Early Child Development and Care vol.180,No.4,May2010.475-487 R Routledge The joint production of the drawing of a family: an interactional story Christian brassacaw and Marie-Claude mietkiewicz equipe CoDISANT, Universite Nancy 2, Nancy Cedex, France Equipe GREFIT,Universite Nancy 2, Nancy Cedex, france (Received 26 December 2007, final version received 5 March 2008) e interpretation of drawings made by school-age children is a classic study field in child psychology. Yet clinical psychologists and researchers in psychology have oncentrated more on analysing the semiotic value of a drawing made by the child. The authors of this paper offer an original approach to this graphic realisation, which consists of simultaneously calling upon two siblings and filming this collaborated production of a drawing of the family. Through the example of the negotiation about the parents'sizes, the authors underline the relevance of the filming which enables them to grasp the story of the drawing as a dynamic production, in which the divergences in representations and the interactional process underlying this construction are revealed Keywords: drawing of the family; joint activity; intermediary object; interaction; Introduction The interpretation of drawings made by children at school age is a classic study field in child psychology( Corman, 1967; Widlocher, 1965). All the studies conducted in this field are more or less based on the fact that, while drawing, the child expresses(in every sense of this verb)a psychological mechanism, a mental state, an intellectual process. The draw- ing can be either spontaneous or done following more or less strict instructions: this graphic representation is the expression of something that is the product of the childs vision of his world. This is studied both as part of a diagnostic or therapeutic evaluation and in a research framework As a clinician, the psychologist may use an investigation technique based on the mobilisation of the child's graphic representations. In the dual relationship he maintains with the child, he can indeed use the drawings to support his speech; he may also solicit the child by asking him to produce drawings(they can be of 'free choice, of human figure, of house, of family or other). In this context, the clinician will always have to determine which level of the child's personality the drawing will reveal; in other words, which is the part of a conscious expression and which is the part of unconscious tendencies. Morgen- stein(1928) was the first to use the drawing(and the game)as a spontaneous production of young children undergoing psychoanalysis. It has since become common practice to consider the drawing(and more particularly thefree choice drawing as a projective test A child's drawing expresses much more than its intelligence or its mental development level: a sort of projection of its own existence and the existence of others, or more likely Corresponding author. Email: christian brassac(@ univ-nancy2 fr IsSN 0300-4430 print/ISSN 1476-8275 online e 2010 Taylor francis DOI:10.108003004430802066281
Early Child Development and Care Vol. 180, No. 4, May 2010, 475–487 ISSN 0300-4430 print/ISSN 1476-8275 online © 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/03004430802066281 http://www.informaworld.com The joint production of the drawing of a family: an interactional story Christian Brassaca * and Marie-Claude Mietkiewiczb a Équipe CODISANT, Université Nancy 2, Nancy Cedex, France; b Équipe GREFIT, Université Nancy 2, Nancy Cedex, France Taylor and Francis GECD_A_306794.sgm (Received 26 December 2007; final version received 5 March 2008) 10.1080/03004430802066281 Early Child Development and Care 0300-4430 (print)/1476-8275 (online) Original Article 2008 Taylor & Francis 0000002008 ChristianBrassac Christian.Brassac@univ-nancy2.fr The interpretation of drawings made by school-age children is a classic study field in child psychology. Yet clinical psychologists and researchers in psychology have concentrated more on analysing the semiotic value of a drawing made by the child. The authors of this paper offer an original approach to this graphic realisation, which consists of simultaneously calling upon two siblings and filming this collaborated production of a drawing of the family. Through the example of the negotiation about the parents’ sizes, the authors underline the relevance of the filming which enables them to grasp the story of the drawing as a dynamic production, in which the divergences in representations and the interactional process underlying this construction are revealed. Keywords: drawing of the family; joint activity; intermediary object; interaction; gender Introduction1 The interpretation of drawings made by children at school age is a classic study field in child psychology (Corman, 1967; Widlöcher, 1965). All the studies conducted in this field are more or less based on the fact that, while drawing, the child expresses (in every sense of this verb) a psychological mechanism, a mental state, an intellectual process. The drawing can be either spontaneous or done following more or less strict instructions: this graphic representation is the expression of something that is the product of the child’s vision of his world. This is studied both as part of a diagnostic or therapeutic evaluation, and in a research framework. As a clinician, the psychologist may use an investigation technique based on the mobilisation of the child’s graphic representations. In the dual relationship he maintains with the child, he can indeed use the drawings to support his speech; he may also solicit the child by asking him to produce drawings (they can be of ‘free choice’, of human figure, of house, of family or other). In this context, the clinician will always have to determine which level of the child’s personality the drawing will reveal; in other words, which is the part of a conscious expression and which is the part of unconscious tendencies. Morgenstein (1928) was the first to use the drawing (and the game) as a spontaneous production of young children undergoing psychoanalysis. It has since become common practice to consider the drawing (and more particularly the ‘free choice’ drawing as a projective test. ‘A child’s drawing expresses much more than its intelligence or its mental development level: a sort of projection of its own existence and the existence of others, or more likely *Corresponding author. Email: christian.brassac@univ-nancy2.fr
476 C. Brassac and M.-C. Mietkiewicz of the way it feels itself and others to exist(Boutonnier, 1953, p. 25). In the course of interaction, the clinician has access to the drawing child's activity; on one hand, he is ndeed able to follow at leisure the drawing process, and, on the other hand, to have at his disposal the outcome of this process, the drawing in itself that can be saved as a trace of the activity. This drawing being finalised, it represents the condensation, the ongoing process of creation, of the dynamic of tracing-erasing that led to it As a researcher, the psychologist works at analysing the semiotic value of the draw ing. This value is the result of a task of interpretation of the graphic representation being studied. Doubtless to say, this work depends on the production frame, on the conditions under which the drawing-object is being created and, of course, on the drawing-object itself. This drawing-object represents the whole of the graphite marks left on paper support by the child. In other words, and with few exceptions, the interpretation object is the graphic itself, the permanent configuration of marks left on paper by the subject We could add that, whether under therapeutic care or subject of theoretical research the tradition consists in the study of a childs individual production Limiting ourselves to the research side of the drawing of the family, we herewith would like to offer a new approach to children's graphic realisations. The new approach relies on a particular construction mode(vs. collection) of empirical data on which we shall base our analysis. This proposal results from the differentiated research fields of both authors. One of us works on a regular base with situations of joint conception, by small groups of human subjects, of manufactured, digital, textual or graphic objects(Brassac Gregori, 2001; Le Ber Brassac, 2000, for example). The other researcher deals with the fact that siblings(including several pairs of twins), will not come out with the same graph- ical representation when asked to draw their family. Through his or her drawing, each child describes its own perception, its point of view about the ties that make up the family, the elective closeness and the omissions that reveal the child's specific position in the family network(Mietkiewicz Schneider, 2005). This dual origin leads us to the following proposal, expressed in a few words: why not ask siblings to draw their family together and why not film them during their activity? One of the goals of this article is to show the added value the study of a joint graphical produc tion may obtain by taking into account its development. To analyse the process of interac tion in the elaboration of a joint drawing of the family, could this be, for researchers in psychology, something new in the understanding of mental determinants of this mental activity? These are the types of questions for which we would like to bring some answers throughout this text. We shall try to do so by first describing the methodology which we adopted, and the empirical material which we built to this effect. Second, we shall propose an analysis of the interaction of both children, producing jointly this drawing, to conclude finally with the results and discuss the accuracy of such an approach Method and empirical material A clinical approach to a collaborative activity Traditionally, studies conducted in the interpretation of children's drawings are based on vast collections of drawings made by large groups of subjects. Therefore, it becomes possi ble to take measures, both qualitative and quantitative, which lead to strong statistical stud- ies whose significance or non-significance will allow to confirm, or invalidate, hypotheses put forward a priori. Let us be very clear: our approach is not in line with this methodological paradigm. 2 This is easily understandable, considering the fact that the built-up empirical
476 C. Brassac and M.-C. Mietkiewicz of the way it feels itself and others to exist’ (Boutonnier, 1953, p. 25). In the course of interaction, the clinician has access to the drawing child’s activity; on one hand, he is indeed able to follow at leisure the drawing process, and, on the other hand, to have at his disposal the outcome of this process, the drawing in itself that can be saved as a trace of the activity. This drawing being finalised, it represents the condensation, the ongoing process of creation, of the dynamic of tracing–erasing that led to it. As a researcher, the psychologist works at analysing the semiotic value of the drawing. This value is the result of a task of interpretation of the graphic representation being studied. Doubtless to say, this work depends on the production frame, on the conditions under which the drawing-object is being created and, of course, on the drawing-object itself. This drawing-object represents the whole of the graphite marks left on paper support by the child. In other words, and with few exceptions, the interpretation object is the graphic itself, the permanent configuration of marks left on paper by the subject. We could add that, whether under therapeutic care or subject of theoretical research, the tradition consists in the study of a child’s individual production. Limiting ourselves to the research side of the drawing of the family, we herewith would like to offer a new approach to children’s graphic realisations. The new approach relies on a particular construction mode (vs. collection) of empirical data on which we shall base our analysis. This proposal results from the differentiated research fields of both authors. One of us works on a regular base with situations of joint conception, by small groups of human subjects, of manufactured, digital, textual or graphic objects (Brassac & Grégori, 2001; Le Ber & Brassac, 2000, for example). The other researcher deals with the fact that siblings (including several pairs of twins), will not come out with the same graphical representation when asked to draw their family. Through his or her drawing, each child describes its own perception, its point of view about the ties that make up the family, the elective closeness and the omissions that reveal the child’s specific position in the family network (Mietkiewicz & Schneider, 2005). This dual origin leads us to the following proposal, expressed in a few words: why not ask siblings to draw their family together and why not film them during their activity? One of the goals of this article is to show the added value the study of a joint graphical production may obtain by taking into account its development. To analyse the process of interaction in the elaboration of a joint drawing of the family, could this be, for researchers in psychology, something new in the understanding of mental determinants of this mental activity? These are the types of questions for which we would like to bring some answers throughout this text. We shall try to do so by first describing the methodology which we adopted, and the empirical material which we built to this effect. Second, we shall propose an analysis of the interaction of both children, producing jointly this drawing, to conclude finally with the results and discuss the accuracy of such an approach. Method and empirical material A clinical approach to a collaborative activity Traditionally, studies conducted in the interpretation of children’s drawings are based on vast collections of drawings made by large groups of subjects. Therefore, it becomes possible to take measures, both qualitative and quantitative, which lead to strong statistical studies whose significance or non-significance will allow to confirm, or invalidate, hypotheses put forward a priori. Let us be very clear: our approach is not in line with this methodological paradigm.2 This is easily understandable, considering the fact that the built-up empirical
Early Child Development and Care 477 material consists of one hour of film for a single couple. It is also easily understandable when one realises that this material is not a finished object but a process leading to a finished object. As stated by Wallon in his brief overview of the studies dedicated to the childs drawing, ' one can only wonder about the few publications referring to this method [of observing the dynamic of the drawings execution](2001, p. 92). Indeed, the difficulty of observing, the little interest in the simultaneous linguistic production and the difficulty in analysing the process of the drawing activity explain that it is rather the statistical work on a high number of completed drawings(as opposed to drawings in the course of completion) that is generally being used. We shall adopt this method ofempirical data analysis; it requires developing an observational and ethnographic approach of the activity(Brassac, 2003a) This means that we offer here a monograph of an activity located in time and space. It is the creation process that is of interest for us, the process in its uniqueness and its sustained relationship with the final drawing-object. The results outlook for scientific validation which we shall obtain on this corpus are as follows: locating consistencies in a great number of situations of jointly created forms. The forms are here mainly graphic(traces left on the sheet)as well as verbal and of body language. You will not find in this article the collection of all the observations carried out, this being another task that we already started. You will rather find one study of one situation being considered in its singularity. thea t he categories of analysis that are going to be used to complete this study are twofold first ones are based not only on the analysis of the speech(the linguistic pragmatism), but also, in a broader sense, on the analysis of the interaction, seen as a modelling of verbal, gestural and artefactual forms( Brassac, 2003b). The first ones have their origin in pragmatic linguistics, the second ones in praxeology (Vernant, 1997). This extension to the mobilisation of bodies and artefacts(here pencil, eraser, sheet) relies on a vygotskian (Vygotski, 1934/1985)and meadian(Mead, 1934/1963)approach. In this sense, we shall bit-by-bit call upon the theory of language acts developed, for example, by Vanderveken (1988)and by ourselves(Brassac, 1992; Trognon Brassac, 1992) The theory of the intermediary objects will also help to provide valuable elements (Jeantet, 1998: Vinck, 1999; Vinck Jeantet, 1995). The second categories of analysis refer to the already classic clinical approach of development, which allow for the under standing of the child's drawing as a creation revealing the choices, the preferences and the rejections of the drawing person. Regarding specifically the drawing of its family, it is customary to consider that the child will express (reveal? its preferred identifications through the care with which it will draw some people, or, by contrast, the carelessness with which it will draw others. The most valued figure is usually the one the child draws first, thus showing how this figure becomes obvious to the child, as a spontaneous response to position in the family cluster, as seen through the childs eyed er being a pointer of the the proposed instruction; the space taken on the sheet of pape Establishing the protocol of the data acquisition The need to create an adequate environment led us to fulfil specific requirements. The subjects had to besiblings; they had to be between 6 and 1 l years old (in order for their graphic productions to be sufficiently sophisticated, especially in their capacity to show the genera tion and sex differences); they had to agree to be filmed and their parents had to agree too: they had to devote time coming to university premises. In the end, a brother and a sister were chosen as subjects. The eldest, whom we will name Emma, was eight years old; her brother, whom we will name Leo, was six years old. Emma was seated on Leo's left, they did not change place throughout the session. Two cameras were filming them; one facing them
Early Child Development and Care 477 material consists of one hour of film for a single couple. It is also easily understandable when one realises that this material is not a finished object but a process leading to a finished object. As stated by Wallon in his brief overview of the studies dedicated to the child’s drawing, ‘one can only wonder about the few publications referring to this method [of observing the dynamic of the drawing’s execution]’ (2001, p. 92). Indeed, the difficulty of observing, the little interest in the simultaneous linguistic production and the difficulty in analysing the process of the drawing activity explain that it is rather the statistical work on a high number of completed drawings (as opposed to drawings in the course of completion) that is generally being used. We shall adopt this method of empirical data analysis; it requires developing an observational and ethnographic approach of the activity (Brassac, 2003a). This means that we offer here a monograph of an activity located in time and space. It is the creation process that is of interest for us, the process in its uniqueness and its sustained relationship with the final drawing-object. The results outlook for scientific validation, which we shall obtain on this corpus are as follows: locating consistencies in a great number of situations of jointly created forms. The forms are here mainly graphic (traces left on the sheet) as well as verbal and of body language. You will not find in this article the collection of all the observations carried out, this being another task that we already started. You will rather find one study of one situation being considered in its singularity. The categories of analysis that are going to be used to complete this study are twofold: the first ones are based not only on the analysis of the speech (the linguistic pragmatism), but also, in a broader sense, on the analysis of the interaction, seen as a modelling of verbal, gestural and artefactual forms (Brassac, 2003b). The first ones have their origin in pragmatic linguistics, the second ones in praxeology (Vernant, 1997). This extension to the mobilisation of bodies and artefacts (here pencil, eraser, sheet) relies on a vygotskian (Vygotski, 1934/1985) and meadian (Mead, 1934/1963) approach. In this sense, we shall bit-by-bit call upon the theory of language acts developed, for example, by Vanderveken (1988) and by ourselves (Brassac, 1992; Trognon & Brassac, 1992). The theory of the intermediary objects will also help to provide valuable elements (Jeantet, 1998; Vinck, 1999; Vinck & Jeantet, 1995). The second categories of analysis refer to the already classic clinical approach of development, which allow for the understanding of the child’s drawing as a creation revealing the choices, the preferences and the rejections of the drawing person. Regarding specifically the drawing of its family, it is customary to consider that the child will express (reveal?) its preferred identifications, through the care with which it will draw some people, or, by contrast, the carelessness with which it will draw others. The most valued figure is usually the one the child draws first, thus showing how this figure becomes obvious to the child, as a spontaneous response to the proposed instruction; the space taken on the sheet of paper being a pointer of the position in the family cluster, as seen through the child’s eyes. Establishing the protocol of the data acquisition The need to create an adequate environment led us to fulfil specific requirements. The subjects had to be siblings; they had to be between 6 and 11 years old (in order for their graphic productions to be sufficiently sophisticated, especially in their capacity to show the generation and sex differences); they had to agree to be filmed and their parents had to agree too; they had to devote time coming to university premises. In the end, a brother and a sister were chosen as subjects. The eldest, whom we will name Emma, was eight years old; her brother, whom we will name Leo, was six years old. Emma was seated on Leo’s left, they did not change place throughout the session. Two cameras were filming them; one facing them
47 C. Brassac and M-C. Mietkiewicz filming in a broad angle, the other pointing at the shared workspace with a slight downward angle. Both wore a lapel-microphone. A PhD student well aware of these recording tech niques handled the filming. Both experimenters, two psychology students having written their dissertation about this project, prepared the setting-up. They accompanied the children and stayed with them throughout the session, which lasted one and a half hours To give them some sense of the environment, we first asked the children to draw freely, each one on their own sheet. Leo represented two combatants confronting each other with swords. Emma drew a house, drawn almost completely with a ruler. At the completion of both drawings(10 min), they describe briefly what they have done; the experimenters show them the film to see the result on screen (so you will be able to see yourselves). After the viewing, the experimenters hand the children a single big sheet(DIN Al format)along with the following instruction: "On this sheet, you are going to draw together a picture of your family. Talk it over, come to an agreement in order to draw a single family amongst the two of you-this instruction being succinctly discussed and written on a piece of paper which will remain in front of them throughout the session. The joint drawing may then begin Describing the global sequence of the ' co-drawing The empirical material that we built consists of the drawing itself (done with a pencil on a DIn Al sheet)and of the session recording. This session can be broken down as shown The two children start effectively to draw, 50 seconds after the filming begins. These initial moments are busy with a discussion between the experimenters and the children about the instruction. The effective drawing activity lasts 10 minutes. At the end of the session, the children have drawn their father, their mother, the two children(themselves) and a female cat(Minette). One or th One or the other has mentioned the possibi grandma and grandpa, as well as uncle and auntie, but this was not done. The two chil- dren devote the remaining time to writing down the names of each character(above each of them) and signing the picture Here is the order in which the characters appear. Emma and Leo begin simultaneously Emma draws the cat(Minette) and Leo draws his father. While Emma quickly gives u and erases the sketch she drew of Minette, Leo goes on with his task. When it appears to be completed (we shall consider this point later), Emma starts the drawing of her mother (2 min 25 s)and finishes it in 2 minutes(4 min 30 s). A discussion ensues concerning the size of both figures. When this point is settled(5 min 30 s), Leo draws himself(between 5 min 30 s and 7 min 30 s)and Emma does the same(between 7 min 30 s and 8 min 30 s) Emma puts an end to the activity by drawing the cat; she finishes at 10 min 36 s. A brief discussion about having the grandparents and uncle and aunt on the sheet is interrupted abruptly by Emma as she declares, we are done(10 min 47 s) Instruction Drawing of the family Naming and 0 min 00s 0 min 50 s 47s 1 4 min 02 s father mother son daughter cat Figure 1. The appearance order of the characters
478 C. Brassac and M.-C. Mietkiewicz filming in a broad angle, the other pointing at the shared workspace with a slight downward angle. Both wore a lapel-microphone. A PhD student well aware of these recording techniques handled the filming.3 Both experimenters, two psychology students having written their dissertation about this project, prepared the setting-up.4They accompanied the children and stayed with them throughout the session, which lasted one and a half hours. To give them some sense of the environment, we first asked the children to draw freely, each one on their own sheet. Leo represented two combatants confronting each other with swords. Emma drew a house, drawn almost completely with a ruler. At the completion of both drawings (10 min), they describe briefly what they have done; the experimenters show them the film to see the result on screen (‘so you will be able to see yourselves’). After the viewing, the experimenters hand the children a single big sheet (DIN A1 format) along with the following instruction: ‘On this sheet, you are going to draw together a picture of your family. Talk it over, come to an agreement in order to draw a single family amongst the two of you’ – this instruction being succinctly discussed and written on a piece of paper which will remain in front of them throughout the session. The joint drawing may then begin. Describing the global sequence of the ‘co-drawing’ The empirical material that we built consists of the drawing itself (done with a pencil on a DIN A1 sheet) and of the session recording. This session can be broken down as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 The two children start effectively to draw, 50 seconds after the filming begins. These initial moments are busy with a discussion between the experimenters and the children about the instruction. The effective drawing activity lasts 10 minutes. At the end of the session, the children have drawn their father, their mother, the two children (themselves) and a female cat (Minette). One or the other has mentioned the possibility of representing grandma and grandpa, as well as uncle and auntie, but this was not done. The two children devote the remaining time to writing down the names of each character (above each of them) and signing the picture. Here is the order in which the characters appear. Emma and Leo begin simultaneously. Emma draws the cat (Minette) and Leo draws his father. While Emma quickly gives up and erases the sketch she drew of Minette, Leo goes on with his task. When it appears to be completed (we shall consider this point later), Emma starts the drawing of her mother (2 min 25 s) and finishes it in 2 minutes (4 min 30 s). A discussion ensues concerning the size of both figures. When this point is settled (5 min 30 s), Leo draws himself (between 5 min 30 s and 7 min 30 s) and Emma does the same (between 7 min 30 s and 8 min 30 s). Emma puts an end to the activity by drawing the cat; she finishes at 10 min 36 s. A brief discussion about having the grandparents and uncle and aunt on the sheet is interrupted abruptly by Emma as she declares, ‘we are done’ (10 min 47 s). Figure 1. The appearance order of the characters
Early Child Development and Care 479 It is interesting to notice that both children practically never draw at the same time (when one is drawing, the other watches carefully, sometimes by making comments out loud, sometimes by remaining silent). Transitions from one stage to the next are most of the time stated by Emma, in an authoritative tone: 'so you draw yourself now'(5 min 30 s),so afterwards we will draw Minette(8 min 31 s), we are done'(10 min 47 s). One will notice that both children represent the figures the same sex as theirs. The interaction story is extremely rich. It sometimes concerns facts that seem very important for the family itself. Thus, if Leo starts representing his father as he wishes to do, his sister asks him quite specif ically to draw the father's right arm in such a way as to make him extend his hand towards the mother, not yet drawn but certainly already in Emma's imagination: Put your arms extended like this, that way mom can hold hands(1 min 49 s). Leo will follow this strong advice by completing his drawing with the detail of this right hand at the end of the arm. Another important question, concerning the characters size, persists throughout the major part of the interaction. In fact, this question will deal first with the relation between the sizes of father and mother, and second, with those of both children in relation to the parents We will examine this question very closely by limiting ourselves to the negotiation of both parents' sizes. The whole of this takes place between 0 min 50 s and 4 min 30 s, when Leo starts drawing the father and when Emma finishes drawing the mother Analysing the size representation of father and mother Figures prior to the erasing Leo represents Dad in front of him, starting the drawing with the feet. After a fruitless attempt, he completely erases what he drew then starts the work again and finishes it by tracing precisely the hand's five fingers. He then informs his sister that he is through, with- out any oral statement but looking at her laughingly. It is at this moment that Emma starts drawing Mom's representation, so mom(.)I will draw mom(2 min 26 s). Her brother watches her attentively, saying: hey look at her, isn't she skinny mom you should've put on a skirt, she looks like a little girl (laughs) mom looks like a little girl doesn't she do them bigger her feet(3 seconds) er put her some earrings on(from 3 min 59 s to 4 min 14s. At this stage, both parents are drawn; they are side by side and hold each others hand. After one last graphic precision about her mothers character(the ears), Emma concludes verbally thats it' and initiates the next step with an ok your turn'addressed to her brother. One could expect both children to start something else, for example their own representation. It is at this very moment that Emma notices the size difference between the two adults they just represented. Any researcher having access to the final draft, as it is at the end of the session, wi notice that some lines have been erased. He will not know however when it has been done He cannot guess that it was first the father who had been shortened and that the mother had an opposite fate; he cannot guess who did the erasing. He can only speculate about these events. It is not impossible however that this may be of great importance for the interpretation of the siblings graphic production. The method we adopted to build data provides us with a precious edge: we have the drawings history script of the conversation extract What follows is the transcript of the negotiation between both children regarding their parents respective size. The fact that we have filmed provides us with precious observa- tions: the gestures and tracings. They are marked with brackets. It is however impossible
Early Child Development and Care 479 It is interesting to notice that both children practically never draw at the same time (when one is drawing, the other watches carefully, sometimes by making comments out loud, sometimes by remaining silent). Transitions from one stage to the next are most of the time stated by Emma, in an authoritative tone: ‘so you draw yourself now’ (5 min 30 s), ‘so afterwards we will draw Minette’ (8 min 31 s), ‘we are done’ (10 min 47 s). One will notice that both children represent the figures the same sex as theirs. The interaction story is extremely rich. It sometimes concerns facts that seem very important for the family itself. Thus, if Leo starts representing his father as he wishes to do, his sister asks him quite specifically to draw the father’s right arm in such a way as to make him extend his hand towards the mother, not yet drawn but certainly already in Emma’s imagination: ‘Put your arms extended like this, that way mom can hold hands’ (1 min 49 s). Leo will follow this strong advice by completing his drawing with the detail of this right hand at the end of the arm. Another important question, concerning the character’s size, persists throughout the major part of the interaction. In fact, this question will deal first with the relation between the sizes of father and mother, and second, with those of both children in relation to the parents. We will examine this question very closely by limiting ourselves to the negotiation of both parents’ sizes. The whole of this takes place between 0 min 50 s and 4 min 30 s, when Leo starts drawing the father and when Emma finishes drawing the mother. Analysing the size representation of father and mother Figures prior to the erasing Leo represents Dad in front of him, starting the drawing with the feet. After a fruitless attempt, he completely erases what he drew then starts the work again and finishes it by tracing precisely the hand’s five fingers. He then informs his sister that he is through, without any oral statement but looking at her laughingly. It is at this moment that Emma starts drawing Mom’s representation, ‘so mom (…) I will draw mom’ (2 min 26 s). Her brother watches her attentively, saying: ‘hey look at her, isn’t she skinny mom you should’ve put on a skirt, she looks like a little girl (laughs) mom looks like a little girl doesn’t she do them bigger her feet (3 seconds) er put her some earrings on’ (from 3 min 59 s to 4 min 14 s). At this stage, both parents are drawn; they are side by side and hold each other’s hand. After one last graphic precision about her mother’s character (the ears), Emma concludes verbally ‘that’s it’ and initiates the next step with an ‘ok your turn’ addressed to her brother. One could expect both children to start something else, for example their own representation. It is at this very moment that Emma notices the size difference between the two adults they just represented. Any researcher having access to the final draft, as it is at the end of the session, will notice that some lines have been erased. He will not know however when it has been done. He cannot guess that it was first the father who had been shortened and that the mother had an opposite fate; he cannot guess who did the erasing. He can only speculate about these events. It is not impossible however that this may be of great importance for the interpretation of the sibling’s graphic production. The method we adopted to build data provides us with a precious edge: we have the drawing’s history. Transcript of the conversation extract What follows is the transcript of the negotiation between both children regarding their parent’s respective size. The fact that we have filmed provides us with precious observations: the gestures and tracings. They are marked with brackets. It is however impossible