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.