Quinn, S., & Manning, J. (2013). Recognising the ethical implications of the use of photography in early childhood educational settings. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 14(3), 270-278.

This paper is a timely reminder that practices which teachers may find unproblematic (that is, normal practice), may in fact be problematic from an ethical standpoint. Given that photography is widespread in early childhood education, as well as the fact that photos and video are often used in research and reflective practices, the authors point out that there is a need to highlight the ethical component of these practices in order to encourage further consideration amongst teachers.

 

The authors are critical of the power relationships that exist between photographer and photographed, highlighting that there is exploitative potential in terms of who has more and who has less power within this relationship. This article positions photography as a potential source of knowledge and power. There is also potential for photographs to be used as a technology for constructing institutionally sanctioned identities.

 

The goal of most photography in early childhood settings is making learning visible, both for children and for teachers to reflect upon the practice. The use of photography as an invitation to see what is going on places power in the hands of the photographer in terms of how the photograph is constructed, and the elements that are included and excluded. According to the authors, this creates an ethical dilemma. The authors argue for a democratic approach in which motivations are critically engaged and where children’s agency is prioritised.

 

The authors highlight two specific standpoints in relation to photography in early childhood settings: The first is that photographs are a meaningful tool for assessment, and the second is that photographs might also be a tool for control and surveillance – as a mechanism for the normalisation of sanctioned outcomes. This is so because the photographer has power over the construction, but in assessment, they also have power over the interpretation of what is in the photograph.

 

The authors suggest that teachers need to actively consider issues of consent in the use of photography: consent in this regard means consent to be photographed, as well is consent over how the photographs are to be used. The authors point out that although parents give consent, and often blanket consent for photographs to be used, this practice may in fact reflect a loss of agency for children. Questions are posed throughout this article that aim to problematize the non-critical use of photography in early childhood settings, for example, “do all stakeholders (anyone who is photographed or takes photographs) have a voice in determining the meaning of respect, dignity, and inclusivity?” (p. 275).

 

The authors suggest that we need to consider ethics when using photography to articulate learning. They also suggest that there is a need for discussion around how photography serves the best interests of the child, as well as engagement with the wider question over who has the right to determine what those best interests are.