Page 303 - Lazar, Irena, Aleksander Panjek in Jonatan Vinkler. Ur. 2020. Mikro in makro. Pristopi in prispevki k humanističnim vedam ob dvajsetletnici UP Fakultete za humanistične študije, 2. knjiga. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem.
P. 303
reasoning and representation in “visual argumentation”
Introduction: The drawing below dates back to the seventies of the
previous century. Please, take a good look at it, and then answer
the two questions below.
Question 1: What do you see on the drawing (how would you descri-
be the “content” or “what is going on” in the drawing in the most
correct and objective way)?
Question 2: In your opinion, what could be the goal/purpose/mea-
ning of the drawing? In other words, how would you interpret it (e.g.
a joke, advertisement against smoking/cigarettes, advertisement in
favour of smoking/cigarettes, advertisement in anglers’ bulletin, ca-
ricature, other). Please, give reasons for your opinion.
This questionnaire was distributed to three different age groups, with
different educational background, all European, with Slovenian citizen-
ship. I planned a fourth one, a group of refugees living in Slovenia (mostly
from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, some of them from North Africa), in or-
der to show how cultural differences may influence the interpretation, but
the refugee coordinator refused to participate because of “ethical reasons”.
Here are some of the characteristics of these groups:
Group 1: STUDENTS (number: 26, age: 20–24, sex: 25 female, 1
male, education: completed high school, 2nd year of Educational
Studies at the University of Primorska, Slovenia).
Group 2: RESEARCHERS (number: 7/30, age: 28–68, sex: 6 fema-
le, 1 male, education: PhD in Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology,
Education Sciences, two PhD candidates, Educational Research
Institute, Slovenia).
Group 3: SENIORS (number: 3/12, age: 69–86, sex: 2 female, 1
male, education: high school to university education, attendants
of the University of the Third Age, Slovenia).
Of course, from the methodological point of view and strictly statisti-
cally speaking, samples vary too much and can-not be compared in an or-
derly quantitative fashion. But at this point, I was interested in qualitative
data, and as a pilot study, even such disparate groups can do. More elabora-
te and varied testing is being planned, though.
What did our pilot study show?
Group 1: 9 students out of 26 thought that the drawing “could have
been/ might have been/probably was/likely was” an anti-smoking ad (none
of them straightforwardly answered that the ad was an anti-smoking ad).
679
Introduction: The drawing below dates back to the seventies of the
previous century. Please, take a good look at it, and then answer
the two questions below.
Question 1: What do you see on the drawing (how would you descri-
be the “content” or “what is going on” in the drawing in the most
correct and objective way)?
Question 2: In your opinion, what could be the goal/purpose/mea-
ning of the drawing? In other words, how would you interpret it (e.g.
a joke, advertisement against smoking/cigarettes, advertisement in
favour of smoking/cigarettes, advertisement in anglers’ bulletin, ca-
ricature, other). Please, give reasons for your opinion.
This questionnaire was distributed to three different age groups, with
different educational background, all European, with Slovenian citizen-
ship. I planned a fourth one, a group of refugees living in Slovenia (mostly
from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, some of them from North Africa), in or-
der to show how cultural differences may influence the interpretation, but
the refugee coordinator refused to participate because of “ethical reasons”.
Here are some of the characteristics of these groups:
Group 1: STUDENTS (number: 26, age: 20–24, sex: 25 female, 1
male, education: completed high school, 2nd year of Educational
Studies at the University of Primorska, Slovenia).
Group 2: RESEARCHERS (number: 7/30, age: 28–68, sex: 6 fema-
le, 1 male, education: PhD in Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology,
Education Sciences, two PhD candidates, Educational Research
Institute, Slovenia).
Group 3: SENIORS (number: 3/12, age: 69–86, sex: 2 female, 1
male, education: high school to university education, attendants
of the University of the Third Age, Slovenia).
Of course, from the methodological point of view and strictly statisti-
cally speaking, samples vary too much and can-not be compared in an or-
derly quantitative fashion. But at this point, I was interested in qualitative
data, and as a pilot study, even such disparate groups can do. More elabora-
te and varied testing is being planned, though.
What did our pilot study show?
Group 1: 9 students out of 26 thought that the drawing “could have
been/ might have been/probably was/likely was” an anti-smoking ad (none
of them straightforwardly answered that the ad was an anti-smoking ad).
679
