Uppeldi og menntun - 01.07.2014, Page 91

Uppeldi og menntUn/icelandic JoUrnal of edUcation 23(2) 2014 91
Kristín Björnsdóttir, dan goodley & hanna Björg sigUr jónsdóttir
The stories we present, we have come to understand as oppositional, expected,
disrupted, de/territorializing and carnivalesque. We tell these stories about our in-
teractions with our collaborators in order to reflect upon a number of important con-
siderations raised by these encounters. In particular, we want to draw attention to the
power relations and assumptions that exist inside and outside of the canon of narra-
tive intellectual disability research.
The oppositional story
This story takes place in Iceland when I (Kristín) was writing a life history in col-
laboration with Gunnar (pseudonym, as other names of participants in the article),
who at the time was in his twenties and labelled as having intellectual disabilities.
He participated in my doctoral research during the years of 2006 and 2007. I decided
to introduce him to photovoice, which is a research method where photographs are
used to gain understanding about people’s lives and experiences. Participants use
cameras to take pictures of places, people, and events, and through photographs they
can depict their world or situation. Booth and Booth (2003) used this method with
mothers with intellectual disabilities and claimed that the photovoice method offered
an insight both into the individual lives and collective experiences of these mothers
as a group. While most people rely a great deal on the written and spoken language
in their narratives, many people with intellectual disabilities use alternative modes of
communication, such as symbols, signs, and pictures. Therefore, I was optimistic that
the photovoice method would be useful in our collaboration and by using a camera
Gunnar would be able to communicate to me the various aspects of his life he found
relevant to our pursuit for social change.
Gunnar is a national and international swimming champion. I was interested in
learning about his life and how the sport hero was represented in his stories. He
showed the photovoice method interest, but did not take any pictures on the disposable
camera I provided. I assumed it was because he could not operate it. I focused on his
impairment and accepted the deceptive medical label of intellectual disabilities. This
label describes intellectual disabilities as an absolute condition and defines people as
unintelligent and incompetent (Bogdan & Taylor, 1994). It did not cross my mind that
Gunnar had actually used a different camera; his own, state of the art, digital camera.
By refusing to use the disposable camera, Gunnar challenged my preconceived notions
of his competencies and the label of intellectual disabilities. I was focused on his iden-
tity as a sport hero and overlooked the reality of his flux multiple identities. Gunnar
did not only view himself as a triumphant swimmer; he also considered himself to be
an artist and a skilled photographer. With his digital camera he frequently took family
photos as well as artistic scenic photographs and he was not satisfied with the quality
of the photos from the disposable camera.
We spent some time going through Gunnar´s photo albums and he told stories
about family gatherings, holidays, and sporting events which provided a further in-
sight into his life and experiences. I saw a new side to his life and learned much I had
not expected from the stories. In his narratives and by refusing to use the disposable