Online Submission 2 - Amrita Ahluwalia

Online Submission 2 – Children as Active Researchers

The following publication explores children as active researchers and raises a number of issues around participation in research involving children and young people:

Kellett, M. (2005) Children as active researchers: a new research paradigm for the 21^st century? [online]. UK: ESRC. Available from: <http://oro.open.ac.uk/7539/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-003.pdf>. [Accessed 30 March 2014].

Kellett (2005) argues for research actively undertaken by children as an acknowledgement of ‘the importance of affording children and young people a voice which is listened to and heard by adults’ (Kellett, 2005: 6). Kellett (2005) argues that child researchers are able to provide a unique perspective inaccessible to adults: ‘The research agendas children prioritise, the research questions they frame and the way in which they collect data are substantially different from adults and all of this can offer valuable insights and original contributions to knowledge’ (Kellett, 2005: 9). Kellett (2005) holds that active child-led research deserves a place alongside traditional research and feels that the question that remains is whether there is room for this in existing parameters.

Kellett’s (2005) exploration of child researchers provides an interesting perspective on participation in research and consultation with children and young people. Kellett (2005) views active child-led research on a continuum that reflects an increasing awareness of children’s right to be heard: ‘The journey from research on, through research with to research by children is a natural progression accompanying the shifting changes in adult-child power and participation agendas’ (Kellett, 2005: 31). In this view, empowering children with appropriate skills and training is key to unlocking their potential as researchers (Kellett et al., 2004).

It is worthwhile comparing how this fits with other perspectives. In an exploration of engagement in participative research, Holland et al. (2010) lists active child-led research as one of four distinguishable participative forms. Holland et al. (2010) also problematizes assumptions that participative research necessarily equalizes power relations between adults and children. Although this discussion is largely applied to adult researcher contexts, it draws attention to ‘a tendency to theorize agency and power almost as attributes that children can ‘have’ and that are enabled, promoted or ‘given’’ (Holland et al., 2010: 362). Does this theorizing affect Kellett’s (2005) context, in which adults are ‘empowering’ children with the tools they need to explore their own research aims?

In addition, it is interesting to compare Kellett’s (2005) view to Hart’s (1992) ‘Ladder of Participation’. In Hart’s (1992) ladder, the seventh rung is characterized by children and young people initiating participation with the guidance of adults who do not take charge, and the eighth rung is characterized by children and young people leading participation and initiating shared decisions with adults (Save the Children, 2009). Both of these levels entail children taking a lead and allow for adult involvement. However, in the latter level, children have the choice to include adults. Kellett (2005) does not make this distinction. Should child researchers have choices about adult involvement and how will this affect disseminating research skills to child researchers?

In conclusion, a critical assessment of Kellett (2005) illustrates discussion around participation in research involving children and young people and leads to interesting questions about empowerment and levels of participation.

REFERENCES

Hart, R.A. (1992) Children’s Participation: From Tokenism To Citizenship [online]. Florence: UNICEF International Child Development Centre. Available from: < http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/childrens_participation.pdf>. [Accessed 30 March 2014].

Holland, S., Renold, E., Ross, N.J., & Hillman, A. (2010) Power, agency and participatory agendas: A critical exploration of young people’s engagement in participative qualitative research. Childhood 17(3) Sept 360–375.

Kellett, M., Forrest, R., Dent, N., & Ward, S. (2004) ‘Just Teach Us The Skills Please We’ll Do The Rest’: Empowering Ten-Year-Olds as Active Researchers/ Children & Society 18(1) 329–343.

Kellett, M. (2005) Children as active researchers: a new research paradigm for the 21^st century? [online]. UK: ESRC. Available from: <http://oro.open.ac.uk/7539/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-003.pdf>. [Accessed 30 March 2014].

Save the Children (2009) re:action Consultation Toolkit [online]. London: Save the Children. Available from:<http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/Consultation_Toolkitpdf_1.pdf>. [Accessed 30 March 2014]. 

Online Submission 1 - Amrita Ahluwalia

Hi there! I had some trouble posting to the blog for the deadline on Monday, so left my submissions as comments here. I thought I'd add them again as posts so that everyone could access links, etc.

Online Submission 1 - Reflexivity in Research with Children & Young People

The following study demonstrates the importance of reflexivity in the methodology of research and consultation with children:

Majors, K. (2013) Children’s perceptions of their imaginary companions and the purposes they serve: An exploratory study in the United Kingdom. Childhood 20(4) Feb 550–565.

The above study uses a qualitative methodology – Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) – to explore perceptions of the imaginary companions of eight school age UK children. The study uses a semi-structured interview technique typical of IPA to explore individual and cross-case themes, relying on the researcher’s analytic interpretation. The analytic process arrived at several main themes presented within the study.

It is important to note that IPA provides both an analytic process (Smith & Osborne, 2003) to explore themes within and across interview transcripts, and outlines a reflexive attitude (Finlay, 2009). This latter aspect emphasises that the subjectivity and context of the researcher is inseparably linked to the research itself (Finlay, 2009).

However, in the study under discussion, Majors (2013) has used the analytic process provided by IPA with little consideration to reflexivity and the impact of researcher preconceptions. This is problematic for the methodology of this study.

According to Punch (2002), ‘the researcher’s own assumptions about the position of children in society affects the methods chosen as well as the interpretation of the data generated’ (Punch, 2002: 324).

However, Majors (2013) does not address the difficulty for an adult researcher ‘to understand the world from a child’s point of view’ (Punch, 2002: 325) or demonstrate an appreciation of the ‘operationalization of power relations in most research settings which enables adults to have much more freedom to direct the process than children do’ (Holland et al., 2010: 363).

The lack of reflexivity also has implications for the ethics of the study, where ethical concerns are focused on obtaining informed consent and child protection (Majors, 2013). However, ethical consideration should also be given to the potential to misrepresent child participants by not attending to the impact of adult perspectives and power contexts:

‘If one acknowledges the inseparability of researcher and participant…, the issue of voice (and whose voice) is further complicated. There is no simple resolution to this, except exploration through reflexive techniques which attend to power relations and ethics, reciprocity and responsibility.’ (Holland et al., 2010: 371)

In conclusion, a critical assessment of Majors (2013) highlights the importance of reflexive practice in research with children and young people. The methodology in Majors (2013) does not explore researcher reflexivity or examine preconceptions, weakening the analytic process and raising questions about ethical considerations.

Although reflexivity should also apply to qualitative research with adults, there are specific preconceptions that can impact research and consultation with children and young people and researchers therefore have a responsibility to address these through reflexive practice. 

REFERENCES

Finlay, L. (2009) Debating phenomenological research methods. Phenomenology & Practice 3 (1) 6–25.

Holland, S., Renold, E., Ross, N.J., & Hillman, A. (2010) Power, agency and participatory agendas: A critical exploration of young people’s engagement in participative qualitative research. Childhood 17(3) Sept 360–375.

Majors, K. (2013) Children’s perceptions of their imaginary companions and the purposes they serve: An exploratory study in the United Kingdom. Childhood 20(4) Feb 550–565.

Punch, S. (2002) Research with Children: The Same or Different from Research with Adults? Childhood 9(3) Aug 321–341.

Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003) Interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods, 51–80.

http://www.barnardos.org.uk/involving_young_people_in_research_pdf.pdf

This blog post will explore how YP as young researchers became empowered (or otherwise), in the 2006 Barnardo’s project, entitled ‘Involving Young People in Research’.

In this project, Barnardo’s Policy and Research Unit (PRU) aimed to: recruit a group of young people to be young researchers  carry out a piece of research chosen by the young people themselves, and to produce a research report to influence Barnardo’s work. Moreover, this project aimed to foster partnership working between the young people and researchers at the PRU (p.4).

Articles 12 and 13 of the UNCRC require that all children should be “informed, involved and consulted about all activities that affect their lives”. Whilst there has been a recent surge in including children and young people in research, much of this research is “generally adult-led, adult-designed and conceived from an adult perspective” (Kellet et al., 2004: 329). This Barnardo’s project, however, aimed to reverse this.

Just as adults need formal research training, children and young people also need formal research training to enable them to carry out the research (Kellet et al., 2004: 332). If YP are provided with these skills, there is no reason why they cannot conduct research themselves, albeit with some guidance and partnership working with adult researchers.

In this project, the YP themselves choose the topic of bullying, since they all had experience of it (p.4). Giving YP the opportunity to choose their own topic allowed them to research a topic which was important to them (and whose impact may directly affect them), and not imposed on them by adults. Moreover, whilst we, as adults are aware of bullying, would they have chosen this topic otherwise? As various scholars have pointed out (for example, Coates and Coates 2006; Punch 2002), we are adults with an adult view of the world. Only children can really know their own world. By giving children this choice, they are being empowered. This may also help to produce data and knowledge which may not have otherwise been produced.

On reflecting on the process, the YP reported that their self -confidence had improved, their social skills had improved, and they also saw new skills created or existing skills improve considerably (p.13). Other case studies involving children as young researchers have reported similar findings, for example in Kellet et al’s study.

Finally, in the Barnardo’s project, the authors reported that the impact of this research was greater than it would otherwise have been (had adult researchers solely conducted this research) since dissemination opportunities were raised (p.18). The importance of this is drawn sharply into focus if we appreciate that YP involved in the research wanted to ‘make a difference’ (p.14). Here, YP were empowered to ‘make a difference’ to a matter which affected them, which they chose.

In general, this project seemed to empower YP successfully and meaningfully. Here the only glaring issue regarding empowerment is that whilst YP did ‘make a difference’ in that their findings informed the Barnardo’s work, it could be questioned how much this ‘made a difference’ on a wider scale, beyond the work of Barnardo’s. There was perhaps room in this project for the Barnardo’s research team to make clear what exactly ‘making a difference’ would involve (although it is acknowledged that this may have taken place and simply is not included in this report). Arguably, empowerment is undermined where YP are not given quite enough information about what the impact of their research is, or will be. 

http://www.cf.ac.uk/cplan/sites/default/files/CCS-VisualResearchVulnerableChildren.pdf

I have chosen to explore this case study since it draws attention to, amongst other matters, the complexities surrounding the accompaniment (or otherwise) of a verbal discussion or a written record to visual methods (VMs).

This case study “reflects on the use of visual methods in a study that sought to explore the experiences of street working children in Peru (Bromley and Mackie, 2009)”. The author Mackie reflects on two VM tasks: mapping and a card selection game. In the card section game, there was no reliance on the children’s literacy or verbal skills, meaning that all children who participated were “equally able to express themselves”. Likewise, in the first section of the mapping game there was no requirement for these skills; although for the second section, some oral skills were required to give explain their respective mapping selections.

The strengths of using VM in conducting research with children and young people include: that they are perceived as being fun and enjoyable by children (Hill, 2006: 80, Punch, 2002: 331) and that they are familiar to children in other contexts (for example, in school and in their homes lives) (Mitchell, 2008: 61, Hill, 2006: 79).

Mackie stresses that another much-cited strength of this approach: it does not depend on, at first glance, the literacy or verbal skills of the participant(s). In this way, those may have otherwise been excluded, are included, allowing their voice to be heard. He is not alone in holding this view, for example (Mitchell, 2008: 62).  But are their voices being properly heard?

Not necessarily. Inexorably, adults see children’s drawings through adults’ eyes (Coates and Coates, 2006; Punch, 2002). Therefore, literature has also highlighted the importance of this additional communication in ensuring that the product, say a drawing, as is accurately interpreted by the adult researcher. White et al refer to the ‘draw and talk’ approach (White et al., 2010). This approach is based on the premise that the richness of the data, and the full meaning of the product, flows from not merely the ‘product’, the drawing, but also the process in which the product is generated, and the talk which takes place during this process.

Whilst I am not saying that Mackie and other scholars are necessarily not giving full appreciation to this, it is something to bear in mind. Indeed, many researchers employing VMs are already doing this. However, if this option to ‘double check’ that a researcher has properly interpreted a drawing by supplementing this with a verbal or written interaction, is not available, we should look hard to consider how VMs can be used to ensure views are being accurately heard and represented. Clearly, we do not want to pay mere lip service to the expression of unheard views, or worse, misrepresent them.

Children's Parliament session at Involving Children

Colin Morrison from the Children's Parliament is presenting a session on Friday morning at Involving Children.

If you have a moment and want to know more he suggests you have a look at these:

CP in Fife http://www.childrensparliament.org.uk/fife.html

CP in Glasgow http://www.childrensparliament.org.uk/glasgow.html

Me + Us http://www.childrensparliament.org.uk/me+us.html

 Susan