by Emma Rotondo

In this post, I talk about how we can capture multiple perspectives using the drawing and diagramming technique, a tool that has been employed with highly vulnerable  population groups in fragile and volatile social contexts.

I will first describe three case studies and then offer some recommendations on how to incorporate the technique into individual interviews, focus groups and workshops within the framework of a programme evaluation or the systematisation of an experience.

THE TOOL

When we talk of ‘fragile and volatile social contexts’ we are referring to polarised and fragmented social settings that are fraught with conflicts and several types of political and social tension. These spaces are often affected by issues associated with migration, former armed conflicts, recurring violent acts which may have a gender or generational component, natural disasters and illegal activities.

When we describe people as ‘highly vulnerable population groups’, we mean children and adolescents who have been denied their basic human rights while systems of human rights protection are scarce and social networks are weak. It is in these scenarios that the worst forms of child labour are often present along with sexual exploitation, human trafficking etc.

In order to capture the multiple perspectives of social actors, a variety of verbal, visual and collaborative techniques should be used that are suitable for exploring the extent to which the participants value and appreciate an intervention and any needs they may have related to that process. One such technique uses drawing and diagramming.

Programme and project evaluation has always sought to capture multiple perspectives. Scriven (1983) argues that the values of the participants should be incorporated into the evaluation and this in no way makes it any less scientific or objective. I believe that evaluations should examine whether the programme or project has met the needs that the target population considers to be the most important, a concept known as ‘perspectivism’. This position is echoed by other authors such as Ernest House (2000) who insist that an evaluator needs to understand the specific values, perspectives and interests of the beneficiaries if the evaluation is to represent them properly.

It is important to stress that the drawing technique can be used in the evaluation as part of individual or group interviews as well as in workshops. In addition to the drawing itself, the process also includes the stages of question formation and posterior dialogue. The specific questions used as stimulus in the technique are formed from the more general questions governing the evaluation. The technique is used as part of a methodological strategy that may be either qualitative or mixed, triangulating[1] the information received from different sources to arrive at a final view of the success of the intervention.

In the following video (Sapnish) I introduce the tool and then, as a technical note, I characterize its use in three different contexts. At the end of the note, I offer a series of recommendations to take into account when working with this type of tool.

WHEN AND HOW TO USE DRAWING

The drawing technique is used to encourage self-expression and personal ideas and can be applied in baseline, mid-term or final evaluations and should be tailored to the principal evaluation questions. This technique is also recommended for continuous monitoring processes. A friendly atmosphere is created and different materials (pencils, paper, walls, blackboards, murals) are made available to the participants. Questions are used to help spark ideas and the process may be used as part of an individual interview, focus group or workshop designed specifically for the purpose. The technique contributes to the aims of co-construction, group dialogue, decision making, reviewing, redesigning, illustrating etc.  The steps required for it to be applied may be summarised as follows:

1. 1. Planning phase. It is important to think about the physical space where the interviews will take place, and to define the groups of actors that will form the interview sample beforehand, ensuring everyone involved in the process is included. It is important, also, that the questions used to inspire the drawing are in keeping with the principal questions of the evaluation project.
   2. The interview. It is important to explain the objective and purpose of the evaluation and this specific activity to the interviewees.
   3. Informed consent. It is imperative that confidentiality and an environment of trust are ensured where each individual can express their ideas freely.
   4. Questions for the exercise. Ask one or more key questions to encourage the person/group to express their ideas through drawing. The questions should be open ended and not closed (yes or no, multiple options etc.)
   5. Sharing the pictures. Each group or individual should explain their picture to the group, comment on what they have done and be asked new questions to clarify details.
   6. Wrap up. At the end, the evaluator should paraphrase the main ideas expressed by the participants, giving them the possibility to validate, modify or refute the comments. It is important that the evaluator records what each individual or group has said without modifying it or including their own conclusions.
   7. Findings and conclusions. The main ideas, along with the pictures and testimonies should be incorporated into the findings and conclusions section of the evaluation report. Another section on experiences and lessons learned could also be included with a description of the findings by location or by group, depending on the case. Another way of presenting the results is through a map of participant perspectives, grouping illustrations according to similarities between people, groups and testimonies.

It is important to highlight the type of questions and the way they are to be asked during the process. Socratic dialogue is a useful concept here, derived from the Maieutic method (taken from the Greek maietikos) which refers to midwifery, the act of helping to give birth. Socratic dialogue is a methodology based on the philosophy of Socrates and is currently used in cognitive therapy.

In this method, the therapist or other individual accompanying the process does not give the other person answers or solutions but guides them to discover them for themselves by asking questions that encourage people to draw conclusions from their experience. The aim is that the person arrives at their interpretation of the truth for themselves. In summary, this process of dialogue is intended to help the individual recognise the validity of other points of view, thus broadening and building knowledge, in this case about the intervention that is being evaluated.

With this technique, the important thing is to encourage participants to produce a drawing. The questions must be open ended and not contain too much detail, allowing  the person to discover their own thoughts on the experience. For example, the question might ask them to use drawing to:

• • • Tell me about your experience…
    • Tell me about the time…
    • Tell me about the most difficult things you’ve learned…
    • Tell me about an experience that you consider to have been valuable…

It is important to bear in mind that some questions, as innocent as they seem at first glance, may trigger memories of traumatic experiences. It is therefore important that the evaluator is trained in emergency emotional containment. I was faced with such a situation when I asked a group of children which of their rights they valued the most. One boy broke down in tears and needed help to contain his emotions. It is also important to be attentive to non-verbal communication, including glances, body language, tone of voice and other physical indicators so that we can manage any situations that might arise from painful memories. This is why it is so important to select the questions carefully and make them as open ended as possible. It is also a good reason for having two facilitators in a workshop: one trained in evaluation and the other with training and experience in these kinds of psychosocial approaches.

EXPERIENCES OF APPLYING THE DRAWING AND DIAGRAMMING APPROACH

I will now share three experiences of evaluating programmes carried out in Peru. One was with abuse victims and two were with children and adolescents as part of evaluations of programmes run by the NGO INFANT in Lima and Iquitos.

1. ‘Open and closed doors’ drawing exercise

This drawing technique was used in 2019 with human trafficking victims in Iquitos and Cusco, Peru. For confidentiality reasons, I cannot give any details of the context or of the programme involved. However, I can tell you that when working with people who have been exposed to trauma, I often use an activity called ‘Open and closed doors’ (Fabry 2009) which uses the drawing technique alongside a logotherapy approach [2]. This activity is particularly useful for revealing whether or not people are displaying resilience. In other words, to gauge whether or not they are able to visualise themselves in different situations or following other paths to improve their lives. The aim is that they discover a new and meaningful attitude, while remaining in adverse situations that cannot be changed. For the purpose, individuals or groups were asked to complete the following exercise:

Draw a picture of yourself in a room with many doors. Which of these doors is closed forever? Label them with words or symbols. Now mark the ones that are not yet fully closed. What do you need to open them? What is the first step needed to open each door that is not locked?

In one session there was no paper that we could use to draw on. So instead I asked the participants to imagine the scene and then describe their experience. It was interesting to see the responses that came out of the activity: ‘I opened the education door so I could carry on and finish school’ or ‘I closed the door of bad friendships with people who who take me to parties…’ Moving to the conclusion stage, I used Socratic dialogue to guide thinking on who had been able to modify their attitudes and how.

2. Experience with the “Kuyakok Warma” organisation in Villa El Salvador, Lima.

Amigos por Siempre (Forever Friends) is an organisation that brings together around 25 children and young people aged between 3 and 18 who have chosen to exercise their right to participation in the district of Villa El Salvador, Sector XIV in the middle of Arenal, one of the poorest communities in metropolitan Lima. The children invite each other to join the group and participate in regular meetings held in the community centre. There, they play, do art, talk about topics related to their rights, participate in campaigns, go on street parades to protest against certain forms of punishment, support improved public spaces, or enjoy a film together in the community cinema that they set up and for which they themselves raised funds. This is one of the many independent organisations that have been strengthened by the Kullakoq Warma project, implemented by INFANT with support from the Netherlands-based Bernard van Leer foundation.

The individual and group interviews were carried out as part of the programme’s final evaluation. In these interviews, the following questions were asked: What did you do? What did you like best and why?

The activity took place in the same centre that the organisation uses for its meetings. It had the support of young leaders from the organisation who were able to cofacilitate the session. All members were invited to participate and to draw pictures to talk about their experiences and views.

When planning the fieldwork, the team took the general evaluation questions and tailored them to create specific questions for the drawing activity.

Evaluation question	Question to inspire drawing
Did the young children develop skills in organisation, mobilisation and advocacy? Which strategies were the most effective?	Draw something you learned to do to improve your organisation and xxx (give examples of some of the group’s actions). Draw an example, the one that you think has been the most significant. Then, tell me why.
Did young children take key roles in activities related to the promotion and defence of their rights in the community?	Draw an example of you participating in the promotion of your rights. Then, tell me a story about the picture. During the conversation, ask about the key roles they played etc.

These are active interviews in which the asking of follow-up questions is a key component. This enables more details and better descriptions to be extracted from the interviews, treating  the account/testimony as ‘data’ for the evaluation. It goes without saying that it is very important to record all the testimonies.

3. The experience of the Festival of Water in Belén, Iquitos (Loreto)

The Festival del Agua (Festival of Water) is an initiative created to tackle the issue of seasonal flooding of the Amazon river. It has been held in three communities of Belén (Iquitos), located on the banks of the Itaya river during April and May since 2012. The activity was promoted by the NGO INFANT,[3] which seeks to encourage agency in the children  in the riverside communities of San Andrés, Nuevo Campeón and 8 de diciembre in the district of Belén, in Iquitos, Loreto state. All the social issues that affect the region (alcoholism, child exploitation, domestic violence, low levels of schooling, lack of opportunities) are seen to a greater degree in these highly marginalised communities. It is in this context —and in the river flood season— that the Festival of Water was organised by children from these communities, with the support of their parents and facilitators from the INFANT technical team.

This organisation’s intervention in highly marginalised communities in the Loreto region is intended to create more favourable contexts for children and young people, improving their living standards and their environmental surroundings. Different activities were carried out as part of the Festival of Water including a competition to make life jackets out of recycled materials found in the community for children who could not swim; first aid, life saving and swimming workshops; river ‘parades’ in which children protested with posters and slogans, but on the river rather than the street etc.

Within the framework of the evaluation, the children were asked to draw what they most remembered and valued from the experience, and explain why it was valuable to them. They expressed their feelings and opinions concerning the lessons learned from each experience and reconstructed the experience through their pictures. The pictures and testimonies have sparked dialogue among the communities regarding what worked well and what they would repeat in future campaigns. One of these was ‘The Flags Campaign’ which was designed to prevent the drowning of young children, a common tragedy in riverside communities during the flood season. Another campaign saw children come together to create ‘Children to the Rescue’, in which they learned lifesaving and first aid skills. While these were not the only fruits of the Festival of Water, the way they were designed, perfected and disseminated made them the most valuable and enduring. ‘We placed the flags in our homes’ a girl from San Andrés told us. ‘When the water rises, many children drown because they don’t know how to swim. Now, we save them’, the children told us. The project aims to replicate these experiences in other communities with the support of the local government and the pictures and experiences shared.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EVALUATORS

Drawing from my experience and the lessons I have learned, I would suggest taking into consideration the following recommendations when using drawing and diagramming in evaluation processes:

1. 1. Analyse and understand the cultural characteristics of the context (language, idiosyncrasies, exercise of power, stakeholder map) when designing the evaluation, especially for the interview stage.
   2. Ensure there is a coherent link between the evaluation questions and the main questions used to prompt the drawing.
   3. Ensure suitable physical space and materials are available to carry out the exercise.
   4. Be prepared for situations that may require emotional containment. Be aware of the reactions that individuals who are highly sensitive or have experienced traumatic situations may have in response to some of the questions.
   5. Request consent from the participants to take photos and videos and use the information in the final report.
   6. Develop facilitation skills among local collaborators and peers so they can design and implement workshops in vulnerable and polarised contexts. This is especially important when it comes to formulating the questions, guiding participants to think and reflect critically, adapting activities, leading groups, managing conflicts and staying calm in moments of tension.

---

 References

Denzin, K. D. 1978. The Research Act, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New Cork, 216p

Fabry, J.2009. Señales del camino hacia el sentido. Descubriendo lo que realmente importa. Colección Sentido. SMAEL, México.

Frankl, V. E. 1994. Logotherapy and Existential Analysis Editorial Herder, Barcelona.

House, E. 2000. Evaluación, ética y poder. Ediciones Morata. Madrid.

Scriven, M. 1983. Evaluation Models: View points on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. Kluwer-Nijhoff Boston. USA.

Vasilachis, I. 2006. Investigación Cualitativa, en Vasilachis (coord) Estrategias de investigación cualitativa, Barcelona: Gedisa pp. 23-64.

---

[1] Triangulation uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods that can highlight different aspects of the same situation to find its precise “location” in any given context. Its aim is to enable the evaluator to overcome biases that result from approaching a situation according to a single perspective. Triangulation is not only about using different approaches, but also about their integration. In this case, drawings and diagrams are used in response to a principle of methodological triangulation whose basic premise states that the weaknesses of one method (for example, the limitations of conventional evaluation based on quantitative data) can be balanced out by the strengths of another method (in this case, qualitative and interpretative). See Denzin (1978) and Vasilachis (2006)

[2] This approach is based on the work of Viktor E. Frankl (1994), Logotherapy and Existential Analysis, which focuses on the resilience of individuals and the humanisation of connections.