Drawing in Evaluation: Deep Dive

What drawing is, when it works, and how to facilitate it well, in person, online, or on your own time.

Last Updated: October 2026

Illustrated by Maya (to prove a point)

Drawing is the most contentious, nail-biting, quickly scan the room for an exit sign method that we've worked with to date.

Oh, we primarily work with adults. That explains it, right?

Adults (especially those with fancy letters behind their names) often see that box of crayons as a threat. Scared of being "bad" at drawing and looking foolish, many people refuse to draw, even if it is the right tool for the job. Sure, embarrassment is a significant motivator for behaviour. But, this hesitation towards arts and silliness goes beyond individual behaviour. You know, because it's never really about individual behaviour.

When the arts are deprioritized at a societal level, young people get the artist trained out of them. And, when arts are not normalized as legit, it is tricky to get people to professionally invest time and effort in creative practices. So, when we suggest to professionals that drawing might be the exact right tool for their evaluation, we see those eyes dart towards the exit.

So, is drawing a legit evaluation method? The short answer: yes drawing can be an amazing tool. A simple prompt and blank page can help people express what is so difficult to put into words. And, once something is on the page, we can deal with it. So, drawing works well for surfacing assumptions, defining weasel words, making space for quieter voices, and imagining what else could be. But, it takes skill to make it a legit data collection activity, and not just a side doodle in a boring Teams meeting. To explore this question in more depth, this post answers the following questions:

1. What is drawing as an evaluation technique?

2. How do you choose a drawing activity that fits your evaluation context?

3. How do you turn drawings into evaluation data?

4. What are ethical questions to answer before using drawing in evaluation?

5. What are common mistakes to avoid when using drawing in evaluation?

What is drawing as an evaluation technique?

Drawing is the process of using using doodles or marks and colours on a page to elicit reflections or data. Think of it as the "once its on the page we can deal with it" technique.

What steps are involved in drawing?

These are the core steps of our drawing projects:

1. Craft evaluation questions and goals that guide the whole process (i.e., what are we trying to learn or discover to do what?)

2. Facilitate a drawing activity

3. Debrief the drawing activity with a qualitative interview or focus group

4. Analyze the data from the qualitative debrief (e.g., notes or transcripts)

5. Use the data to inform learning, make decisions, take action and shareback

   
   

How is drawing different than photo elicitation?

Both drawing and photo elicitation use visual vocabulary for self-expression and can surface memories, metaphors, beliefs, and rich interpretations. But, there is two key differences.

First, when people take a picture, they capture an image of something that already exists. When they draw, they are inventing from their imagination. That can make drawing more vulnerable.

For example, if someone takes a picture of a tree, that tree exists. They add their own interpretation when deciding to take a picture of a tree and which elements are in frame (and which are not). When a person draws a tree, they must conjure one based on (a) their recollection of what a tree is (or isn't) and (b) their ability to translate the image in their head onto the page.

Second, the drawing can change and evolve, whereas a photo is a static point in time. Depending on the goal of the activity, the facilitator can lead the participant through a series of prompts to add, change, or remove elements of the drawing to elicit different types of reflections or build toward a more complex conversation.

When should you use drawing in evaluation?

Because drawing starts with a blank page, it is an effective tool to surface underlying assumptions or beliefs, abstract or half-baked ideas, and future-looking and imaginative thinking that doesn't need to be grounded in what exists or is "real." So, it really shines when:

• Central topics in the evaluation are hard to talk about directly and a symbol, metaphor, or story is an easier starting point (e.g., a health experience)

• You need to temporarily suspend reality to make sense of something (like hopes or expectations for the future, what could be if only X were true)

• Naming underlying assumptions, values, beliefs, or biases helps to to craft or answer evaluation questions

• The people involved have already been asked the same questions and could benefit from a novel way to engage in topic (e.g., the participant group is over-surveyed or the planning team is sick of boring meetings).

• Words are not a useful medium for planning or eliciting data (either because language itself is a barrier or the group is too reliant on jargon).
  

Are there any limitations to using drawing in an evaluation?

Absolutely! Most commonly, the mere suggestion of drawing can release the skepticism kraken. Beyond that, there are some common drawbacks (pun intended) that we have countered in our practice.

Drawing isn't always appropriate

This exercise does not work well with folks who do not connect with visuals or where image-based communication is not accessible.

Pairing a vulnerable or potentially risky question with drawing is not a good idea

Because drawing can be vulnerable already, adding more vulnerability to the mix with a sensitive, personal, or contentious question/prompt is not a good idea. When people are overwhelmed with the amount of bravery required to participate, they won't. So, we try to balance how much we ask of people to avoid evoking a flight, fight, freeze, or fawn response.

Drawing could require more effort to get buy-in

It can be challenging to understand if people aren't into drawing because it genuinely isn't right for them, or because they internalized some myths about arts-based methods. When drawing is the best technique for the evaluation question, we have to invest more time and effort into demonstrating why folks should give drawing a chance. Not everyone (AND included) has time, resources, or capacity to educate clients, organizations, participants, and communities about the benefits of drawing.

The evaluator needs to be a highly-skilled facilitator

Crafting a "drawable" prompt that still satisfies a key component of the evaluation, facilitating through an open-ended or multi-phased activitiy, and then helping people make sense of their scribbles without holding people hostage in potentially problematic images takes real work and a lot of practice. And because there is an added vulnerability that comes with drawing, the facilitator must be prepared for what could bubble up. For this reason, we rarely recommend drawing for new evaluators or arts-based newbies.

Are there any unique benefits of using drawing in evaluation?

Absolutely! When done well, drawing can help to:

• Get teams or individuals unstuck in their thinking because people can tap into other senses or ways of processing to express themselves.

• Address power dynamics in groups. Those who may be less likely to speak up have another way to share insights and those who tend to hog the oxygen may feel a little out of their element.

• Tap into the wisdom of divergence (not just consensus) because people are very likely going to interpret the prompt and instructions differently, tap into different wisdom, and arrive at different places in their pieces and debrief.

• Break through jargon and weasel words, which is incredibly helpful when teams are stuck in an echo chamber.

For example, we used drawing in a workshop with doctors and patient partners to elicit feedback about a research project. Patients partners drew insightful pictures and spoke for the majority of the debrief. Meanwhile, many of the doctors did not participate in either the discussion or the drawin activity. As a result, we were able to illustrate key pieces of the partnership and process of collaboration that could use some refinement. After, many of the partners shared with us that this was the first meeting where they felt that they could speak up because normally the doctors dominated the converstaion and it was difficult to get their foot in the conversational door. Changing the conversational modality changed who was heard.

How do you choose a drawing activity that fits your evaluation context?

In line with our evaluation questions/goals and guidance from the communities we're working with, we typically structure a drawing activity to be either: an individual or group activity that takes place either online or in-person. Here are the pros and cons of each combination to help you choose what makes sense for your evaluation.

	Individual Drawing	Group Drawing
In Person	​Ahead of or during an interview, the facilitator gives one person a prompt/question, drawing supplies, and instructions. The participant then draws a visual response. The facilitator and participant discuss the elements of the drawing and their meaning relative to the global evaluation questions (e.g., lines, shapes, colours, symbols, figures)	Ahead of or during a focus group or meeting, the facilitator gives a group a prompt/question, drawing supplies, and instructions. Participants then draw a visual response individually (i.e., one drawing per person) or as part of a collective composition (i.e., as part of a mural). The facilitator then leads the group through a collective debrief related to the global evaluation question.
Pros	​Quick & cheap Can stimulate imagination and tactile wisdom Can be cathartic and give the person an outlet to fidget during an interview or conversation	In addition to individual benefits: Can help groups connect over a shared experience Effective for building consensus (e.g., common characteristics distilled from drawings) and honouring divergence (e.g., different beliefs, assumptions, meanings, priorities)
Cons	​May privilege sight and fine motor skills (but, can be adapted for accessibility) Requires a more facilitation skillset Requires thoughtful supplies	In addition to the points to the left: ​Requires additional thoughtfulness around vulnerability and privacy More difficult to coordinate
	Individual Drawing	Group Drawing
Online	​​Same as the in-person instructions above, with the exceptions that: There must be a mechanism to share the drawing (e.g., email or text a photo) if the participant consents to share. Supplies must be accounted for (e.g., facilitator mails a package to participants or participants are instructed to bring their own supplies).	​Same as individual instructions, with an additional coordination around sharing drawings. Either (a) drawings must be submitted prior to the focus group so the facilitator can arrange into a slideshow for everyone to see, (b) drawings must be uploaded during the focus group (e.g., everyone gets a link to a Google slide), or (c) everyone must have access to (and be able to use) a digitial drawing tool (e.g., Zoom whiteboard, Miro board, or conference call annotate feature).
Pros	Often more accessible and easier to schedule Comparable to an in-person experience (so nothing is lost)	​Much easier to schedule around groups Breaks up the monotony in planning meetings, community of practice sessions, and other routine online group calls
Cons	May require participants to source their own supplies, which could add pressure or create barriers Requires participants to have access to a phone or internet Coordinating the drawing submission can be clunky	​​In addition to the cons listed for individuals The mechanism for sharing group drawings is always clunky (people will forget to send it in and struggle with a real-time upload) When participants use their own supplies, there will be variation in what people do (e.g., fully rendered multi-colour sketch vs. napkin scribble) which could make some people feel embarrassed when sharing Shared tech for digital drawing can be awkward, clunky, and difficult to use

Can I do a drawing activity asynchronously?

Absolutely. We've facilitate asynchronous activities to support accessibility, accomodate team members who are travelling or remote in different time zones, or who just wanted to set their own time parameters.

The facilitator gives a participant a prompt/question and drawing instructions. The participant then sources their own supplies or uses an online program to draw a visual response. Then, they unpack the elements and meaning of their drawing either: (a) through a written response, (b) voice memo, or (c) online submission platform (e.g., a survey tool).

Pros:

Cons:

Creates more flexible participation options for folks who prefer to go at their own pace, or could benefit from a care partner helping to facilitate the activity. Potentially increases participation.

Does not allow the facilitator to prompt further or clarify. So, the instructions and asynchronous questions must do the heavy-lifting. Creates additional potential for confusion or misinterpretation . Requires significant coordination and administration to get right (e.g., detailed instructions, frequent reminders, ethical considerations regarding data use). Does not generate group wisdom Participants are more likely to forget and not do it (so there is a risk of wasted effort).

How do you turn drawings into evaluation data?

The drawing activity is paired with a qualitative technique (e.g., an interview, focus group, or asynchronous prompt) to reflect on:

• What different aspects of the drawing mean or represent

• What is not in the drawing or how the absence of something is also significant

• How the individual or group wisdom connects to the goal or purpose of the evaluation (e.g., what is or is not working well, barriers and facilitators, ideas for future)

Do the drawings need to be good to gather evaluation data?

No. The data comes from the conversation about the drawing, not the drawing itself. So, a person's artistic skill is irrelevant. Besides, terrible drawings make for fabulous discussions! Very simple elements like lines, abstract shapes, stick figures, negative space, and splotches of colour tell complex stories about relationships, memories, and experiences. To help set this expectation, we often make the joke that you don't need to be able to draw a horse from memory to participate.

However, the facilitator and interviewer must have strong qualitative skills to guide participants through the activity and discussion. This is a non-negotiable. Need help building your facilitation skills? We can help with Custom Workshops and Training for teams, Capacity-Building for program staff and orgs who need a tool and the know-how to facilitate and activity, and our Arts-Based Methods course for evaluators.

How do I analyze data in an evaluation using drawings?

In evaluation, the data are the qualitative transcripts, recordings, or notes that come from the discussion. The drawings are not data. Without talking to someone about their drawing, how will you know:

• What figures, colours, or symbols mean

• What is not in the drawing

• If this is what someone thinks, feels, and believes or just knows how to draw

  
  

Once the notes are cleaned, the evaluator can choose a qualitative analysis technique that works for the evaluation context. Discourse analysis, descriptive analysis, thematic (deductive or inductive), and grounded theory all work. Then, analyze as you would normal qualitative data. When you're finished, use the findings to inform recommendations and for whatever other deliverables are expected as part of the evaluation. Pro tip: At the end of the debrief, invite participants to create a short caption or artist statement for their drawing to keep track of the intended meaning. This can be a sentence or two, nothing major. This way, if you use the drawing in a final report, as part of a gallery tour, or presentation you don't lose the context.

What are ethical questions to answer before using drawing in evaluation?

Whether or not you have a formal ethics review process as part of your evaluation practice, having a clear protocol is important. This is not an exhaustive list (or a way to bypass formal review if you have that mandate) here are some questions we find helpful when planning to use drawing in evaluation:

How will consent work?

1. How will participants be able to opt-in or opt-out of:

   1. The drawing

   2. The qualitative debrief

   3. Sharing their drawing with you or in a group (if its a focus group, circle, or informal meeting)

   4. Sharing their drawing and reflections beyond the evaluation (e.g., in a final report or any other public materials)

2. Can people consent to one thing and not something else (e.g., can they do an individual drawing instead of participate in a group mural?)

How will you mitigate potential risks?

• What happens if the process if drawing evokes uncomfortable feelings, memories of a difficult experience, or past pain?

• What happens if someone draws something careless or problematic and feels ashamed, surprised, or upset after? This is more common than you might expect. Because our visual vocabularies are littered with racist, sexist, and ableist images and the average person's drawing skills are limited, we very often confront problematic representations in drawings. How will you be careful in individual or group settings in stereotypes pop into the drawings?

How does ownership and stewardship work (for both the drawings and data)?

1. Who will own the drawings and qualitative data?

2. Who can access, use, or share the drawings and data?

   1. Until when, with what caveats or conditions, and with what safeguards?

3. What privacy and data storage considerations need to be in place?

How will you be thoughtful about group dynamics (if using a group option)?

• How will you account for vulnerability with co-drawing (e.g., as part of a mural or patchwork project)?

• How will you be mindful of implicit assumptions or icky reflections to surface in a group (e.g., if someone's drawing includes a stereotypical image or unflattering representation)?

• How will you attend to different levels of comfort drawing within a group (e.g., if some people don't want to participate or find the activity cringy)?

What if people change their mind?

You cannot unsee or unshare a picture. Once its out there its out there. Is there a timeline or limit for when people can change their mind about participating or sharing their drawing?

What are common mistakes to avoid when using drawing in evaluation?

Not all drawing projects are done well. Without dunking on or shaming anyone, we are hoping to support accountability and high-quality practice. Here are common mistakes we see in drawing projects to help others be thoughtful in their design and implementation.

Claiming that drawing offers participants health benefits or healing

The method itself does not heal. It may be cathartic and a participant may describe the experience as therapeutic, but it is not equivalent to art therapy. Be wary of methodological snake oil. Read more about the difference between arts-based methods and arts therapy in our post Arts-Based Methods 101. 

Claiming that drawing is empowering or "gives voice to the voiceless"

1. There is no such thing as a voiceless person.

2. When done well, participants may have more agency in the data collection and analysis processes. And, it can be helpful in disrupting power dynamics in groups where some folks are less comfortable speaking up.

3. Drawing can be oppressive and punishing. The art itself will not attend to power or decision-making. The facilitator has to do this work.

Assuming that drawings will speak for themselves

It is unknowable why people marked up the page the way they did and the meaning behind the forms, colours, and spaces. Are images present in the way the participant wanted, hoped, or imagined? Or, is the result just what they were able to draw in the alloted time? What is not on the page? Could that be as, if not more, important as what is?

Limiting drawing to kids or suggesting it is inherently a good fit for all kids

Drawing isn't inherently better or worse for any group of people. It depends on the evaluation question, context, skills of the evaluator, and - ultimately - what certain groups want and decide is best for them.

Biasing the drawings

Without rehashing an objectivity debate, here are two ways that facilitators can unintentionally (but avoidably) bias a drawing.

1. Providing limited supplies that force people to misrepresent the image in their heads or the thing they want to create (e.g., markers or crayons with limited skin tone colours)

2. Influencing people's interpretations of the prompt or what they create by proving an example or drawing alongside participants. For example - I (Maya) made this rookie mistake early on. To help set an expectation of terrible-quality drawings to put participants' minds at ease, I shared a drawing I made when testing the prompt earlier with Jennica. I showed my picture of a river, explained its significance, and gave the instruction that people had 5 minutes and didn't need to worry about the quality or level of detail. Little did I realize, that example planted a seed in people's heads. During the shareback, everyone presented a body of water and similar metaphor to mine. Oops. What we do now? We still share and example to help set the expectation low and manage blank page anxiety. But, we show a terrible drawing related to a different prompt and topic entirely! And, when we co-draw we hang back for a minute and wait until everyone else has started to mark up the page before we contribute.

Last Thoughts

Yes, a box of crayons can make a room full of adults look for the exit. That's because many of us had the artist trained out of us a long time ago. So, drawing can feel risky, silly, or frivolous at work. But, it's great for shifting the tone, dynamic, and rhythm. When people can't hide behind words, space is created for quieter voices, for imagination, and for the things no one wants to name out loud. And, terrible drawings do a lot of heavy-lifting. The quality of the drawing doesn’t matter. The quality of the conversation afterwards does.

If you’re curious, start with yourself. Grab a pen, draw a buzzword you're guilty of over-using. Then, reflect on what showed up on the page and what that tells you about your underlying values, assumptions, and perspectives. That’s where the magic starts.

Want to go further with drawing?

Learn it yourself: our Arts-Based Methods for Evaluators course covers drawing, collage, poetry, and photo elicitation. No artistic skill required.

Bring it to your team: Custom Training & Workshops, built around your team’s real context.

Team-up: partner with us on a project at whatever level of involvement works for you.

New to arts-based methods? Start with Arts-Based Methods in Evaluation 101.

Like what you read? Subscribe for new posts and resources.