Gates 5
that warrants change nor facilitate participatory sensemaking processes. This suggests advantages of
rich pictures early within an evaluation process.
Methods to Model or Map Systems
Expanded methodological options come from the systems and complexity fields, an area that shares
broad concerns with “systems” and “the core idea of an adaptive whole to understand or intervene in
the complexities of human affairs” (Checkland & Haynes, 1994, p. 189). Systems fields include hun-
dreds of theories, concepts, approaches, and methods (Williams, 2021). These are sometimes dis-
cussed as three major waves: hard systems thinking, soft systems thinking, and critical systems
thinking (Midgley, 2007). Another way of grouping methods concerns describing and analyzing sit-
uations, changing and managing situations, and learning about situations (Hummelbrunner &
Williams, 2009).
Systems methods gaining attention in evaluation center on systems mapping, primarily to model
and analyze causal relationships or processes (Barbrook-Johnson & Penn, 2021). Examples include
participatory systems mapping, causal loop diagrams, Bayesian belief networks, and system dynam-
ics (Barbrook-Johnson & Penn, 2021). Of note, these methods focus on visually representing one or
several systems of interest. This typically requires first distinguishing which system(s) to prioritize
within a situation (Lewis, 1992). Additionally, this reflects attention to natural world complexity
of interrelationships with secondary consideration of subjective and normative complexity within
the mapping process. While rich pictures are sometimes labeled as a system mapping method,
they are less structured and focus on learning about and acting to change situations rather than anal-
ysis of systems or causal processes (Williams & Hummelbrunner, 2009).
Visual Methods to Explore Perspectives
A third category of methods comes from visual, creative, and arts-based approaches. These include
films, videos, photographs, drawings, cartoons, graffiti, maps, diagrams, cyber graphics, signs, and
symbols (Chilton & Leavy, 2014; Knowles & Cole, 2008). Participatory visual methods involve
people in (re)constructing meaning through visuals including photo elicitation (i.e., where photo-
graphs produced by researchers or participants are used in interviews) (Margolis & Zunjarwad,
2018); graphical elicitation (i.e., an iterative process that uses sketches, drawings, comics, or dia-
grams to stimulate discussion) (Prosser & Loxley, 2008); graphic novels (i.e., continuous images
that incorporate texts and symbols to address themes such as autobiography and daily life)
(Galman, 2009); and sensory ethnography (i.e., visual and audio technologies to observe and inter-
view participants producing a song or film, walking interviews, group discussions, creative work-
shops, or other mediums) (van der Vaart et al., 2018).
In addition to facilitating participation in sensemaking, visual methods also enable interrogation:
“the visual constitutes not just an object to be seen, but a lens through which we perceive and under-
stand the world around us” (Caraway & Kinnear, 2022, pp. 1–2). This makes visual methods “inher-
ently political undertakings” as they “make possible particular ways of seeing, thinking, and
imagining our worlds” (Taschereau Mamers, 2022, p. 158). Therefore, it is necessary to carefully
consider the processes of visualizing, including who gets to participate (and who doesn’t) and poten-
tial material consequences, recognizing visuals may reinforce domination or “serve as a means of
resistance and negotiation” (Caraway & Kinnear, 2022, p. 2). Visual artifacts also may be interro-
gated to explore or challenge “how histories are narrated, how precarity might be attended to, or
how categories of knowledge are reproduced or disrupted (Taschereau Mamers, 2022, p. 158).