See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258182377

Playing with meaning: Using cartoons to disseminate research findings

Article  in  Qualitative Research · April 2013

DOI: 10.1177/1468794112451037

CITATIONS READS

21 4,198

1 author:

Ruth Louise Bartlett

VID Specialized University
83 PUBLICATIONS   1,176 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

How do patients who have self-harmed, experience contact with mental health services in a general hospital? View project

Writing new book to be published by Routledge, working title, Rethinking Life at Home for People with Dementia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ruth Louise Bartlett on 08 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 0010.1177/1468794112451037Qualitative ResearchBartlett
12

Article Q
Playing with meaning: using R
cartoons to disseminate Qualitative Research

research findings 13(2) 214­–227

© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1468794112451037
qrj.sagepub.com

Ruth Bartlett
University of Southampton, UK

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 engag-
ing way. For example, cartoon humour can help to clarify thinking and spark conversa-
tions 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,

Corresponding author:
Ruth Bartlett, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 IBJ, UK.
Email: R.L.Bartlett@soton.ac.uk
Bartlett 215

and some methodological advantages and concerns of using cartoons in this way are
outlined. The intention is to stimulate thinking within the qualitative research commu-
nity 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: knowl-
edge gained from qualitative research must be ‘transferred’ as widely and as appropri-
ately 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 audi-
ences. 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 pro-
ject 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 dissemi-
nate 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
216 Qualitative Research 13(2)

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 – car-
toons are used to amuse the reader and highlight salient points (Rowntree, 1999).
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, car-
toons, 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 insight-
fully, cartoons can be a simple and powerful means of communication, usefully chal-
lenging 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 use-
ful 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
Bartlett 217

Figure 1.  A cartoon depiction of ‘senility’ in popular culture.

copyright Stephen Jackson, aka Wiz of www.chuckletown.com. Reproduced with kind permission.

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 col-
lected through a combination of diary-interview method (Zimmerman and Weider, 1975)
and participant observation (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998). This combination of methods
218 Qualitative Research 13(2)

allowed for a symbiotic exploration into the inner (private) and external (public) life-
worlds 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 analy-
sis techniques, and found that participants were ‘fighting back’ – they were taking action
in response to structural problems and fundamentally challenging cultural (mis)percep-
tions 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 nega-
tive stereotypes about being a ‘sufferer’ with dementia. A strand of humour was evident
throughout the dataset, as the following selection of excerpts show:

1. 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)
2. Martin Luther King didn’t say ‘I have a strategy’ (text on PowerPoint slide)
(woman with dementia, retired software consultant, age 55)
3. 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)
4. I’ve got a better life than I had before dementia, so I’d recommend it [Laughter]
(man with dementia, retired pilot, age 69)
5. 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 schol-
ars 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
Bartlett 219

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 pro-
cess 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 peo-
ples’ 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 partici-
pants 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 car-
toonist produced a rough draft of six cartoons which I shared and discussed with my men-
tor. 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.
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
220 Qualitative Research 13(2)

Figure 2.  A cartoon produced to communicate findings on a study on dementia activism.

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 con-
vey 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 simplis-
tic’. 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
Bartlett 221

Figure 3.  Final drawing of cartoon to convey the theme: ‘helping others to help oneself’. R Bartlett
(under review).

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.
The fourth and final step in the creative process was to give the professional cartoon-
ist 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 oth-
ers to help oneself’, as shown in Figure 4.
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.

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 edu-
cational purposes, additional ethical approval was not sought for the cartoon project. In
222 Qualitative Research 13(2)

Figure 4.  Exhibiting the final results of the cartoon project.

Figure 5. The interactive storyboard.

Bartlett 223

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 representa-
tion. 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 research-
ers 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 judge-
ment. 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 find-
ings. 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
224 Qualitative Research 13(2)

university administrators. Feedback about the exhibition was gained via a Visitor’s com-
ments 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 invita-
tion 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 every-
one; 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
Bartlett 225

trialling and documenting new ways of working and thinking that more effective and
creative modes of dissemination can be achieved.

Acknowledgments
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 partici-
pants, 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 trans-
fer grant from the School of Health, University of Bradford.

Notes
1. At this time, the visual artist and I were working on a grant application for Follow-on-Funding
to develop and curate a touring exhibition based on the larger study.
2. NICE stands for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and is an independent organisa-
tion responsible for providing national guidance in England on promoting good health and
preventing ill health; at the time of the study it recommended that anti-dementia drugs should
only be prescribed to people in the moderate stages of Alzheimer’s disease.
3. A professional cartoonist was commissioned, as the intention was to exhibit the cartoons.
4. Our application for Follow-on-Funding was successful and we recently ran a Residential
Workshop, in which seven people with dementia who were involved in the main study,
worked with us, a filmmaker and installation artist on developing exhibits for the touring
exhibition. Feedback about the residential workshop was overwhelmingly positive.

References
Barnes V, Clouder D, Pritchard J, et al. (2003) Deconstructing dissemination: dissemination as
qualitative research. Qualitative Research 3(2): 147–164.
Bartlett R (in press) Modifying the diary interview method to research the lives of people with
dementia. Qualitative Health Research.
Bartlett R (forthcoming) The emergent modes of dementia activism.
Burke H (2008) Toolkit 2: Putting on an exhibition about your research. Real Life Methods: 1–8.
Burns L (2006) Seriously are you really an artist? Humour and integrity in a community mural
project. In: Barndt D (ed.) Wild Fire: Art as Activism. Toronto, ON, Canada: Sumach Press.
Chambers R, Boath E and Rogers D (2007) Clinical Effectiveness and Clinical Governance Made
Easy. 4th ed. Abingdon: Radcliffe Press Ltd.
Corner L and Bond J (2004) Being at risk of dementia: fears and anxieties of older adults. Journal
of Aging Studies 4: 143–155.
Davies K (2010) Qualitative research and creative approaches to public engagement (Video).
Available at: www.manchester.ac.uk/realities
Dean C (2009) Am I Making Myself Clear? A Scientist’s Guide to Talking to the Public.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds) (1998) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
226 Qualitative Research 13(2)

Dines-Levy G and Smith G (1988) Representations of women and men in playboy sex cartoons.
In: Powell C and Paton G (eds) Humour in Society: Resistance and Control. Basingstoke:
Macmillan Press Ltd, pp. 234–259.
Economic and Social Research Council (2010) Framework for Research Ethic. Swindon: ESRC.
Falk J and Dierking L (2000) Learning from Museums: Visitor Experience and the Making of
Meaning. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
Gauntlet D (2007) Creative Explorations: New Approaches to Identities and Audiences. London:
Routledge.
Gouin R (2004) What’s so funny? Humour in women’s accounts of their involvement in social
action. Qualitative Research 4(1): 25–44.
Hammersley M and Atkinson P (2007) Ethnography: Principles and Practice. 3rd ed. London:
Routledge.
Hiller H (1983) Humour and hostility: a neglected aspect of social movement analysis. Qualitative
Sociology 6(3): 225–265.
Kontos P and Naglie G (2006) Expressions of personhood in Alzheimer’: moving from ethno-
graphic text to performing ethnography. Qualitative Research 6(3): 301–317.
Lea T (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 imagi-
nations’. University of Manchester.
Lockyer S and Pickering M (2009) Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
McCloud S (1993) Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. New York: Harper Perennial.
Olesen T (2009) The Muhammad cartoons conflict and transnational activism. Ethnicities 9(3):
409–426.
Pauwels L (2010) Visual sociology reframed: an analytical synthesis of visual methods in cultural
and social research. Sociological Methods & Research 38: 545–581.
Peterson I, Mason A, Bhana A, et al. (2006) Mediating social representations using a cartoon nar-
rative in the context of HIV/AIDS. Journal of Health Psychology 11(2): 197–208.
Pink S (2007) Doing Visual Ethnography. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
Prosser J (1998) The visual representation of school culture. Communication & Cognition 31(2/3):
243–264.
Richardson L (1990) Writing Strategies: Reaching Diverse Audiences. Newbury Park, CA;
London: Sage.
Richardson L (2003) Writing: a method of inquiry. In: Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds) Collecting
and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 499–542.
Rowntree D (1999) Teaching Through Self-Instruction: How to Develop Open Learning Materi-
als. London: Kogan Page.
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.
Shakespeare T (1994) Cultural representation of disabled people: dustbins for disavowal. Disabil-
ity & Society 9(3): 283–299.
Simpson K (2007) Hearing voices? Negotiating multiple ethical commitments in development
research. In: Smith M (ed.) Negotiating Boundaries and Borders: Qualitative Methodology
and Development Research. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 155–176.
Weaver S (2010) The ‘Other’ laughs back: humour and resistance in anti-racist comedy. Sociology
44(1): 31–48.
Whitfield K and Wismer S (2006) Inclusivity and dementia: health service planning with individu-
als with dementia. Healthcare Policy 1(2): 120–134.
Bartlett 227

Wolcott H (1994) Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis and Interpretation.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Woods P (1999) Successful Writing for Qualitative Researchers. London: Routledge.
Zimmerman D and Weider DL (1975) Diary-interview method. Urban Life 5(4): 479–498.

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.

View publication stats