitated, CCD can yield question-and-answer interactions resembling the dynamics of FGDs.

Conclusion

Conceptualization relies on selecting methods that reveal diverse ways of knowing because concepts themselves are as diverse as the communities that give them life. While there are many quantitative tools that measure empowerment, these efforts fall short on their promise of supporting social transformation because the indicators that inform them are neither drawn from nor oriented toward community members (Batliwala 2007). This article has introduced one effort toward expanding our methodological toolkit to cultivate a more diverse conceptualization of empowerment and potentially other complex concepts.

In the implementation of CCD across various countries and regions of the world, it is clear what empowerment is: an experience and a complex, contextually situated idea. Thus, any attempt to measure empowerment may not be scalable outside the context of the research site. Although empowerment data may not be scalable, we have found that the process of collecting and interpreting data collected through CCD is, in the sense that concept formation through CCD can be applied across spaces, disciplines, and concepts.

While we explored this method in the context of the social sciences to examine the concept of empowerment, it may also be helpful for examining diverse concepts in various fields of study, including the natural sciences. We encourage scientists working with communities to consider CCD to examine concepts like climate change and resilience. Recent interest in research approaches that include participants in the co-production of knowledge make this tool particularly relevant. Our hope is that CCD provides another approach for reorienting scientific pursuits to the local level to build a holistic understanding of concepts and the ways they operate in our world.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-1-fmx-10.1177_1525822X211014736 - Community Concept Drawing: A Participatory Visual Method for Incorporating Local Knowledge into Conceptualization

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-1-fmx-10.1177_1525822X211014736 for Community Concept Drawing: A Participatory Visual Method for Incorporating Local Knowledge into Conceptualization by Chesney McOmber, Katharine McNamara and Sarah L. McKune in Field Methods

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was implemented by researchers at the University of Florida with funding from multiple sources. These sources include the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS); the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for Food Security’s 1) Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems (Agreement Number AID-OAA-L-15-00003) and 2) Integrating Gender and Nutrition within Extension and Advisory Services (INGENAES) project (Agreement Number AID-OAA-LA-14-00008); and the U.S. Borlaug Fellows in Global Food Security graduate research grant program. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed here are those of the authors alone.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Alkire

Meinzen-Dick

Peterman

Quisumbing

Seymour

Vaz

. 2013. The women’s empowerment in agriculture index. World Development 52:71–91.

Bamberg

Georgakopoulou

. 2008. Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text and Talk 28:377–96.

Banks

(comp). 2007. Using visual data in qualitative research. In The Sage qualitative research kit, 2nd ed., ed. Flick

. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526445933 (accessed December 20, 2020).

Batliwala

2007. Taking the power out of empowerment—An experiential account. Development in Practice 17:557–65.

Bell

2011. Content analysis of visual images. In The handbook of visual analysis, eds. Van Leeuwen

Jewitt

, 10–34. London: Sage.

Bisung

Dickin

. 2019. Concept mapping: Engaging stakeholders to identify factors that contribute to empowerment in the water and sanitation sector in West Africa. SSM—Population Health 9:100490.

Campbell

2002. A critical appraisal of participatory methods in development research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 5:19–29.

Clement

Buisson

M. C.

Leder

Balasubramanya

Saikia

Bastakoti

Karki

van Koppen

. 2019. From women’s empowerment to food security: Revisiting global discourses through a cross-country analysis. Global Food Security 23:160–72.

Denham

M. A.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

. 2013. Beyond words: Using nonverbal communication data in research to enhance thick description and interpretation. https://journals-sagepub-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/pdf/10.1177/160940691301200137 (accessed December 30, 2020).

10.

Denzin

2009. Strategies of multiple triangulation. In The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods, ed. Denzin

, 200–17. New York: Routledge.

11.

Gauntlett

2007. Creative explorations: New approaches to identities and audiences. London: Routledge.

12.

Hill

2013. Using participatory and visual methods to address power and identity. Graduate Journal of Social Science 10:132–51.

13.

Kabeer

2000. Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and Change 30:435–64.

14.

Law

. 2004. After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.

15.

Literat

. 2013. “A pencil for your thoughts”: Participatory drawing as a visual research method with children and youth. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 12:84–98.

16.

Mulder

M. B.

Coppolillo

. 2018. The natural science behind it all. In Conservation, ed. Mulder

M. B.

Coppolillo

, 53–80. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

17.

Novak

J. D.

1990. Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27:937–49.

18.

Novak

J. D.

Cañas

A. J.

. 2007. Theoretical origins of concept maps, how to construct them, and uses in education. Reflecting Education 3:29–42.

19.

Nyumba

T. O.

Wilson

Derrick

C. J.

Mukherjee

. 2018. The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9:20–32.

20.

O’Hara

Clement

. 2018. Power as agency: A critical reflection on the measurement of women’s empowerment in the development sector. World Development 106:111–23.

21.

OECD. 2007. Gender indicators: What, why and how? BRIDGE. http://www.bridge.ids.ac.uk/reports_gend_CEP.html#Indicators (accessed December 16, 2020).

22.

Oliffe

J. L.

Bottorff

J. L.

Kelly

Halpin

. 2008. Analyzing participant produced photographs from an ethnographic study of fatherhood and smoking. Research in Nursing and Health 31:529–39.

23.

Ostrom

1996. Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development 24:1073–87.

24.

Popa

Guillermin

. 2017. Reflexive methodological pluralism: The case of environmental valuation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 11:19–35.

25.

Schwartz

1989. Visual ethnography: Using photography in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology 12:119–54.

26.

Sharafizad

Brown

Jogulu

Omari

. 2020. Letting a picture speak a thousand words: Arts-based research in a study of the careers of female academics. Sociological Methods and Research 1–42.

27.

Sletto

B. I.

2009. We drew what we imagined: Participatory mapping, performance, and the arts of landscape making. Current Anthropology 50:443–76.

28.

Stock

Mares

Robinson

. 2012. Telling and re-telling stories: The use of narrative and drawing in a group intervention with parents and children in a remote aboriginal community. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy 33:157–70.

29.

Suffla

Kaminer

Bawa

. 2012. Photovoice as community engaged research: The interplay between knowledge creation and agency in a South African study on safety promotion. Journal of Psychology in Africa 22:517–26.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.65 MB