Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Innovative qualitative methods like photo-elicitation interviews are gaining traction for their ability to produce data through negotiation and reflexivity. Reflective Photo-Elicitation Interviews (RPIs) are commonly used in nature and community-based tourism research, but their application in cultural institutions remains limited. This methodology reflection essay examines the applicability, procedures, and challenges of RPIs within the “Capturing Your Moment” scheme. In terms of ethicality, all privacy and photo usage were fully maintained with the participants’ consent and the ethical board’s approval. Based on a critical review and field insights from study participants in a museum, the study outlines five steps of conducting RPIs with participants: (1) obtaining oral consent, (2) orientation, (3) participant photo capturing, (4) interview preparation with written consent, and (5) conducting the reflexive interview. The method offers several advantages, including increased participant engagement, enhanced communication, and complementarity with other approaches. However, challenges include contextual challenge in participant recruitment, difficulty capturing abstract experiences, data consistency issues, limited accessibility, and less applicability to virtual contexts. To improve inclusivity, future researchers could integrate screen readers, voice-activated tools, and collaborative forms of photo-elicitation approaches for disabled participants. For virtual museums, screenshots, recorded interactions, or digital storytelling could serve as alternatives to physical photo capture, enhancing applicability. Despite its challenges, the RPI method remains a valuable tool for qualitative research. Since only around 2.4% of museums are partially virtual, physical museum visits remain crucial, supporting the continued use of the RPI method as an innovative and effective data collection tool for visitor experience studies.

Keywords

methodological reflection museum reflexive photo-elicitation interview visitor experiences

Introduction

Museums are important in preserving cultural identities and fostering public understanding (Falk & Dierking, 2013). However, capturing the complex experiences of museum visitors, encompassing educational, inspirational, and recreational dimensions, remains a conceptual and methodological challenge (Falk, 2016; Nigatu et al., 2024). Traditional data collection methods and approaches, including surveys, observations, and interviews, often fail to capture the depth and complexity of these experiences (Caggiano & Weber, 2023; Mack, 2005). To address these limitations, researchers have increasingly adopted visual methods such as photo-elicitation interviews (Collier, 1986; Pink, 2006), which leverage photographs and other visual media to generate data through negotiation and reflexivity (Decrop et al., 2020). Negotiation refers to the dynamic interaction between participants and researchers as they interpret the visual material collaboratively. At the same time, reflexivity involves participants critically reflecting on their own experiences and perspectives elicited by the shared visuals (Luttrell, 2019).

In a sense, photo-elicitation and photovoice are often used interchangeably but are distinct methods. Photo-elicitation is a broader term referring to a technique where photographs are used to prompt discussion and elicit responses during interviews. Photo-elicitation enriches qualitative data by shifting narratives and eliciting deeper reflections from participants (Huber et al., 2023; Kahlke et al., 2024). In contrast, photovoice is a method in which participants use photography to document their experiences, issues, or perspectives, often emphasizing empowerment and advocacy (Smith et al., 2024; Yoshihama et al., 2024). In photovoice, participants share insights about their communities and advocate for change (Huber et al., 2023; Li et al., 2024).

The use of visual imagery in research has long been acknowledged for its potential to reveal hidden dimensions of social life, evoke emotions, and stimulate conversations (Spencer, 2023). Photo-elicitation methods have gained traction in fields as diverse as public health, urban planning, and tourism (Dinhopl & Gretzel, 2016; Olmo-Extremera et al., 2024; Warhurst & Black, 2015). However, their use in museum visitor studies remains underexplored, particularly in reflexive applications that invite participants to examine their own experiences critically. Stylianou-Lambert’s (2017) study on visitor motivations illustrates the value of visual methods but stops short of addressing the reflexive potential of photo-elicitation. Hence, this paper aims to enrich RPI by exploring the methodological process, benefits, and challenges of reflexive photo-elicitation interviews (RPI, hereafter) in cultural institutions.

This paper is a methodological reflection on the use of RPIs as one component of a larger research project conducted at the National Museum of Ethiopia. The broader study employed multiple qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews, profile accumulation, participant observation, and RPIs, to explore visitor experiences at the museum. This paper focuses specifically on the methodological utility of RPIs, drawing on participant reflections and the principal researcher’s field experiences to assess the strengths, challenges, and applicability of this method in cultural institutions. The aim is not to evaluate RPIs as a standalone method but to reflect on their use as part of a multi-method qualitative inquiry. Based on this, the present paper specifically asks: How can RPIs, as demonstrated through practical fieldwork and participants reflection on the method at the National Museum of Ethiopia, be effectively utilized to explore and interpret museum visitor experiences? By integrating participants’ voices into the analysis, the study demonstrates how this method enhances engagement, generates rich qualitative data, and complements other research techniques in the study of complex museum visitor experience with single method (Nigatu et al., 2025). At the same time, it critically assesses the challenges posed by this method, offering practical insights for researchers and practitioners.

This paper begins by tracing the types of photo-elicitation interviews and situating reflexive approaches within this trajectory. It then discusses the research process, including participant recruitment, ethical considerations, and interview protocols. The following sections describes the method’s contributions to museum visitor studies, particularly its capacity for fostering engagement and generating nuanced data, alongside the challenges researchers and participants encounter during the fieldwork. The study concludes with reflections on the method’s limitations and implications for future research.

Overview of Photo-Elicitation Interview Methods

Images are firstly used as a supporting tool for interviews in the visual anthropology study (Collier, 1986; Olmo-Extrmera et al., 2024) The decision to use the photo-elicitation interview method depends on who takes the pictures. Keeping this in mind, as shown in the work of Cayuela Ferrero (2023), the researcher “must decide whether the images to be used during the discussion should be taken by the researcher, the interviewee, or previously by a third party; they can even be photographs from the participant’s personal collection or family album” (p. 113). Considering this decision, there are four approaches to the photo-elicitation method (Lapenta, 2011; Wang, 2023).

Table 1 below summarizes the four types of photo-elicitation methods and their key characteristics, strengths, and limitations. From the structured insights of classic photo-elicitation, where images sourced from participants’ lives or archives guide understanding, to the empowering and community-driven nature of photovoice, methods illuminate perspectives in distinct ways. Collaborative approaches foster co-creation and shared agency, while reflexive photo-elicitation captures deeply personal narratives tied to significant moments.

Table 1.

Classification of Four Types of Photo-Elicitation Methods

Type of method	Key characteristics	Strengths	Limitations
Classic photo-elicitation	• Images taken or selected from the subject’s world• Photographs may be taken by the researcher (guided by informants) or sourced from archives/personal collections (Heisley & Levy, 1991)• Common in visual sociology (Zvijer, 2023)	• Offers structured insights into participants’ perspectives• Useful for first-time or archival studies• Well-documented methodology in visual sociology research (Williams & Whitehouse, 2015)	• Participants may lack prior museum images or focus only on aesthetic aspects• Researcher-provided images may not fully reflect participants’ perspectives
Photovoice	• Participatory action research method• Participants generate images reflecting community challenges and insights• Typically involves group discussions• Originated in health and community studies (Wang & Burris, 1997)	• Empowers communities to document their own experiences (Yoshihama et al., 2024)• Facilitates policy-oriented discussions and collective insights• Well-suited for health, education, and environmental studies (Warhurst & Black, 2015)	• Not ideal for individual-focused contexts like museum visits• Relies on group consensus, which may not align with the personal nature of museum experiences
Collaborative/ Participatory	• Images co-created by researchers and participants• Involves joint brainstorming and creative activities (e.g., collages)• Focuses on fostering mutual understanding and shared agency (Tokranova & Bauters, 2022)	• Builds trust and engagement between researchers and participants• Encourages creative input from participants• Useful in contexts requiring shared representations (Tokranova & Bauters, 2022)	• Researcher’s presence may influence participants’ responses and reflections• Authenticity and spontaneity of participant input may be compromised
Reflexive photo-elicitation	• Images generated by participants during significant moments• Captures personal narratives and reflections (Nikiforos & Karakitsou, 2020)• Associated with visitor-employed photography (VEP)• Participants contextualize images with complementary narratives (Sofield & Marafa, 2019)	• Captures individualized, spontaneous experiences• Encourages deep participant reflection and personal narratives (Guest, 2016)• Well-suited for studying museum visitor experiences, even for first-time visitors	• Requires clear participant orientation to align images with study objectives• Risk of participants focusing only on certain aspects (e.g., positive/negative emotions), missing a broader view

Source: Compiled by authors (2024)

The first type is the classic photo-elicitation method, which “uses images taken or selected from the subject’s world that they assume to be meaningful to elicit comments, memories, and discussions” (Romera Iruela, 2023, p. 66). In this classic method, the photographs or images may also be taken by the researcher while accompanied by one or more informants to guide him or her on their content and how to take them (Romera Iruela, 2023). The classic method involves researchers either taking the photos before the interview or using photographs from a personal collection or professional archive. This method is particularly common in visual sociology (Faccioli & Zuccheri, 1998; Fawns, 2020; Matthews & Singh, 2009; Meo, 2010; Van der Does et al., 1992; Vassenden & Jonvik, 2022).

The classic method has certain limitations in museum visitor experience studies. One limitation is that participants may be first-time visitors and, therefore, unfamiliar with the museum’s visual layout or key exhibits and have no previous photographs. Even when they do have photographs, they may focus on aesthetically pleasing aspects rather than problematic areas of the museum exhibition. Moreover, the researcher might also have no previous photos from the museum to facilitate the interview process with the participants.

The second type is the photovoice method emerged by the end of the 1990s in the work of Wang and Burris as a participatory action research method in health education (Warhurst & Black, 2015). Afterwards, the method became very popular in health, education, environmental concerns, and organizations (Wang, 2006). Photovoice has been defined as “a process by which people can identify, represent and enhance their community through a specific photographic technique” (Wang & Burris, 1997, p. 369). Traditionally, the photovoice method follows selecting and recruiting policymakers or community leaders, sometimes consisting of 7 and 10 individuals (Hagestedt & Guelke, 2020; Wang, 2006).

This participatory photo-voice method empowers community members by allowing them to capture images that reflect their experiences, challenges, and perspectives, which are then discussed collectively. Through its application, numerous methodological procedures and protocols have been developed to ensure the effectiveness and ethical considerations of the research process, which have been well-researched and documented (Kile, 2022; Lopez et al., 2005; Quigley et al., 2014; Sutton-Brown, 2014; Wass et al., 2022).

The photovoice method has some limitations in the study of museum visitor experience studies. Primarily because it is not well-suited for identifying community problems through group consensus, as the museum visit is often driven by individual intentions and personal reflections rather than collective concerns. Additionally, the method, which typically involves group discussions, is not ideal for engaging participants in the context of museums, where individual experiences are widely studied.

The third category is collaborative or participatory image production. In this approach, “images were generated by the researcher together with respondents as a collaborative representation which serves to remove obstacles between the observer and the observed” (Romera Iruela, 2023, p. 67). In this approach, researchers work alongside respondents, often engaging in discussions, brainstorming sessions, or creative activities to produce visual materials such as photographs, drawings, or collages. This process not only fosters mutual understanding and trust but also empowers respondents to actively participate in shaping the research outcomes (Pfister et al., 2014; Winton, 2016).

In the study of museum visitor experiences, the collaborative photo-elicitation method can be applied, but it is significantly influenced by the researcher’s presence with the participant. This presence may affect the authenticity of the participants’ reflections and their engagement with the exhibits, as they might consciously or unconsciously tailor their responses based on the researcher’s expectations or perceived interests. As a result, the spontaneity and personal nature of the museum visit experience can be compromised, potentially leading to less genuine insights into the visitors’ true experiences and feelings.

The fourth is reflexive photography or photo-elicitation auto-driven or reflexive photo-elicitation. In this method, “the production or selection of the images is done by the interviewees” (Romera Iruela, 2023, p. 67). In this method, the photos are used for the engagement of participants (Guest, 2016; Nikiforos & Karakitsou, 2020). The basic essence of reflexive photo-elicitation is that images taken by the informants were “taken at moments that were significant for them and reflect their narrative of events” (Pink, 2007, p. 91). This method is mostly associated with Volunteer-Employed Photography or Visitor-Employed Photography to conduct a more reflexive form of interviews with research subjects of visitor studies (Choo & Petrick, 2014; Ghaderi & Béal, 2020; Sofield & Marafa, 2019). In this method “participants are requested to take photographs of their environments and to accompany these with a word-based complementary method to ensure participants convey the meanings they wish to convey to the research team” (Balomenou & Garrod, 2019, p. 208).

The RPI method offers unique advantages for studying museum visitor experiences (Cahyanto et al., 2016). It is particularly effective for exploring individual perspectives, allowing participants to capture personal reflections and meaningful moments during their visits. By generating their photos, participants can visually express both positive and problematic aspects of their experiences, guided by the study’s objectives to focus on emotional or cognitive responses to exhibits. This method is also highly adaptable, making it suitable for both first-time and repeat visitors.

The RPI method is highlighted as a supportive and potential method with traditional interview techniques and other qualitative data collection methods. Despite its potential, there is a significant gap in the literature regarding its application, particularly in the context of museum visitor studies. Compared to the other methods discussed earlier, RPI remains underexplored, with limited guidelines on its procedures, challenges, and best practices. This paper aims to address this gap by detailing the method’s significance, step-by-step procedures, and challenges, drawing insights from both participants and the principal researcher’s fieldwork experiences. This reflection contributes to advancing qualitative research methodologies and enriching studies on museum visitor engagement.

Procedures and Protocols

The researchers employed RPI, a qualitative participatory method that integrates visual data and narrative inquiry to delve into subjective experiences. Rooted in participatory visual methods, this approach facilitates an iterative engagement between participants and researchers, creating opportunities for nuanced insights into personal experiences. This study’s method was specifically adapted to the museum context, where participants visually documented their interactions and reflections during their visits. The following five steps were developed to guide this process. This structured methodology process and protocol not only enables the exploration of visitor experiences but also serves as a model for future research in cultural institutions.

Step 1: Approaching Visitors and Obtaining Oral Consent

This step involves approaching visitors before they enter the museum to initiate a meaningful interaction. The researcher engages with visitors in a friendly and welcoming manner, creating a comfortable atmosphere and setting the tone for a positive experience. During this initial conversation, the researcher explains the purpose of the study: exploring how individuals experience and engage with museum exhibits through photographs and a follow-up interview. The broader aim is to improve heritage interpretation strategies and deepen understanding of audience engagement in cultural institutions. The importance of participants’ contributions is emphasized, highlighting the value of their insights. Following this discussion, visitors are asked for their oral consent to participate in the next phase of the study, which involves a photo-elicitation process. At this stage, participants may choose to agree or decline. If they agree, the process proceeds to the second step: orientation (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The Five-step Procedure to Implement RPI. Sources: Sketched by Authors (2024)

Step 2. Orientation

Visitors were approached in a welcoming manner at the entrance of the museum, where the researcher clearly communicated the study’s purpose and objectives. This initial interaction provided a transparent overview of what participation would entail, ensuring potential participants. Oral consent was obtained only after this explanation. Following their consent, participants were given an orientation to read, as shown in Figure 2, further reinforcing informed participation in the study.

Figure 2.

Orientation for Participants. Sources: Sketched by Authors (2024)

Step 3. Participants involved in photo capturing

Based on the orientation and guiding questions provided, participants are encouraged to explore the museum space while engaging in photo-capturing activities. This step allows visitors to visually document moments, objects, interactions, and spaces that resonate with them or evoke a personal response. By doing so, participants contribute to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of their subjective experiences within the museum environment.

Step 4: Preparing for the Photo-Elicitation Interview and Obtaining Written Consent

After completing their visit, participants are invited to share the photos they captured with the researcher. Approximately 10 minutes are allotted for the researcher to review and familiarize themselves with the photos in preparation for the subsequent discussion.

Simultaneously, participants are provided with a participant information sheet outlining the study’s objectives, procedures, confidentiality measures, and their rights as participants. Along with this, they are given a consent form that specifies the voluntary nature of their participation, the intended use of their photos, and their right to withdraw from the study at any point without any repercussions. Participants are asked to carefully read and understand the participant information sheet and consent form before signing. Their signature serves as a formal acknowledgement of their informed and voluntary participation, as well as their agreement with the study’s terms.

Step 5: Conducting the Photo-Elicitation Interview

The next step in the RPI process involved conducting follow-up photo-elicitation interviews to delve deeper into participants’ reflections and insights prompted by their museum visit. After completing the photo-capturing activity, participants were invited to share the photographs they had taken with the researcher. These interviews were designed to explore the context, emotions, thoughts, and significance associated with each image, providing a richer understanding of participants’ museum experiences.

The interviews were guided by a set of reflective questions aligned with the instructional guidelines provided earlier for photo capturing. These questions encouraged participants to describe their photographs in detail, discuss the moments they captured, and reflect on how the images represented their experiences. In addition to discussing their museum experiences, participants were also asked to reflect on the RPI process itself. Specific prompts were included to elicit feedback on the method, such as: What worked well or not during the RPI process? What challenges did you face while taking photos? How did the process of discussing your photos influence your reflections on the museum visit?

These reflective prompts were integrated into the interview protocol to gather participants’ insights on the strengths and challenges of using RPIs as a qualitative research method. Their responses were recorded and analyzed thematically alongside the principal researcher’s field notes, which documented methodological challenges, ethical considerations, and participant reactions.

The five participants featured in this methodological reflection were purposively selected from the broader study based on the depth of their reflective engagement during the RPI interviews. These participants were not recruited through a separate process but were initially part of the main study, which employed multiple qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews, profile accumulation, participant observation, and RPIs, to explore visitor experiences at the National Museum of Ethiopia.

During the RPI process, these participants responded to both questions about their museum experiences (the focus of the main study) and reflective questions about the RPI method itself. Their dual role allowed the researchers to gather data on both the substantive research questions of the main study and the methodological utility of RPIs. This paper focuses specifically on their reflections on the RPI method, as these insights provide valuable contributions to methodological discussions on visual elicitation techniques.

The profiles of the five participants are presented in Table 2. These individuals were selected to ensure diversity in terms of gender, educational background, and museum visit experience. Their ages ranged from 25 to 35 years, and their educational qualifications included bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD levels. Their museum visit experiences varied from first-time visitors to those with several prior visits.

Table 2.

Reflexive Photo-Elicitation Interviewees’ Profile

Pseudonym	Gender	Age	Educational background	NME visit experience
Temsgen	Male	32	PhD student in archaeology	Several time
Selam	Female	27	BSc in computer science	First-time
Habtu	Male	35	MA degree in tourism and development	More than three times
Samuel	Male	25	College student in data base	Second time
Beheru	Male	32	PhD student in history	Second time

This methodological reflection draws on participant insights and the principal researcher’s field experiences using RPIs as a qualitative tool. Participants shared their experiences, challenges, and benefits of the RPI process, which, along with the researcher’s observations, formed the basis of this study. Reflections were guided by prompts such as what worked, what challenges arose, and how participants responded. Key strengths, challenges and limitations of RPIs in cultural institutions were identified, with participant quotes used to contextualize and support the researcher’s insights. This paper contributes an experience-based perspective to methodological discussions on RPIs in museum settings. The RPI method was used to enhance the validity of the main project through a qualitative multi-method approach. It served as a valid tool by drawing on data from participants’ image-based documentation of their experiences, follow-up interviews, and field notes.

Reflections on the Pertinence of RPI in Museum Visitor Study

This section discusses the strengths of the RPI method, showcasing its capacity to enhance participant engagement, generate rich data, and foster deeper communication and understanding of the museum visitors’ experiences. The findings presented here are based on thematic analysis of participant reflections and the principal researcher’s field notes, as described in the methodology section. Key themes identified include increased participant engagement, the generation of rich data, and enhanced communication and understanding between researchers and participants.

Increases Participant Engagement

The RPI method actively engages participants by allowing them to produce images that reflect their personal narratives and experiences. This engagement fosters a sense of ownership and investment in the research process. Participants described the method as enjoyable, interactive, and thought-provoking. For example, Temesgen, a 32-year-old PhD student in archaeology, reflected:

I know photos and videos are important data sources […] I have reviewed various published papers in social science; however, I have never encountered such a method used in an academic paper. I believe that while all visitors can take pictures in the museum, they mostly focus on the positive aspects rather than the problem areas. Therefore, this method is very interesting as it captures both the good and bad aspects, including the problematic areas of the museum (Temesgen, a 32-year-old male participant).

This quote illustrates how the RPI method encouraged participants to engage more deeply with their surroundings, capturing both positive and critical aspects of their museum experience. By allowing participants to actively capture moments that resonated with them, the method empowered them to become more involved in the research process. The interactive nature of the method also allowed participants to reflect on their emotions and thoughts in real time, as highlighted by Habtu:

The method makes [your] study tangible by capturing the intangible feelings. For example, I took a photo in the museum when I felt entertained, educated, and even angered. It also brought back my feelings in the museum when I discussed them with you. I understand [you] might also gain a deeper sense of my real feelings and perceptions based on my photographs. You might even remember my face and emotions when [you] write your thesis (Habtu, a 35-year-old male participant).

These reflections demonstrate how the RPI method facilitated emotional recall and deeper engagement, enabling participants to articulate their experiences in ways that traditional methods might not achieve. The interactive and participatory nature of RPIs fosters a collaborative approach to knowledge generation and acknowledges the agency of participants in shaping the research process, thereby enhancing the overall quality and relevance of the study outcomes. The participant feels that taking photographs during their museum visit provided a tangible way to express emotions that are often difficult to verbalize, such as entertainment, education, and even anger. This is also supported by Reavey (2011) and Ford and Campbell (2024) who argue that photos serve as a bridge between subjective emotional experience and a more concrete representation in psychological studies using visual methods.

The first author’s field notes further corroborate these findings, documenting participants’ enthusiasm during the photo-capturing process and their active involvement in the follow-up interviews. In the first author’s interview with Temsgen, the RPI approach clearly demonstrated its strength in accessing deeper layers of participant experience. His photographs not only prompted rich narratives about specific exhibits but also revealed emotional and critical reflections that may not have emerged through verbal discussion alone. For example, he shared contrasting reactions to the Historical Archaeology and ethnographic displays, which were vividly articulated through the images he selected, allowing for a more textured understanding of his museum experience.

During the interview with Temesgen, the principal field researcher observed the participant’s excitement as he described the photographs he had taken. He leaned forward, gesturing energetically while discussing specific exhibits, and frequently referred back to the photos to explain his feelings of both admiration and critique. This engagement suggests that using photographic methods to capture experiences in the museum enhances participants’ cognitive recall and emotional reconnection with the museum space. Additionally, Temesgen expressed a sense of pride in local heritage when reflecting on the Historical Archaeology exhibit, whereas the ethnographic display, as captured in one of his photographs, prompted him to voice concerns about the persistence of outdated representations. These nuanced perspectives surfaced organically through his engagement with the images—insights that may not have surfaced through a conventional interview format.

Thus, this method facilitated a reflective dialogue, where visual cues sparked nuanced critique and engagement. This aligns with broader literature on participatory methods, which highlights their potential to enhance participant engagement and agency (Drew & Guillemin, 2014; Pink, 2007; Warren, 2002). Thus, RPIs guide us in understanding multi-dimensional experiences in the museum, capturing not only what participants saw but also how they felt allowing an embodied understanding of the experience (memory, emotion, and physical presence) to be interconnected (Hogan, 2022). It allows for reflexivity, as the participant becomes more aware of their own emotions during the process.

Allows for Rich Data Generation

The use of participant-generated photographs provided a unique lens through which to explore museum experiences. Access to such rich and nuanced data about visitor experiences may not be easily captured through traditional empirical research methods (Loeffler, 2004; McClarty, 2021). The images evoke different information, feelings, and memories, expanding the possibilities of understanding visitor engagement, interpretation, and emotional responses toward their experiences. By visually documenting moments that resonated with them, participants were able to convey nuanced insights that might have been overlooked in verbal-only methods.

For instance, Samuel shared:

It was my second visit. During my first visit, I took a few pictures for memory purposes, but today, when [you] asked me to take photos that connect my feelings with the figures, I saw everything more consciously. For example, there was something I didn’t notice during my previous visit, but today, I gained an important lesson from a painting that reveals the relationship between man and God. I was amazed by the choice of colours, the symbolism, the religious message, and the way it depicted death and life. The painter used red, dull black, and something that planted seeds in our hearts. I was surprised by how the Bible’s teaching was illustrated: when wheat is sown and dies, it will grow abundantly and bring forth much. Additionally, the way the artist used white and rose to describe life after death, showing that God always desires our salvation and protection, was truly touching (Samuel, 25-year-old male participant) (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Art Exhibit. Photo by Participant, Samuel (2024)

This quote highlights how the RPI method encouraged participants to engage more intentionally with the museum’s content, leading to new insights and deeper reflections. The principal field researcher observed that, during the interview, Samuel spoke with noticeable emotion and paused multiple times to look at the photo while explaining its meaning. His explanation and recollection focused on the symbolism of colors and included repeated references to the spiritual impact of the artwork. The process of capturing experiences through photography appeared to trigger a heightened level of emotional and spiritual engagement, deepening his personal interpretation of the exhibit. This, in turn, enhanced the richness of the data collected (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Ethnographic Exhibit. Photo by participant, Bahiru (2024)

Similarly, Bahiru, a 32-year-old PhD student in history, used the method to identify a specific issue in the museum.

In the photo below, I noticed a spelling error where “Houshold utencils” was written instead of “Household utensils.” I find this kind of mistake reflects poorly on the quality of the heritage presentation and interpretation in the museum. While it may seem like a small issue to others, I believe it highlights a bigger problem: a lack of attention to detail and care in preserving and presenting the heritage. This exhibit is part of a permanent collection, one that I assume has been displayed for a long time and regularly shown to visitors by guides (Bahiru, a 32-year-old male participant).

These examples illustrate how the RPI method enabled participants to document both emotional and critical aspects of their museum experiences, generating rich and multidimensional data. During the reflexive interview using photos, Bahiru pointed out the spelling error with a mix of amusement and frustration. The principal field researcher observed that Bahiru shook his head and remarked that such oversights were troubling, especially in an institution meant to promote the cultural and historical pride of a large and diverse nation in the national museum. His detailed critique emerged from the visual photographing experience, which helped him notice the error and encouraged him to reflect more broadly on curatorial standards and institutional accountability. Similarly, previous researcher, Romera Iruela (2023) found that the photo-elicitation interview is advantageous because ‘it evokes different information, feelings, and memories than those obtained through traditional empirical research, and thus expands its possibilities; it can reduce areas of misunderstanding in in-depth interviews by bringing researchers and subjects to a common understanding’ (p. 65).

Our data of participant reflections show that photographs often served as a catalyst for deeper discussions, uncovering layers of meaning that might not have emerged through verbal questioning alone. This strongly supports the view that RPI complements other data collection methods, such as observation, interviews, and informal discussions (Stevenson et al., 2019). Thus, RPIs encourage heightened awareness, transforming a passive visit into a deeply reflective and emotional experience.

Enhances Communication and Understanding with Participants

The use of photographs helped to bridge potential areas of misunderstanding with participants. It facilitated a common understanding by providing a tangible and visual reference point for discussions about visitor experiences within the museum context. By providing a tangible reference point, the photographs facilitated more meaningful and focused conversations. Selam reflected on her experience with the method:

I had participated in some common types of interviews, but it was my first time expressing my feelings using photographs that I had taken myself. I said it is a very nice method because capturing photos for research purposes requires careful and responsible execution. It also prepares me to express the significance of the photographs, highlighting both the best and most challenging areas of the museum (Selam, a 27-year-old female participant).

During the process, the researcher and participant sit side by side, viewing the photos on a computer screen. This shared moment allows for a deeper understanding, as the researcher can closely observe the participants’ facial expressions, the way they look at the images, and how they express their feelings. As the researcher further notes, at this point, the participant’s emotions become more visible in their reactions, and subtle expressions. Dynamic interaction not only enriches the data but also deepens the rapport between researcher and participant, making the research process more collaborative and reflective.

Participants suggest that the method can be more interactive and participant-driven compared to other methods, which may feel more routine. Additionally, the participant acknowledged that taking photographs for research purposes demands a higher level of responsibility and care. This implies that RPIs encourage participants to reflect more deeply on their environment (in this case, the museum) and on the emotions they wish to express. The method not only captures the immediate visual experience but also requires a mindful process, enhancing the participant’s reflective engagement.

Thus, we can understand that RPIs empower participants by giving them control over the content and focus of the discussion. It also encourages deeper reflection, leading to a more detailed and emotionally rich understanding of their experiences. This aligns with broader literature, which highlights the method’s ability to bridge the gap between the subjective emotional experience and the researcher’s interpretation (Gomez, 2020; Roger & Blomgren, 2019).

Challenges and Limitations of Applying RPIs Method

While the RPI method offers unique advantages in exploring museum visitor experiences, its implementation also presents several challenges and limitations. These challenges were identified through thematic analysis of participant reflections and the principal researcher’s field notes, as described in the methodology section. The key challenges include contextual barriers to participant recruitment, the complexity of photographing abstract experiences, variability in participant engagement, and limitations related to accessibility and virtual contexts.

Contextual Challenges in Participant Recruitment

While RPI offers unique advantages in exploring experiences, its implementation in specific contexts, such as museums, presents practical and contextual challenges. One major issue was participant reluctance, often due to time constraints and the perceived effort required. For example, one participant, who had provided consent to participate in the short interview component of the study, explained:

I come from a very far area to see the National Museum of Ethiopia with my fraction of time […] I do not have time to take a picture from the museum exhibition and sit with [you] for an interview […] if [you] have a questionnaire, I can fill it out […] otherwise, I cannot do what [you] want […] sorry.

This quote reflects the competing priorities of museum visitors, particularly those traveling long distances, and their limited availability for time-intensive methods like RPI. Concerns about lacking photography skills also caused hesitation. Participants may fear that their photos might not meet the researcher’s expectations, creating self-doubt despite the method’s intention to capture personal perspectives rather than technical quality. It is important to note that this individual declined to participate in the RPI process specifically but provided this feedback during their participation in the short interview component of the broader study. Their perspective was included with their informed consent and in accordance with the ethical guidelines approved for the study. The inclusion of this quote serves to contextualize the challenges of implementing RPI in naturalistic settings and does not represent data from the RPI process itself.

Moreover, some participants preferred more conventional methods, such as questionnaires, indicating a mismatch between method expectations and participant comfort levels. This illustrates a common contextual barrier in qualitative research—when creative or unfamiliar methods are introduced in naturalistic settings with limited time or preparation.

To address these challenges, the researcher offered alternative methods, such as the profile accumulation technique and participant observation, ensuring inclusive participation. These adaptations highlight the need for methodological flexibility when applying RPI in cultural settings. Future researchers should anticipate such context-specific recruitment challenges and consider strategies to reduce participant hesitation, such as offering shorter, less time-intensive options or providing additional orientation on the method.

The Complexity of Photographing Abstract Experiences

The use of RPI in qualitative research, particularly for capturing abstract museum experiences, presents some challenges. One of the primary difficulties is participants’ struggle to visually represent complex emotional responses. The first author observed that participants found it challenging to translate their multifaceted experiences into photographs. During the interview with Habtu, the principal field researcher noted the hesitation of Habtu in selecting a photograph that he felt best represented his mixed emotions. His body language suggested a genuine internal struggle as he attempted to reconcile these abstract feelings with the concrete format of a photograph. Furthermore, in several instances, other participants also expressed uncertainty about whether a single photograph could capture the full spectrum of their emotions. This reflects a broader tension on translating intangible, layered experiences such as awe, curiosity, fascination or disappointment into static images can limit the full articulation of those sentiments. The first author recognized that while the photographs served as powerful prompts, they could not always fully convey the complexity of internal, reflective experiences.

Abstract emotions, such as the simultaneous experience of enjoyment and intellectual stimulation, are inherently difficult to encapsulate in visual form, as highlighted by Zhang and Hennebry-Leung (2023). For example, while one participant might view a particular exhibit as inspiring, another might interpret it as overwhelming or confusing. These differences in perception can lead to inconsistent outcomes, making analysis more complex (Bolckgard et al., 2024; Gill, 2024). Despite these challenges, the RPI method provided a unique opportunity for participants to engage in self-reflection and explore their experiences in depth. When carefully facilitated, the method added a rich, visual dimension to the data, offering insights that might not have emerged through verbal questioning alone. This aligns with prior research on visual methods, which emphasizes their potential to uncover hidden dimensions of experience (Clark-Ibáñez, 2004; Drew & Guillemin, 2014).

Variability in Participants Leads to Interpretation Challenge

One of the primary challenges observed was the varying levels of engagement among participants, which were strongly influenced by their background knowledge. Participants who were well-versed in certain subjects displayed deeper engagement and analytical confidence, whereas those with limited familiarity struggled to interpret and articulate their experiences.

For example, Temsegn, a 32-year-old archaeology graduate, demonstrated strong engagement with the museum’s historic archaeology section:

I take more pictures from the historic archaeology section of the museum where I feel more comfortable in the educational and intellectual content the display holds [...] I had a lot to say in this section, but still in the art section I wasn’t sure what to focus on.

Temsegn’s familiarity with archaeology allowed him to critically examine and discuss the content, while his uncertainty in the art section underscores the difficulty of interpreting unfamiliar material. In contrast, Selam, a computer science student, faced interpretation challenges, struggling to analyze the museum’s historical narratives and instead focusing primarily on the visual aspects of the exhibits. This means that researchers must remain sensitive to these cultural and educational dynamics to foster richer and more inclusive qualitative insights.

For researchers, this methodological challenge in applying RPI yields varied responses depending on participants’ exposure, making it necessary to account for differences in analytical abilities when interpreting findings (Bayeck, 2021; Thomas & Wessman, 2024).

While these variations in interpretation pose a data consistency challenge, they also present an opportunity. As a qualitative data collection tool, RPI captures a wide range of perspectives from individuals who interact with museum content in their distinct ways. As qualitative researchers, we value the individuality of each participant’s voice and experience. Rather than generalizing experiences in social and humanistic studies, we celebrate diversity and consider the so-called “data consistency challenge” to be a natural part of qualitative research, not a methodological flaw.

By remaining mindful of participants’ subject matter expertise, educational backgrounds, and cultural contexts, RPI allows researchers to harness the richness of diverse perspectives, turning variability into a strength rather than a limitation. Embracing this variability can enhance the richness of qualitative inquiry, underscoring the importance of approaching RPI with an awareness of its potential for diverse perspectives and the complexities they bring to the research process.

Limitations on Accessibility and less Applicability to Virtual Contexts

RPI has emerged as a valuable qualitative research method, particularly in cultural institutions such as museum visitor studies, for capturing visitors’ experiences and perspectives through participant-generated photographs. However, its reliance on participant-generated visual material and physical museum visits presents specific challenges regarding accessibility and inclusivity.

A key drawback of the RPI method is that it can be less accessible to individuals with disabilities. The need for participants to physically navigate a museum and take photos can create significant obstacles for those with mobility, visual, or other impairments. This reliance can create obstacles for individuals with certain disabilities. For example, participants with mobility impairments may face challenges in accessing certain areas of the museum, while those with visual impairments may be unable to take or interpret photographs. Similarly, individuals with physical impairments affecting their hands may find it difficult to use a camera or smartphone for photo-taking. These challenges are not intrinsic flaws of the RPI method but rather reflect broader accessibility barriers in museum environments.

To enhance the methodological applicability of the RPI method for individuals with disabilities, the use of screen readers or voice-activated tools could help with data collection (Vaz et al., 2020). Furthermore, a collaborative photo-elicitation approach can be employed to capture their experiences through photographs, particularly for individuals with mobility impairments (Romera Iruela, 2023).

As museums increasingly adopt digital technologies such as 3D models, augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR), the RPI method faces challenges in aligning with these non-physical contexts (Aiello et al., 2019; Gonring, 2022). For instance, a participant engaging in a VR-based museum tour cannot physically capture photographs of the exhibits, as they exist in a virtual space. Similarly, interactive digital narratives or mixed-reality ecosystems, which blend physical and virtual elements, present limited applicability for the RPI method. Therefore, the RPI method’s reliance dominantly on physical interaction with exhibits makes it less suited for capturing experiences in these digital environments.

However, it is important to consider how many museums are virtual worldwide. According to UNESCO, there are around 104,000 museums globally. Of these, only 2,500 museums have partially adopted virtual exhibitions (UNESCO, 2025). This means only around 2.4 % of museums are partially virtual. This suggests that physical museum visits remain crucial in museum visitor studies, which supports the continued application of the RPI method as an innovative and valuable data collection tool for visitor experience studies.

To address the limited applicability of the RPI method in digital museums, future researchers could encourage participants to capture screenshots or record their interactions with digital exhibits as an alternative to physical photo-capturing. Additionally, researchers could incorporate digital storytelling, allowing participants to document their experiences through a combination of text, images, and videos from the digital world as data for research (Andrade et al., 2023; King et al., 2016).

Concluding remark

This methodological reflection paper underlines the RPI as a transformative tool for studying visitor experiences in museums and cultural settings. This methodology reflection study aims to uncover nuanced insights from the participant’s reflection and the principal researcher’s field experiences. The study developed a five-step protocol spanning consent, photo-taking, and follow-up interviews integrating ethical considerations with iterative exploration, forming a solid foundation for examining visitor interactions. The RPI method excels in its ability to encourage active participant engagement, deeper and multidimensional data, and researcher-participant communication. By enabling the visitors to speak effectively and visually represent their opinions to understanding museum experiences and resulting in more meaningful research outcomes. However, using this method faced contextual challenges in participant recruitment during the initial contact, challenges in accessing complex experiences, and physical barriers.

This paper contributes to methodological discourse by systematically reflecting on the strengths and limitations of RPI in studying visitor experiences, particularly within educational and museum settings. While photovoice and similar participatory approaches are widely applied, few studies dedicate full space to critically examining their methodological implications, positioning this paper as a valuable resource for researchers seeking to refine visual elicitation techniques.

Future research could refine the method through collaborative or guided photography to support participants with diverse skills and confidence levels. Adapting the method for virtual and hybrid museum settings will be vital as digital cultural experiences expand. Additionally, using digital image prompts could bridge the gap between abstract experiences and visual representation, improving the method’s inclusivity and effectiveness.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

We sincerely acknowledge the participants who contributed to this study by sharing their valuable insights,which were instrumental in the development of this paper. The first author gratefully acknowledges Sunway University for the studentship support and funding related to data collection expenses.

ORCID iDs

Tesfaye Fentaw Nigatu

Alexander Trupp

Ethical Approval

The data collection method was granted ethical approval by Sunway University’s Ethics Committee on 30 January 2024,under reference number PGSUREC2023/082,after a review of the procedures and protocols.

Consent to Participate

All the participants in this study were informed to consent in a written and verbal way as a part of the study procedure and the ethicality to use their insight for the development of this paper. The signed consent was recorded based on the ethical approval letter.

Consent for Publication

The participants’ photographs taken in the museum get consent from the participants for publication. No personal photographs were included but the museum exhibit was photographed by participants.

Author Contributions

All four authors contributed to the development of this paper from conceptualization to final editing. Tesfaye Fentaw Nigatu: Conceptualization,investigation,data collection,field observation and interviews with participants,writing original draft,validation,review and editing and visualization. Alexander Trupp: Conceptualization,supervision,validation,review editing,visualization and final verification. Pek Yen Teh: Supervision,validation,review editing,visualization and final verification. Elangkovan Narayanan Alagas: Supervision,review editing and final verification. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

References

Aiello

Fai

Santagati

(2019). Virtual museums as a means for promotion and enhancement of cultural heritage. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 42(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W15-33-2019

Andrade

A. D.

Techatassanasoontorn

A. A.

Singh

(2023). Understanding the digital experience: Phenomenological IS research. In Handbook of qualitative research methods for information systems (pp. 88–103). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802205398.00011

Balomenou

Garrod

(2019). Photographs in tourism research: Prejudice, power, performance, and participant-generated images. Tourism Management, 70(1), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.014

Bayeck

R. Y.

(2021). The intersection of cultural context and research encounter: Focus on interviewing in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921995696

Bockgård

Mattsson

von Essen

Klarare

(2024). Collaborative interpretation of researcher-generated photo-elicitation findings: Insights from women with lived experience of homelessness. Qualitative Health Research, 34(7), 676–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323231224330

Caggiano

Weber

E. U.

(2023). Advances in qualitative methods in environmental research. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 48(1), 793–811. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-080106

Cahyanto

I. P.

Pennington-Gray

Thapa

(2016). A postcard from the village: Using reflexive photography as a means of developing tourism. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14394/48205 (accessed on November 27, 2024).

Cayuela Ferrero

(2023). Photo-elicitation in virtual environments as a tool for teachers’ in-service training. In Photographic elicitation and narration in teachers education and development (pp. 109–123). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20164-6_8

Choo

Petrick

J. F.

(2014). Social interactions and intentions to revisit agritourism service encounters. Tourism Management, 40(1), 372–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.07.011

10.

Clark-Ibáñez

(2004). Framing the social world with photo-elicitation interviews. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(12), 1507–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764204266236

11.

Collier

Jr, J.

(1986). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. University of New Mexico Press.

12.

Decrop

Frochot

Masset

(2020). Translating a bright and noisy experience: Videography for tourism research. Journal of Qualitative Research in Tourism, 1(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.4337/jqrt.2020.01.01

13.

Dinhopl

Gretzel

(2016). Selfie-taking as touristic looking. Annals of Tourism Research, 57(1), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.12.015

14.

Drew

Guillemin

(2014). From photographs to findings: Visual meaning-making and interpretive engagement in the analysis of participant-generated images. Visual Studies, 29(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2014.862994

15.

Faccioli

Zuccheri

(1998). The double vision of alcohol. Visual Sociology, 13(2), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725869808583795

16.

Falk

J. H.

(2016). Identity and the museum visitor experience. Routledge.

17.

Falk

J. H.

Dierking

L. D.

(2013). The museum experience revisited. Routledge.

18.

Fawns

(2020). The photo-elicitation interview as a multimodal site for reflexivity. In A handbook of visual methods in psychology (pp. 487–501). Routledge.

19.

Ford

Campbell

(2024). Being participatory through photo-based images. In Being participatory: Researching with children and young people: Co-Constructing knowledge using creative, digital and innovative techniques (pp. 145–167). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47787-4_7

20.

Ghaderi

Béal

(2020). Local impression of tourist photographing: A perspective from Iran. Tourism Management, 76(1), Article 103962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.103962

21.

Gill

S. L.

(2024). Qualitative data collection: Photo elicitation. Journal of Human Lactation, 40(4), 503–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/08903344241273863

22.

Gomez

(2020). Photostories: A participatory photo elicitation visual research method in information science. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 9(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919835378

23.

Gonring

G. M. P.

(2022). Virtual Exhibits: Museum infrastructures and the management of artworks’ presence. https://doi.org/10.33767/osf.io/tcyb7

24.

Guest

(2016). Cultivating reflexive research practice when using participants’ photographs as research data. In Warr

Guillemin

Cox

Waycott

(Eds.), Ethics and visual research methods. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54305-9_6

25.

Hagestedt

Guelke

(2020). Photovoice as a visual research method: Adaptations from projects in Peru and Ecuador. Journal of Latin American Communication Research, 8(1-2), 54–85. https://doi.org/10.55738/journal.v8i1-2p.54-85

26.

Heisley

D. D.

Levy

S. J.

(1991). Autodriving: A photo elicitation technique. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(3), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1086/209258

27.

Hogan

(2022). Photography in research (Summary of photographic research methods: Photo-documentation, photo-elicitation, semiotic analysis and content analysis). In Photography (pp. 111–133). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80071-535-620221005

28.

Huber

J. M.

Bieling

García-Martín

Plieninger

Torralba

(2023). Photovoice: Participatory research methods for sustainability‐toolkit# 8. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 32(4), 386–388. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.32.4.10

29.

Kahlke

Maggio

Lee

Cristancho

LaDonna

Abdallah

Kshatri

Horsley

Varpio

(2024). More than words: An integrative review of innovative elicitation techniques for qualitative interviews. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.29.24308062

30.

Kile

(2022). Uncovering social issues through photovoice: A comprehensive methodology. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 15(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867211055101

31.

King

Stark

J. F.

Cooke

(2016). Experiencing the digital world: The cultural value of digital engagement with heritage. Heritage and Society, 9(1), 76–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159032X.2016.1246156

32.

Lapenta

(2011). Some theoretical and methodological views on photo-elicitation. In The Sage handbook of visual research methods (Vol. 1, pp. 201–213). Sage.

33.

Gulley

Booty

Firchow

McGladrey

M. L.

(2024). Using photovoice to improve engagement in community health assessments addressing behavioral health. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 52(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-024-09885-4

34.

Loeffler

T. A.

(2004). A photo-elicitation study of the meanings of outdoor adventure experiences. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4), 536–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2004.11950035

35.

Lopez

Eng

Robinson

Wang

C. C.

(2005). Photovoice as a community-based participatory research method. In Methods in community-based participatory research for health (pp. 326–348). John Wiley & Sons.

36.

Luttrell

(2019). Reflexive qualitative research. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education (pp. 1–21): Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.553

37.

Mack

(2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide.

38.

Matthews

Singh

(2009). Visual methods in the social sciences: Refugee background young people.

39.

McClarty

B. A.

(2021). Exploring the essence of a meaningful or spiritual connection to nature: A qualitative study using a phenomenological approach and photo-elicitation techniques. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0415706

40.

Meo

A. I.

(2010). Picturing students’ habitus: The advantages and limitations of photo-elicitation interviewing in a qualitative study in the city of Buenos Aires. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691000900203

41.

Nigatu

T. F.

Trupp

Teh

P. Y.

(2024). A bibliometric analysis of museum visitors’ experiences research. Heritage, 7(10), 5495–5520. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7100260

42.

Nigatu

T. F.

Trupp

Teh

P. Y.

(2025). Fusing constructivism with experience economy theory: A framework for understanding and enhancing millennial visitors’ museum experiences. Journal of Multidisciplinary in Social Sciences, 21(1), 1–11. https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/sduhs/article/view/288226.

43.

Nikiforos

C. D.

Karakitsou

(2020). The phenomenology of revisiting lived experience through photographic images: Memory formation, narrative construction and self-empowerment. Qualitative Report, 25(1), 119–140.

44.

Olmo-Extremera

Fernández-Terol

Amber Montes

(2024). Visual tools for supporting interviews in qualitative research: New approaches. Qualitative Research Journal, 24(3), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-07-2023-0113

45.

Pfister

A. E.

Vindrola-Padros

Johnson

G. A.

(2014). Together, we can show you: Using participant-generated visual data in collaborative research. Collaborative Anthropologies, 7(1), 26–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/cla.2014.0005

46.

Pink

(2006). The future of visual anthropology: Engaging the senses. Routledge.

47.

Pink

(2007). Doing visual ethnography. Sage.

48.

Quigley

C. F.

Dogbey

Che

S. M.

Hallo

Womac

(2014). Through their lens: The potential of photovoice for documentation of environmental perspectives among Kenyan teachers. Qualitative Report, 19(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1266

49.

Reavey

(2011). Visual methods in psychology. In Using and interpreting images in qualitative research. Psychology.

50.

Roger

K. S.

Blomgren

(2019). Elicitation as a mind-set: Why visual data matter? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18(1), Article 1609406919835378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919835378

51.

Romera Iruela

M. J.

(2023). Photovoice and photo-elicitation: Similarities, differences, incorporation and contribution in in-service teacher training. In Photographic elicitation and narration in teachers education and development (pp. 61–75). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20164-6_5

52.

Smith

Carter

Walklet

Hazell

(2024). Exploring the methodological benefits and challenges of utilising a Photovoice methodology with individuals in recovery from problem substance use. Qualitative Health Research, 34(10), 10497323231217601–10497323231217894. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323231217601

53.

Sofield

T. H.

Marafa

L. M.

(2019). Revitalizing field trips in tourism: Visual anthropology, photo elicitation, rapid appraisal, participant observation and Habermas. Tourism Management, 75(1), 522–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.007

54.

Spencer

(2023). Visual research methods in the social sciences: Awakening visions. Routledge.

55.

Stevenson

Oldfield

Ortiz

(2019). Image and word on the street: A reflexive, phased approach to combining participatory visual methods and qualitative interviews to explore resilience with street-connected young people in Guatemala city. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 19(1), 176–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2018.1557769

56.

Stylianou-Lambert

(2017). Photographing in the art museum: Visitor attitudes and motivations. Visitor Studies, 20(2), 114–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2017.1404345

57.

Sutton-Brown

C. A.

(2014). Photovoice: A methodological guide. Photography and Culture, 7(2), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.2752/175145214X13999922103165

58.

Thomas

Wessman

(2024). Archaeological object interviews as a method to study and engage with finder-collectors. Antiquity, 98(400), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.66

59.

Tokranova

Bauters

M. L.

(2022). Applying participatory design principles to collaborative art-creating sessions. In Proceedings of the 25th international academic Mindtrek conference (pp. 347–353). https://doi.org/10.1145/3569219.3569367

60.

UNESCO . (2025). Museums. https://www.unesco.org/en/museums (accessed on 1 February 2025).

61.

Van der Does

Edelaar

Gooskens

Liefting

Van Mierlo

(1992). Reading images: A study of a Dutch neighborhood. Visual Sociology, 7(1), 4–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725869208583694

62.

Vassenden

Jonvik

(2022). Photo elicitation and the sociology of taste: A review of the field, empirical illustrations, arguments for a “Return to Photography”. The Sociological Quarterly, 63(1), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2020.1834464

63.

Vaz

Freitas

Coelho

(2020). Blind and visually impaired visitors’ experiences in museums: Increasing accessibility through assistive technologies. The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, 13(2), 57. https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-2014/CGP

64.

Wang

A. H.

(2023). I took the photograph just to show you a little bit of perspective: Photo-elicitation interviewing with family caregivers in the dementia context. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 24(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-24.1.3928

65.

Wang

Burris

M. A.

(1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400309

66.

Wang

C. C.

(2006). Youth participation in photovoice as a strategy for community change. Journal of Community Practice, 14(1-2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v14n01_09

67.

Warhurst

Black

(2015). The use of photo-elicitation interviewing in qualitative HRD research. In Saunders

Tosey

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods on HRD (pp. 127–140). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781009246.00017

68.

Warren

(2002). Show me how it feels to work here: Using photography to research organizational aesthetics. Ephemera, 2(3), 224–245.

69.

Wass

Anderson

Rabello

Golding

Rangi

Eteuati

(2022). Photovoice as a research method for higher education research. Higher Education Research and Development, 39(4), 834–850. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1692791

70.

Williams

R. R.

Whitehouse

(2015). Photo elicitation and the visual sociology of religion. Review of Religious Research, 57(2), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-014-0199-5

71.

Winton

(2016). Using photography as a creative, collaborative research tool. Qualitative Report, 21(2), 428–449. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2240

72.

Yoshihama

Marques

Sáez

J. L. F. P.

Patrão

(2024). PhotoVoice in social work research, practice, and education: Challenges and possibilities. In Social Welfare Programs and Social Work Education at a Crossroads (pp. 161–178). Routledge.

73.

Zhang

Hennebry-Leung

(2023). A review of using photo-elicitation interviews in qualitative education research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22(1), Article 16094069231185456. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231185456

74.

Zvijer

(2023). Visual methodological approaches between sociology and anthropology: Photo-elicitation and photovoice. Etnoantropološki problemi/Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology, 18(2), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v18i2.2

From Capturing a Moment to New Insights: A Methodological Reflection on Reflexive Photo-Elicitation Interviews to Understand Visitor Experiences in Cultural Institutions

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Overview of Photo-Elicitation Interview Methods

Procedures and Protocols

Step 1: Approaching Visitors and Obtaining Oral Consent

Step 2. Orientation

Step 3. Participants involved in photo capturing

Step 4: Preparing for the Photo-Elicitation Interview and Obtaining Written Consent

Step 5: Conducting the Photo-Elicitation Interview

Reflections on the Pertinence of RPI in Museum Visitor Study

Increases Participant Engagement

Allows for Rich Data Generation

Enhances Communication and Understanding with Participants

Challenges and Limitations of Applying RPIs Method

Contextual Challenges in Participant Recruitment

The Complexity of Photographing Abstract Experiences

Variability in Participants Leads to Interpretation Challenge

Limitations on Accessibility and less Applicability to Virtual Contexts

Concluding remark

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

ORCID iDs

Ethical Approval

Consent to Participate

Consent for Publication

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

References