My guest in this, the final episode of the ‘Let’s Talk About Sociology of Education’ podcast is Professor Andrew Loxley from the School of Education in Trinity College, Dublin. Andrew is the Director for undergraduate programmes in School of Education and he is also the Director of the Doctor of Education programme in Trinity. Andrew is one of the many colleagues I work with in the School of Education and he was also my doctorate supervisor in TCD and a wonderful mentor to me over the past fifteen years. Andrew and I have taught on the Sociology of Education and Research Methods modules and we have also conducted and published research together over the past number of years. It was an honour and a privilege to interview him for this final episode of the podcast series.
In this episode we discuss the use of visual methods and techniques in Sociology of Education. Visual methods and techniques include the creation and use of both participant generated and researcher generated still images as data and analysis and interpretation of the data either as a stand-alone method or as part of a suite of research methods. This approach works particularly well within the Sociology of Education elements. Andrew has used this approach in much of his work to date and under his supervision was one of the many research instruments I also used in my own doctoral work. His title “Mucky Pictures, Visual Sociology” is ‘a nod to the idea of polysemicity’, “of muck of mud, of lack of clarity”, where the same thing has different meanings to different people in the same way that there are many different perspectives and lenses through which we can look to make sense of elements of Sociology of Education. Sometimes we may think that the use of still images presents something very clear to the reader or observer, when in fact still images are not clear at all and can be very messy and open to all sorts of ranges of different interpretations. Andrew mentions how Roland Barthes describes this as “a multiple of different possibilities” with both denotation (the literal description) and connotation (deeper and more nuanced narrative) within each still image that can ‘disrupt’ the doxa.
He talks about how we may think that what is a fairly obvious image of the world of a classroom, the school corridor of a textbook of a classroom is just what we see and recognise as something familiar but that there is a “lot of unknown fierceness to when you start picking away and start sort of figuring out what the internal and external narratives of the images actually are”. Andrew believes that using visual techniques is useful and worthwhile as “elements of destabilising how we look at the world, but also in a sense of forcing us to look at the world in another way”, which in itself is a sociological approach of looking and interpreting through multiple lenses to make sense of what we first see (denotation) and through our interpretation understand the many connotations that lie beneath the surface.
He describes how in the use of participant generated images, “or trying to persuade why participants should use visual techniques…you need to be very clear as a researcher, why you want to do it, and how you're going to do it, and what you're going to get out of it. And also, what you want your participants to do with it”. Using participant generated images also involves a “huge amount of preparatory work that you need to undertake”. Andrew mentions how this approach really draws on the idea of collaboration from a research perspective, and “it also transfers or hands over a lot of control of the data generation process to your participants.” From a research perspective this empowers participants and gives them an authentic voice in the generation of the data.
He also refers to visual autoethnography from a Sociology of Education perspective and he describes how during Covid he has “been documenting my sort of life, usually around my desk”, his “changing workspace, ov