engaging children and young people as … reports/engaging young... · web viewwe may ask ourselves...
TRANSCRIPT
Engaging children and young people as participants in research
Engaging children and young people in research
Literature review for
The National Evaluation of the Childrens Fund (NECF)
October 2004
Dr. Jane Coad (School of Health Sciences, The University of Birmingham)
Professor Ann Lewis (School of Education, The University of Birmingham).
Acknowledgements
Our thanks to Karen Peckings, Research Assistant, who carried out, with care and enthusiasm, a substantial part of the search for relevant literature.
We are very grateful to Lin Walsh who provided valuable secretarial support enabling the project to progress smoothly.
Felicity Shelton kindly gave us various useful documents including the Investing in Children reports, Co.Durham, cited in the review.
Priscilla Alderson allowed us access to a pre-publication draft of the revised edition of Alderson, P. & Morrow, G. Ethics, Social Research and Consulting with Children and Young People. London: Barnardo's.
Finally, our thanks to members of the National Evaluation of the Children Fund (NECF) team who provided a valuable sounding board for ideas and a recurrent review of the issues.
Contact details
Dr. Jane Coad
School of Health Sciences, The University of Birmingham, B15 2TT
Tel 0121 414 2272/6893; e mail [email protected]
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Executive/user summary
1. Introduction
1
1.1. Conduct of the review
1.2. Background to the review
1
2. Children as research participants: Policy and research context
5
2.1 Policy context
5
3. Children as research participants: Ethical concerns and childrens rights
9
3.1 Social responsibility
9
3.2 Access/gatekeepers
10
3.3 Consent/ assent
11
3.4 Confidentiality/ anonymity/secrecy
14
3.5 Recognition and feedback
15
3.6 Ownership
16
4. Children as research participants: Researcher-researched relationships
18
4.1 Building relationships
18
4.1.1 Entering the field
19
4.1.2 Balancing differential power relationships
20
4.1.3 Sharing control
23
5. Children as research participants: Methods and techniques used with
25
children to explore their views
5.1 Guiding principles
25
5.1.1 Authenticity
25
5.1.2 Credibility
27
5.1.3 Trustworthiness
28
5.2 Overview of possible methods
29
5.2.1 Interviews
29
5.2.2 Questionnaires
33
5.2.3 Observation
34
5.2.4 Mapping
35
5.2.5 Drawing and posters
36
5.2.6 Photographs and video
38
5.2.7 Role play, drama and story telling
39
5.2.8 Journals and diaries
40
5.2.9 ICT-linked
40
6. Children as research participants: Analyses and Dissemination
42
6.1. Introduction
42
6.2. Children as data analysts?
42
6.3. Dissemination and impact
45
7. Summary and conclusions
48
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Conduct of the Review
The purpose of this review is:
1. To provide background information in the relevant fields, about the perspectives and issues surrounding engaging children as participants in all phases of a research/ evaluation project
2. To provide a review drawn on a systematic examination of the key literature pertaining to potential methods and techniques used when exploring childrens views.
The review comprised of two distinct phases. Further details of the conduct of the review are included in Appendix 1.
1.2 Background to the Review
Participation of children and young people in service design, delivery and evaluation is central to the Governments agenda for addressing social exclusion. This was reinforced in the Green Paper, Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) and Every Child Matters; The next steps (DfES, 2004), which flagged up the bringing of childrens perspectives to bear on all aspects of government policy (see section 2.1 for further discussion of the policy context).
The Childrens Fund is a major government initiative targeted at children aged 5 13 years, who are at risk of social exclusion. A key feature of the Childrens Fund is childrens active involvement in the development of preventive services reflecting the then, Children and Young Peoples Unit (CYPU) advocacy of childrens participation (CYPU, 2001; Sinclair et al, 2002). CYPU also supported the development of associated research-based guidance (Kirby et al, 2003) building on perceived good practice. Therefore, there was a clear expectation that local Childrens Fund partnerships would actively seek out the opinions of children living in the community, in order to ensure that, their views directly influence the shape, delivery and subsequent evaluation of services.
The success of this initiative will be heavily dependant upon the development of strategies which both engage with, and facilitate, meaningful input from children and young people aged 5 to 13 year olds. Particularly, there is a clear expectation that the voices of marginal groups are represented. One way in which children and young people can have their say is through the use of methods which successfully elicit their views and beliefs and which enable them to influence how initiatives are developed and evaluated.
One can discern two important trends in research with children in this context over the past two decades. One trend, echoed in the policy changes noted above, is the development of research-based approaches to explore the views of children and young people (Kirby, 1999; Lewis and Lindsay, 2000). A second trend is the emergence of what have been termed variously emancipatory research or participatory research approaches (Oliver, 1997; Minkler, 2003; Suarez-Balcazar and Harper, 2003). Central to both these sets of approaches is recognition of the nature of traditional power relationships between researcher-researched and attempts to re-balance these away from the researcher (discussed further in section 3 below). However, advocates of emancipatory research or participatory research approaches would argue that there are substantial philosophical differences between the breaking down of traditional power relationships, and research which remains controlled by researchers (but still aiming to seek the views of children).
We may ask ourselves why there such contrasting views about the concepts used when engaging children and young people in research. Firstly, the legacy of multiplicity of research approaches and techniques has meant there has never been so many paradigms from which to approach a problem or given project. It is a time of discovery and re-discovery and new ways of looking, interpreting and writing are integral to this discovery. Indeed, Denzin and Lincoln (1998) note that the considerable debate about the various merits of particular epistemological positions in terms of child centred research is inevitable due to the evolving historical nature of research. It is thus part of our philosophical positions and fields from which we have evolved. What is also clear is that it is from such contrasting epistemological positions that we approach childrens participation. This will inevitably affect the basis on which the researcher-researched relationship is formed and will impact upon the chosen methodologies, methods and tools for data collection. Whilst such debate is relevant, it was decided in the literature review here outlined, to refer to these trends collectively under the umbrella term child-centred approaches.
The remainder of this report begins by outlining how the review was carried out, then moves on to locating, in the current policy context, the enthusiasm for exploring childrens views and involving children at all stages of research. The next section reviews power relationships and ways of redressing potential researcher-researched imbalances with children. A variety of methods and techniques are examined in the light of guiding principles for involving children as co-researchers. Finally, we give a brief discussion about two relatively unexplored aspects of involving children as co-researchers: their roles in analyses and dissemination.
2. CHILDREN AS RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS: POLICY AND RESEARCH CONTEXTS
2.1 Policy context
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
calls for State parties to: assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child (Article 12).
These rights are aspirational and conditional. In discussions, the UN noted the important proviso that these childrens rights must respect the rights and reputations of others; rights could not be exercised in ways that would harm others. The UNCRC has been ratified by all except two nations, Somalia and the US (the US has signed, a lesser step, but not ratified the Convention). Ratification of the Convention leads to close monitoring by the UN and the semi-public nature of the subsequent reports has provided an important lever for campaigners across the world.
A huge international body of policy makers and pressure groups (government and voluntary) has grown up in response to Article 12. These groups are united in a firm conviction about the importance of involving children in decision-making; this agenda overlaps with democratisation and citizenship. Web-based groups such as CRIN (Childrens Rights Information Network), CAPA (Children as Partners Alliance) and 4NCPN (4 Nations Child Policy Network) link groups and individuals world-wide in pursuit of this aim. Their agenda falls beyond the scope of this review, and whilst our review provides a research-based set of guidelines for practice (see also Alderson and Morrow, in press; Porter and Lewis, in press), we have not reviewed the very extensive sets of material available through such groups. These sites and groups provide access to a wealth of resources but tend to be collection points for information, rather than providing critical overviews or critiques of individual projects and resources. Similarly, within the UK, childrens pressure/ information groups (e.g. Article 12. Childrens Rights Alliance for England (CREA); Action for Sick Children; Funky Dragon; HeadsUp; National Voice; Voices from Care etc), while relevant to our focus, take in a broader agenda than addressed here.
The UK submitted progress reports to the UN in 1994 and 1999. The UN response to the first of these reports noted concerns that insufficient attention has been given to the right of the child to express his/her opinion . In this as in other decisions, including exclusion from school, the child is not systematically invited to express his/her opinion and those opinions may not be given due weight, as required under article 12 of the Convention (UN CRC/C/15 Add.34 15 Feb 1995; reprinted in UK, 1999 p208). These concerns were reiterated, although progress was acknowledged, when the following UK report was received: The Committee is concerned that the obligations of Article 12 have not been consistently incorporated in legislation, for example; in education ... schoolchildren are not consulted in matters that affect them (UN 2002: Para 29). (Note the UKs 2nd report was submitted in 1999, discussed by the UN in June 2002 and the UNs formal response issued in October 2002.).
Participation by children and the explicit attempt to include their views in matters of UK social and public policy have increased markedly in recent years (Stafford et al, 2003; Willow, 2002). Contexts in which childrens views have been formally sought (in addition to the now more conventional areas of education, health, public care and child protection) include caring for parents with a mental illness (Aldridge, 2003), the Family Court Welfare Service (Buchanan, Hunt, Bretherton, and Bream, 2001), area regeneration (Crowther et al, 2003) and domestic violence (Mullender et al, 2002). Perhaps in anticipation of the UKs quinquennial review to the UN (January 2004), there was a torrent of government initiatives, particularly from the Department of Health, involving hearing childrens views in matters that concern them. This theme is evident too in recent policy proposals (DoH, 2003; Audit Commission, 2003; DFES, 2003). Similarly, the revised Special Educational Code (SEN) Code of Practice (DFES, 2001a), associated SEN Toolkit (DFES, 2001b) and the Governments strategy for SEN (DFES, 2004) stress the importance of building a listening culture in organisations.
The emphasis from the UK government has been on formally hearing childrens views and, for many campaigners from the childrens charities, this is a very weak response. It stops short of empowering and involving children and young people as partners in developing their services. For example, Save the Children (2000) argued that the UK response has been piecemeal, welfare- rather than rights- based, lacking support in law and failing to give all vulnerable children the right to independent legal advice. Responses to particular documents have highlighted the nuances; for example, Young Minds response to the draft Mental Health Bill noted that decision- makers must take 'proper account' of parents' views but only 'consider' the child's views.
Sociologists of childhood (Prout, 2000, 2001, 2002; James and Prout 1997; Christensen and James, 2000) provide several fascinating critiques about the rationale behind these policy changes. Why, we might ask, have we recently become so concerned about hearing childrens views that doing so is an imperative for child-related policy initiatives and research endeavours? It is beyond the scope of this review to explore this whole area but two points warrant attention here. One response takes a strong generational perspective and it is argued that generational order is of equal importance to gender, ethnicity or class as a social axis (Alanen and Mayall, 2001). From this perspective children can be seen to represent human capital (the next generation) and that by controlling children (including the ways in which we access their views) adults are trying to control the future- a land where despite adults best efforts the children will, in due course, rule. In support of this, some writers have noted the contrast between the abandoned private realm of children within the family and the increasing controlling, constraining and corralling which goes on around children in the public sphere. From this perspective, hearing childrens views is emphatically not about, as some rhetoric would have us believe, empowering children or devolving adult power.
A different emphasis from this has been on childhood as a conceptually autonomous arena. From this perspective children are viewed, not merely as a prism through which to see adulthood and adult-led institutions but as social actors in their own right. Here, childrens multiple interactions and the ways in which children make sense of these become the focus of interest without requiring any recourse to adult perspectives.
3.
2. CHILDREN AS RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS: ETHICAL CONCERNS AND
CHILDRENS RIGHTS
There is, rightly, concern about the ethical aspects of involving children as researchers and in hearing their views (Beresford, 1997; Lindsay, 2000; Moore et al, 1998; Alderson and Morrow in press). Lewis and Porter (in press) provide a series of associated guiding questions to act as the basis for self-review for researchers and service providers. Concerns have revolved particularly around six areas; each of which is considered in more detail below.
3.1 Social responsibility
One of the intellectual virtues embodied in the process of carrying out research is the pursuit of truth. This links with Lindsays (2000) discussion about the social responsibility of the researcher. The strong rights arguments around many policies concerning children and the strength with which personal value positions are held may make it difficult to sustain research endeavours that threaten to produce findings at odds with the prevailing orthodoxy. Researchers have a responsibility to acknowledge both their own value positions and whatever issues or accounts that emerge from the research process. This resonates with Prings (2000) reference to the integrity of the research. Complex ethical questions arising in the course of a project (such as whether a respondent has the right to alter the record of an interview) may be best answered by the researcher asking themselves what would be consistent with maintaining the integrity of the research.
3.2 Access/gatekeepers
Unless the researcher is interviewing their own child then someone acts as a gatekeeper, providing or withholding access, to the child to be interviewed. In most cases this direct (1st level) gatekeeper will be the parent or carer. Somebody else may in turn act as an indirect (2nd level) gatekeeper to the parents and carers. In school contexts this may be the headteacher, school governors or LEA; but, depending on the focus of the research, it may, also or instead, be health, legal, and/or social service agencies.
There are ethical committees and protocols designed to protect children from unwarranted intrusion by potential researchers (e.g. British Educational Research Association, 2004; McIntosh et al, 2000; Lindsay, 2000; Royal College of Nursing, 2004). These procedures and their interpretation will shape the nature of the group of children involved as researchers and hence the range of views ultimately collected. A clear illustration in the policy context occurs when a school / hospital chooses to opt out of involvement in an evaluation consequently removing a particular group from those whose views are accessed. This may also occur through tangential circumstances rather than by design, as when an organisation withdraws from the study due to, for example, staff illness or prioritising of inspection arrangements. Decisions about sample have repercussions for access (and vice versa) with consequent implications for the interpretation of the findings of the work.
3.3Consent/assent
The continuum from informed consent through assent - to failure to object, highlights the distinction between consent and assent. Consent may be given by the child or by another on the childs behalf for (a) the child to be interviewed or (b) the researcher to ask the child to be interviewed. Assent is generally used to refer to the childs agreement to participation in the process when another has given consent. In the more conventional context of interviewing adults these two aspects are conflated, that is the adult being interviewed both consents and assents to the interview.
Consent is not in itself sufficient; informed consent/assent is needed. In order to give informed consent the person needs the four aspects outlined in table 1.
Table 1: Four aspects of informed consent
The person needs information about the chance to participate
The person needs to know about a right to withdraw from the activity,
What the participants role will be
What the outcomes are intended to be
To be able to respond to all the above four aspects of informed consent the participant (or someone on their behalf) has to receive the information, understand it and respond to it (Alderson, 1995). Spelt out in this way it can be seen that obtaining informed consent may be a considerable undertaking and daunting to achieve. Some writers have argued that, while involving children and young people in research and evaluation is important, it may be very difficult genuinely to obtain their informed consent (McCarthy, 1998; Clegg, 2001; Homan, 2001).
There is strong agreement among commentators that allowing informed dissent is crucial. Children have a right to privacy that researchers have a moral responsibility to acknowledge (Homan, 2001). A childs expression of informed dissent may not be easy to recognise. For example, there may be disagreement among adults about whether a particular behaviour by a child with severe or profound and multiple learning difficulties reflects dissent. Keeping an open dialogue with the network of people around the child helps to sustain checks on whether the child is continuing to assent to involvement (see Porter et al, 2001 re: validating communication). Explicit continuation of assent enables a corresponding and genuine right to withdraw at any point.
In the legal context, much stress is placed on whether a person is competent to give consent: A child who has the capacity to understand fully a decision affecting his or her life automatically has the capacity to make that decision unless statute law states otherwise (Masson, 2001: 39). This is referred to, in short, as the Gillick competence test after the Gillick (1985) case concerning under 16 year olds right to contraception without the permission of their parents. The court found in favour of the General Practitioner (GP). This set a precedent in that it allowed under 16 year olds to consent to medical treatment providing they could show sufficient understanding and competence to make wise choices. Competence is defined by Masson (2001) as the level of understanding needed to make decisions. In law, there is no presumption of competence for people under 16 and those under this age must demonstrate their competence by meeting certain standards set by the courts (British Medical Association/BMA, 2003).
In the research context, there has been heated debate concerning at what age children are able to consider fully the implications of participation (or non-participation) (e.g. ODonnell and Strasburger, 1998). Definitions of competence may be particularly contentious when children or young people with learning disabilities are involved. (Moore et al, 1998). Regardless of the legal debates, lack of competence does not remove the right to express a view. There is unlikely to be a blanket answer in terms of childrens ages concerning when competence as research participants can be assumed; as Masson (2001) notes that competence is directly related to the decisions to be taken and so will vary from project to project.
Lengthy debate has ensued around how such competence is to be defined and demonstrated. The increasing emphasis on multi-professional working, epitomised in the work of the Childrens Fund and nascent Childrens Trusts, means that tightly defined positions (e.g. competence and legal definitions) have repercussions for all professionals working with a child. Such professional parameters can no longer be regarded as taken for granted ground rules across the whole team of co-workers.
More fundamentally, notions of competence, capability and capacity have been the focus of intense debate in the philosophy literature, triggered by Amartya Sens seminal work. In summary, definitions of (for example) competence rest on contested assumptions about normality (Terzi, 2003) and well-being (Saito, 2003). Thus, deciding whether a child is competent to have their views heard, or to be a research participant, prompts deeper searching which overlaps with the concerns of sociologists of childhood noted earlier (Prout, 2000; 2001).
3.4 Confidentiality/ anonymity/secrecy
Formal guidance on research methods usually stresses the importance of confidentiality. This seems right, proper and uncontroversial. However, it may be more difficult to sustain in practice, particularly if small or atypical groups are involved, than exhortations to sustain confidentiality suggest. Confidentiality may also not be sustained for different reasons that is, if the child reveals information that the interviewer feels should be passed on in the childs best interests such as a child protection issue. Consequently, Oakley (2000) strongly recommends that it might be felt that it is preferable to exclude a particular type of data collection if its collection might place the researcher in an invidious ethical position (and hence jeopardise the relationship with the child).
A researcher may attempt to guarantee anonymity in any written documentation (that is comments or views are not attributed in a way that could be traced back to a specific individual). This may mean that some views have to be excluded from the report (for example, if only one child with cerebral palsy is included in mainstream organisations in the sample then any comment reflecting that particular perspective could be traced back to an individual).
Another issue about confidentiality arises from procedures concerning conducting interviews; privacy has to be balanced with child protection procedures. Whether parents should be present at interviews with their children has been much debated and it has been argued that parents may want, but not need, to know what happens. Relevant bodies produce ethical guidelines for researchers (e.g. see BPS, 1991; BSA, 1987; NCB, 1993; BERA, 2004; NHS, 2004; RCN, 2004) although the detail of these varies widely (see Lindsay, 2000). Clegg (2001) argued that when interviews are conducted in a spirit of openness, then privacy/confidentiality is not an issue and the very notion of gatekeepers (see above) betrays a lack of trust between those involved with the children.
There is a distinction between confidentiality, given to people participating in the research, and secrecy. Secrecy applies to procedures and in most cases such secrecy would probably be deemed inappropriate in educational, social and health care research, to name but three examples. However, there might be contexts in which it was felt legitimate to keep procedures secret (e.g. observation to monitor suspected bullying).
3.5 Recognition and feedback
Often when children are involved in research this is presented as part of routine activities with no specific reward for participating. However small token gifts such as holographic stickers given to all the children, whether or not participating, seem to be popular and provide a modest thank you. Alternatively, a group treat such as a party may be organised. In more substantial projects researchers may give children gift vouchers or token payment in exchange for their involvement (with parental agreement). The basis of this exchange is respect for the childrens time and efforts.
It is now widely recognised that participants should have the opportunity to receive feedback from researchers about the outcomes of the study. However, some sample groups move around geographically and make this sustained link difficult or impossible over a longer term project. With children, feedback may be done through adults known to them. Little seems to have been written on this topic in published accounts of childrens views and it is potentially a sensitive area.
3.6 Ownership
Ownership of data is generally presumed to belong to the researcher (although data protection measures apply, giving participants rights to access electronic data under certain conditions). Kellett and Nind (2001) propose the researcher as a banker, retaining data/information (e.g. video material or interview narrative) but giving others access to it. In the policy context, it might be argued that organisations should have access to such information and the right to use it in certain contexts. One might make a distinction here between data and information. Information refers to what is collected (e.g. a piece of video film) while the process of conversion or extraction from information generates data - the units or material analysed. Thus, the data are a subset of the information.
There may be unintended outcomes of using protocols intended to safeguard the interests of children interviewed. For example, notions of ownership whereby materials are returned to children interviewed may be interpreted as a rejection or failure. Jean Ware (personal communication) has noted that destroying confidential materials at the close of a project may be read as discounting of the material by some children, particularly perhaps those with difficulties in learning. (Valuable material would have been retained or even displayed).
Professional groups may take contrasting views, sometimes arising from particular legislative constraints, about what constitutes an authentic way to obtain childrens views. A particular issue here is the use of facilitators. Ideally, facilitators should be chosen by the child. Facilitators act as intermediaries conveying, or translating, the views of those interviewed. This enables views to be collected from people who might otherwise be excluded from those whose views are accessed. However the filter of the facilitator/ intermediary may unwittingly distort the views held. If they are used then any report needs to acknowledge how views were collected so that the reader/listener can make a judgement about whether the conduit for views may have distorted the evidence.
4. CHILDREN AS RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS: RESEARCHER-RESEARCHED RELATIONSHIPS
4.1 Building relationships
Despite the epistemological differences noted in section 1.2, researchers interested in child-centred approaches share concerns about basing the involvement of children and young people on an ethic of respect for children. Thus, they would regard preparation for childrens involvement, and the building of relationships, in whatever ways and forms, to be of paramount importance. However, the popularity of involving children raises questions about whose needs are being served. Researchers may feel obliged in the current climate to involve children at all stages of the research as part of building and sustaining relationships, but in so doing, there is a risk of exploiting those children. A genuine respect for the childs position and interest in them, as individuals, may help to guard against this situation.
Building up the relationship with the child, as a counter to exploitation, does however hold other possible difficulties. The child may later feel let down when the relationship ceases at the end of the research project. Booth (1998), writing of this issue in relation to research with lonely people, exposes the very real problems for researchers trying to operate ethically in this context. One solution, described by Crozier and Tracey (2000), is the sustaining of the relationship in the long term but this will not be realistic or feasible in all research contexts. It is thus pertinent to explore some of the issues relating to building relationships further.
4.1.1 Entering the field
One issue concerning entering the field relates to control and negotiation of access. Commonly, this occurs through adult gatekeepers, predominantly parents, head-teachers, programme managers, key workers such as health, play and social care workers (Barker and Smith, 2001). Pragmatic advice on negotiating access and preparation before entering the field is discussed by a number of researchers (Christensen and James 2000; James and Prout 1997; Johnson et al 1998; Lewis and Lindsay 2000).
Establishing rapport with the child needs serious consideration and several authors provide useful guidance about this. For example, Punch (2002) suggests that it is a misconception to assume that all adults will be able to build rapport with children; some adults will feel that children are very different from adults and that the researcher should not try too hard to establish a, perhaps phony, camaraderie. Coyne (1998) and Morrow (1999) share examples of establishing rapport prior to the data collection including using drawings to relax the child and clear information leaflets about the project. Their message is clear: researchers should follow what the children want in that particular research situation. This is reiterated by Morgan et al (2002) who suggest strategies for setting the scene; these include reference to an informal atmosphere, using first names, including warm up activities, having adequate room space, and setting-up arrangements. However, such strategies assume that the adult researcher leads and controls the relationship with the child from the outset rather than a process of negotiation. Hence, this is a fundamentally different from a situation in which children are active researchers.
There is also a further consideration here. If establishing relationships with children means that children are invited to participate in research planning meetings at an early stage, there may then be repercussions for the use of the childrens time (e.g. can this justify taking children away from or school or from leisure activities?).
4.1.2 Balancing differential power relationships
Balancing power between the adult-researcher and child has also received considerable attention. Holmes (1998) and Hood et al (1996) note that power relationships will exist in terms of age but may be exacerbated by differences in gender, ethnicity, culture and social background. Morrow and Richards (1996: 98) contend that `the biggest ethical challenge for researchers working with children is the disparities in power and status between adults and children'.
Ring (2000, 2003) illustrates some issues concerning power relationships. Ring used conversational interviews, drawings (2D) and photographs (3D) with a longitudinal framework, with young children at home and at school. She wished to explore socio-cultural aspects important in a childs life at home and school and felt that seeing the world from the childs perspective was the first step in building of the relationship. Others dispute that this can be possible when, from an adults perspective, the world is necessarily viewed differently from that of the child (Kirby, 1999; West, 1995;1996a; 1996b and 1997).
Part of the task is to redress the power imbalance between child participant and adult researcher, in order to enable children to participate on their own terms. There are several suggestions for equalising the power relations between adult researcher and child, such as the need for reflexivity, responsiveness, fun and allowing the children greater participation and control (Mayall et al, 1996; 2000; Mauthner, 1997; Clark and Moss, 2001). Butler and Williamson (1994) provide a helpful framework for balancing the gap between adult researcher and child participants (see table 2).
Table 2: Balancing the imbalance of power between adult researcher and child participant
Adopt a role of nave curiosity in which the researcher is open, honest and
Understanding but not patronising.
Avoid being judgmental but, rather, accepting of the childs viewpoint as being different from that of adults.
Allow the child to present their views.
Be creative and flexible in approaches so as to reduce boredom and free children to talk about other issues.
Adapted from Butler and Williamson 1994
The power imbalance between children and important adults in their lives may also prevent children's full participation in the research (Morgan et al, 2002). This is likely to be particularly pertinent in relation to young children and children with learning difficulties. Interestingly, Ireland and Holloway (1996) found (in a project seeking to explore childrens experiences of Asthma) that some parents tried to gently coerce their children into taking part in the study. As qualitative approaches seek to empower informants, Ireland and Holloway (1996) consequently felt concerned about this issue.
There would seem no clear answers for this, but rather, a flexible attitude and approach is indicated (Faux et al, 1988). Ward (1996) recommends that the researcher talk to the children away from the parents whilst Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (1994) suggest parents are a source of comfort in what potentially might be a daunting experience. In relation to child or young person with learning difficulties, the issues are writ large with proxies or facilitators being used as conduits for, or to provide support. Another solution is to find ways to access childrens views directly, which involves thinking creatively about methods used (see section 4), for example, using ICT-supported communication.
Significant other features that impact on the balance of power in the relationship are contextual characteristics such as the environment in which the research takes place (McTaggart, 1996; Scott, 2000). It is argued that, any environment will affect the researcher-child relationship (Lewis and Lindsay, 2000; Clark and Moss, 2001). Several studies highlighted environmental influences, which are presented in table 3.
Table 3:Summary of environmental influences on the research context
Schools (Pridmore and Bendelow, 1995; Johnson et al, 1998; Warren from Lewis and Lindsay, 2000; Horner, 2000; Hek, 2002; Ring, 2003)
Early childhood centres/play/nursery schools (Clark and Moss, 2001)
Hospitals and child health clinics (Ireland and Holloway, 1996; Morgan et al, 2002)
Children and young people clubs and community rooms/centres such as libraries (Fine and Sandstrom, 1988; Sheffield Childrens Fund, 2003)
Childrens own home and family settings (Miller, 2000)
Festivals and planned events (Willow, 2002)
Work based settings as noted in adolescent research (Dashiff, 2001)
Each context will bring its own challenges. In adult-led environments (for example, schools) the child may feel pressured whereas childrens own spaces can enable them to feel more comfortable (McTaggart, 1996; Scott, 2000; Punch, 2002). Fine and Sandstrom (1988) refer to neutral settings such as community rooms which may help to redress the power imbalance between adult researcher and child participant. However, Horner (2000) and Ring (2000) both found that schools can also be perceived as neutral ground and the familiar sense of community can be subsequently important for the collection of rich data. Indeed, much of the educational research reviewed took place in schools and in terms of practicalities would seem a convenient location for research with children.
The problem with environments, such as schools, is that they are perceived as being adult-led, are boundary-organised and so may influence responses. For example, the child participant may feel obliged to respond in a way that reflects the adults perceived position; an aspect known as ideal speech (Christensen and James, 2000). Nesbitt (2000) illustrates this point with reference to her interviews with children of different faiths and denominations. She notes that some Baptist children used the term vicar to describe their church leader when minister would have been the appropriate term.
4.1.3 Sharing control
Strategies to facilitate genuine empowerment within the research setting are reflected in Alderson (1993) and Alderson and Morrow (in press) who recommend informality as one approach to redressing the power imbalance. This must be set against the danger of an adult researcher trying too hard to part of the group, reflected in the use of child-derived colloquial language or acting as a friend in the gang, which may result in the child becoming cautious and suspicious (James et al, 1998).
Other authors highlight a strategy of giving some control to children from the outset so that the project leads, who are adults, hand the research gradually over to the children (Alderson, 1993; Kirby, 1999; West, 1995; 1996a; 1996b; 1997; Khan et al, 1997). In this model, the adult researchers will oversee the work and direct specific stages such as the writing of the reports. Morrow (1999) notes that in the process of giving control to children, it is still the adults who will act as gatekeepers to the children.
Others advocate approaches whereby children are the project leads and so control all stages of the work including the report writing. Investing in Children and Triumph and Success illustrate this approach. The Investing in Children project is based in County Durham, UK and has involved groups of young people in completing their own research including Sour Grapes How young peoples views are taken into account (1998); Young Peoples Mental Health (2000); Fares Fair - Investigating local transport (2000) and Young People and the Police (2001). The Triumph and Success two-year project involved eight young people between the ages of 15 and 21 years, from different social and economic backgrounds, who explored youth transitions in Sheffield, UK (France 2000). Each of the project teams reported that the children were given a voice in the design and implementation of the research and consequently had an impact on the shaping and development of local services. Both projects built in considerable support and training for the young researchers from experienced adults working in the respective fields, but were fully controlled and managed projects undertaken by young people. Whilst both of these projects are clearly innovative and encompass the philosophical beliefs of empowerment, challenges of research training and ongoing support cannot be overlooked.
5. CHILDREN AS RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS: METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED WITH CHILDREN TO EXPLORE THEIR VIEWS
5.1 Guiding principles
No research is value-free and the potential for bias in child-centred research has been well documented (Lewis, 1992; Lewis and Lindsay, 2000; Christensen and James, 2000). Inevitably, the researchers values will have an impact on the relationship with child participants. Lewis (1992) warns that the researcher needs to consider carefully whether the childrens inter-relationships, as well as his/her relationship with the children, will distort responses. We have thus suggested elsewhere (Lewis, 2003; 2004) that authenticity, credibility and trustworthiness represent three guiding principles when involving children in research (see Pring, 2000; Robson, 2002 for related background reading).
5.1.1 Authenticity
Authenticity refers to the extent to which something genuinely comes from the child (analogous to the authenticity of a painting as having demonstrably been carried out by the attributed painter). It is doubtful whether using parents, siblings, social workers, teachers, nurses or others, to pass on the childs views rather than asking the child directly can be justified. On occasion, intermediaries may be needed to convey the childs views. There is a distinction between intermediaries (sometimes termed facilitators) whose role is to convey the childs views and proxies who speak for the child. In practice, the roles elide. The use of proxies, particularly in relation to children with learning disabilities, has generated considerable controversy. For example, doubts have been raised about the extent to which proxies report fairly the views of those they purport to represent. Clegg (2003) concludes that the ideal proxy needs to maintain the difficult balance between imaginative fusion and reflective separation (2003: 4). Her phrase captures the need for the proxy to not only stand where the child is (metaphorically) but also to interpret that position to a wider world.
Ware (in press), in her discussion of this issue, argues that inferences based on observation of the childs behaviour may be more useful than directly elicited responses. Although Ware has in mind children who show profound and multiple learning difficulties, her point may apply equally well to young, non-disabled children. Observation of young children is a well-established approach in the developmental literature, but features in a minority of papers reviewed concerning accessing childrens views (e.g. Clark and Moss, 2001). Consequently we have not addressed this explicitly within our review of methods (section 5.2).
An integral principle of child-centred research is that a childs language is different from an adults language. Baumann (1997) suggests that the process of understanding children should be considered a task of translation or interpretation, in which the requirement is to be faithful to the original meaning. However, DeVellis (1991); Waksler (1991) and Alderson and Goodey (1996) all note that the process is more than translation, suggesting reflexivity is also essential in listening to the narrative and subsequently interpreting childrens voices. Thus, the distance between the translation and the original requires a compromise which is worked out in the to and fro of dialogue.
Consequently, there is a need to ensure mutual comprehension between the adult researcher and the childs language. Beresford (1997) suggests adopting the childs language whereas other authors stress the child may view this approach with suspicion (Christensen and James, 2000). Simplicity would seem fundamental. The questions need to be concise and clear (McGurk and Glachan, 1988; Mahon et al, 1996) and the language used appropriate for the cognitive capacity of that group (Faux, 1988; Alderson and Goodey, 1996). Whilst Moston (1987) purported that childrens first responses should be accepted, Alderson and Goodey (1996) noted that researchers need to explore the meanings which children give to specific words. De Vellis (1991) also reminds researchers that any language used by participants must be considered in the context of cultural diversity. Furthermore, an operational understanding of the childs linguistic identity such as dialect and associated group language (such as the language used by adolescents) is required. Ignoring such issues is likely to impede the ability to understand identity and distinct sub-groups.
5.1.2 Credibility
A related idea, credibility, refers to the extent to which it is believable that a response has come from the child. So a child may appear to put forward genuinely a particular viewpoint and yet that response may lack credibility i.e. it is felt that the child is, for example, echoing what she has been told by an adult. The concept of credibility is very close to notions of face validity and tends to be used by researchers working with interpretative research designs and methods.
5.1.3 Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness, or reliability, encompasses the idea that the childs input/ response is representative, or a fair reflection, of what the child believes. The idea that children can be trusted to give (and, presumably, even more strongly- to obtain) reliable evidence has often been challenged. For example, less than 20 years ago Heydon, an English lawyer, voiced considerable scepticism: First, a childs powers of observation are less reliable than an adults. Second, children are prone to live in a make believe world Thirdly, they are also very egocentricFourthly because of their immaturity they are very suggestible... A fifth danger is that children often have little notion of the duty to speak the truth. Finally children sometimes behave in a way evil beyond their years (1984: 84). In contrast to this perspective, recent work (e.g. Johnson, 2002) takes childrens evidence sufficiently seriously to warrant micro-analysis of particular elements (e.g. So- utterances) leading her to conclude that institutional context has a more powerful effect than interviewer style on the properties of talk.
Many contextual factors are likely to affect the trustworthiness of childrens input/responses (e.g. the relationship between interviewer and interviewee, the setting for the interview; see Christensen and James, 2000 for review and section 4 above). Further, childrens cognitive capabilities interact with their memory and emotions (Dockrell, 2000) thus while in one situation a child may play down their views, in another situation they may exaggerate them.
5.2 Overview of possible methods
There exists an abundance of publications and grey literature highlighting the many diverse methods for use in child-centred research. Some of the techniques are complex, use a multiplicity and are highly technical whilst others are uncomplicated and reflexive. A range are reviewed here.
5.2.1 Interviews Individual and focus groups
By far the most favoured technique both historically and current is the use of interviews. Indeed, many writers have offered guidance on a range of interviews, including one to one, family and group interviews (see Alderson, 1993; Steward et al, 1993; Mahon and Glendinning, 1996; Faux et al, 1988; Coyne, 1998; Thomas and OKane, 1998; Lewis and Lindsay, 2000; Sartain et al, 2000; Miller, 2000; Hibbert 2002; Kortesluoma et al, 2003; Callery et al, 2003). General contextual issues are firstly explored followed by specific notes about one to one and group interviews.
Although interviews require well-developed communication skills, they are potentially very effective in giving children a voice. Hill et al (1996) considered interviews to be the most economical form of data collection in child-centred research. A basic requirement is that the researcher is genuinely interested in the response. Therefore, interview schedules should be well-planned to ensure that open-ended questions are used as much as possible (Moston, 1990; Dockrell, 2000). Clearly, questions may need re-phrasing if words are unfamiliar, and linguistic and/ or cognitive skills limited. Careful piloting is likely to help the interviewer to anticipate appropriate re-phrasings (Faux et al, 1988; Saywitz and Snyder, 1993). This applies to both adult and child interviewers.
Our earlier review about the full information of participants (section 4) is also relevant here. In order to encourage rich responses from children, Hill et al (1996) recommend that they are given full information about the focus and purpose of the interview beforehand. Children, especially those of school age, may take part to please the adult researcher or alternatively may do so purely through enjoyment of the attention and/or novelty of the occasion (Alderson, 1993; Faux et al, 1988; Gunther, 1991).
Thomas and OKane (1998), who used a combination of individual and small group interviews, suggest offering the child choice about how the interview is to be set up. For example, children may prefer to participate with others in the same situation and so prefer a focus group interview. Alternatively they may not wish to disclose information regarded as personal to them and therefore prefer an individual, one-to-one interview.
During the interview process, Lewis (2004) has summarised points for good practice in questioning technique when exploring childrens views during the interview process, particularly with the chronologically or developmentally young. These points, drawing on research-based evidence from the developmental and cognitive psychology literature about forensic interviewing of young children include:
Encouraging dont know responses
Encouraging requests for clarification
Using statements rather than questions
Avoiding repeat questions
Avoiding yes/no alternatives
Aiming for an uninterrupted narrative
The implications of these suggestions, for children as researchers (e.g. as interviewers), is an unexplored area, which warrants attention as children increasingly become participants in all stages of the research process.
Interestingly, Johnson et al (1998) suggest that one of the biggest problems faced by researchers is keeping the momentum going and not losing the childs attention. Therefore, a further consideration for researchers is the use of distraction strategies in order to help facilitate the data collection. Doherty and Sandelowski (1999) suggest the strategy of offering props to stimulate recall but also to provide a distraction. Alternatively, Milne and Bull (2001) note that one way to counter the dangers of recurrent and over-specific prompting, as well as possibly inadvertent misinformation, is to endeavour to set up the interview context in a way which prompts an uninterrupted narrative.
Individual interviews
Many writers appear to use one-to-one interviews successfully, but frequently we found that the research accounts focused on findings rather than methods; a point also noted by Lewis and Lindsay (2000). There are conflicting views about the suitability of structured interviews with young children. Mahon and Glendinning (1996) suggest that one to one interviews are most effective with older children, particularly when exploring the biography and autobiography. However, Amato & Orhiltree (1987) gained rich and informative responses from 8-9 year olds as well as from 15-16 year olds. Similarly, Miller (2000) used individual interviews effectively with children aged 7-12 years of age to elicit their experience of Diabetes Mellitus.
It is worth noting that some authors suggest that it is useful to cross-check individual interviews using other methods such as group interviews or use of art techniques (Thomas and O'Kane, 1998; Coad 2002).
Small group interviews
The group interview is described as a discussion with a purpose that can take many forms. Clear guidance about setting these up with children is given in Lewis (1992); Horner (2000) and Morgan et al (2002). Advice includes reference to setting up the room, group support, peer influence, strategies to encourage participation, payments to children, balancing the power relationships and sustaining the interview.
Number and composition of the group is important. Hill et al (1996) elicited views using groups of up to six children and Lewis and Lindsay (2000) suggest four children in a group, while Mauthner (1997) felt that three, was the optimum group size to avoid distractions. Gender is yet another important consideration. Single sex groups can be more successful than mixed groups in which boys may dominate at certain ages (Morgan, 1986; Mauthner, 1997; Warren, 2000). Horner (2000) also notes that differences in ages of group members can create an imbalance with the older or younger children dominating or, worse still, being excluded
In summary, advantages of group interviews with children include the potential for eliciting a greater number and broader range of responses, a less intimidating context than in individual interviews; and the value of debate between participants in clarifying understanding and generating new ideas. On the other hand, if not carefully planned and experienced interviewers used, group interviews may be disastrous. Children may feel too inhibited to speak (especially if dominant individuals are allowed to take over) or be exposed to ridicule (Balen et al, 2000; Ring, 2000; 2003).
5.2.2 Questionnaires
Questionnaires and survey designs are commonly used in research, but involves skills such as reading and writing. Consequently, Barker and Weller (2003: 48) contend that children have largely been rendered invisible in most large scale quantitative research, that is, they have been excluded from participating in such approaches However, the review found several positive examples of questionnaires with children, including questionnaires designed by children (see Solberg, 1996; Miller, 1999; Oakley, 2000; Scott, 2000; Dockerell et al, 2000; Walker et al, 2002; Barker and Weller, 2003; Carney et al, 2003; Sheffield Childrens Fund, 2003). Morrow and Richards (1996) suggest using questionnaires with other data collection techniques and that, through data triangulation, validity of the project findings may be improved. However, different methods are likely to be eliciting different information and so are complementary rather than providing a validity check on other methods (see above for a similar point re interviews).
Lewis and Lindsay (2000: 194) note that the use of questionnaires with children seems to have received little attention in methodology texts. This review supports that conclusion as, 4 years on, we found very limited critical reviews about the methodology of the use of research questionnaires by, and with, children (see Scott (2000) for an exception). Balen et al (2000) note that questionnaires may be most effective with older children and adolescents. Carney et al (2003) evaluated several different types of questionnaire response formats with children. They concluded that a verbal structured questionnaire (compared with verbal unstructured, visual structured and visual unstructured) was the most effective tool in engaging children.
5.2.3 Observation
Observational techniques have been used widely in child psychology and several articles drew on research methods derived from that field. In some work they have been used as a single technique with a group of children (Takai, 2004) whilst in other work they have been included amongst multiple methods (Davies, 1989; Warren, 2000). Observational methods can be classified along several dimensions (degree of observers participation, overt or covert nature of the observation and degree of structure imposed on the setting). In the present context overt, participant, unstructured observation is the usual approach taken.
Corsaro and Molinari (2000), in a study about childrens transition from pre-school to elementary school in Modena, Italy, provide a rich account of how the field is entered and how this approach to observation was carried out. They note that one of the crucial elements of participant observation is the field entry; in this case, dealing with the gatekeepers who were the teachers. Corsaro and Molinari (2000) report that initially the teachers teased the researcher about his limited use of Italian (the researcher was American and had limited command of English). Consequently, in order to achieve acceptance the researcher not only had to become part of the childrens group (undertaking and being drawn into all the childrens activities including meal breaks) but also had to overcome other challenges like the language. Consequently, Corsaro and Molinari (2000) suggest that these experiences had an impact on the observations and serve to highlight the challenging and time consuming nature of participant observation. A further potential problem, also noted by Warren (2000), is that participant observation may require a taxing dual role of the researcher. They may be both an insider where closeness and depth of recording observations is required, but at the same time take a position of outsider when distance and impartiality are needed.
5.2.4 Mapping
Many of the methods commonly used in research, which tries to engage children in research are visual techniques. Children, including those who are not literate can use such techniques. They can, therefore, provide child-centred structure to enable children to describe their environments (Mauthner, 1997).
Save the Children (2000) suggest a mapping exercise can be a small-scale model or full size simulation and commonly used for the participants interpretations and explanations. Clark and Moss (2001) found mapping useful with young children (under 5 years) who first took photographs, reviewed them and then made maps to illustrate how they viewed their environment. Findings highlighted their fascination with rooms they were allowed in, rooms they were not allowed in, rooms where favourite activities occurred and rooms where favourite people worked. The work was supported with audiotapes of the map making sessions and conveyed valuable insights into their worlds. Similar techniques have been used with children and young people with learning difficulties and have wide applicability.
Other forms of mapping are concept maps, first used as a tool to assist learners in building their own understanding (Novak and Gowin, 1984). Mavers (2001) used concept mapping in 60 schools, in an innovative project commissioned by the DFES/Becta to gain an insight into primary and secondary school pupils thinking about Computers in My World. Following standardised instructions about the task (aiming to reveal understanding about networked technologies on educational attainment), pupils had just 20 minutes to draw concept maps on paper. Over 3,000 concept maps were submitted in total (June 2000 and June 2001) which were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively.
A different type of mapping is visual grids. Thomas and OKane (1999) used three stages each with its own participatory technique. At the first stage they invited children to set up their own decision-making chart with two axes on a large sheet of paper: what sort of decisions was the top axis and what people was the side axis. The grid was useful as it not only facilitated the childrens decision-making but it enabled the researchers to explore what the child saw as important decisions. This method draws attention to how children are able to clearly voice their issues given the opportunity to do so. A development of this approach utilises a diamond pattern in which children can place cards e.g. representing people or events, significant for them, in an array ranging in importance on both horizontal and vertical axes. These types of approach have strong intuitive appeal and considerable potential (particularly with children who lack speech or language skills) but they lack systematic evaluation.
5.2.5 Drawing and posters
Drawing techniques have also been used with variable success (Pridmore and Bendelow, 1995; Action for Sick Children, 1998; Punch, 2002; Ring, 2000; 2003; Barker and Weller, 2003; Sheffield Childrens Trust, 2003; Coates 2004). What was interesting to note is that we found that drawings and poster making were rarely used in isolation. Instead, they were frequently used to support other data collection techniques. Punch (2002) used drawings in an exploratory study to discover what children considered to be important aspects of their lives. The researchers concluded that drawings were a valuable technique in encouraging children to participate in research. Hill et al (1996) suggest that young children and pre-adolescents may find it difficult to convey feelings verbally so drawing is an opportunity to express fears, feelings, sensitive issues and fun through drawing and painting. Other authors have used drawings for warm up exercises (see section 3), fill-in activities during the methods and at the end whilst waiting for others to finish (Boyden and Ennew 1997).
Several writers refer to children producing what is expected, such as drawing a stylised apple to represent healthy eating). So caution is needed in order to avoid over-interpreting data derived from drawings. The dangers of this are demonstrated well in experimental work by Thomas and Silk (1990). Hart (1992), in a useful overview of visual techniques, suggests that researchers may discuss the apparent meaning although the drawing may actually mean very little to the child. There are several problems with this approach. Firstly, this implies the adult researcher is collecting data from the child (seeking information as opposed to participatory techniques) and secondly the adult researcher is not a child and so may find it difficult (even impossible) to find meaning in the drawing.
To overcome such problems, Pridmore and Bendelow (1995) and Bendelow et al (1996) identified ways of understanding how supplementary techniques, such as draw and write techniques that might be effectively used in conjunction with drawings. In this technique, once the drawing is complete the researcher can spend time with the child or children discussing the drawing and adding written labels or cards to highlight meanings.
Kirby (1999) refers to a range of visual techniques including the asking children to design an idea (such as a youth centre, as in Curd and YARD 1998) to be submitted on a poster (to be later analysed by the research team). Others have used the creation of posters as an integral part of an event, which aimed to develop and child-friendly techniques, that could be used to ascertain children and young peoples views in measuring a quality service (Coad et al, 2004 in press).
5.2.6 Photographs and/video
This type of method allows children, equipped with cameras, to make a film of their lives or their worlds as they see them. Faulkner (1998) allowed the children to evolve into reporters and through the experience were empowered to produce, direct, film and act and finally edit their own films. Cameras can be used in a similar way by children with learning difficulties (Germain, in press) also used to support a Talking Mats approach (Brewster, in press).
Photographs have also been used to highlight issues that were important to the child. Johnson (2003) used photos with a group of Australian school-aged children to help them to communicate what they liked about their schools (the colour, entrance door, playground) and what they did not like (the alleyways, rubbish). Miller (1996) asked children as young as 3 to 8 years old to take photographs of things important to them in their community for local councillors to review. As a consequence of their report, complete with their spelling mistakes, a new playground was planned.
Additionally, in an unusual study, Miller (1998) used the designing of videos to support young people in saying what life was like for them in their village. The video entitled No Fun in Bilsthorpe highlighted community issues including vandalism and crime, thus producing an important record of these young peoples worlds (Miller, 1998).
5.2.7 Role play, drama and story telling
Save the Children (2000) suggest that children may find it easier to communicate through drama and oral techniques such as role play, story telling, drama, puppets and music making rather than answering direct questions (verbally or in writing). Role-play includes individual or group mimes as well as child-centred plays (preferably written by the children). Alternatively, story telling has a long history of entertaining children but more recently used as a research technique to effectively develop rapport and identify relevant thematic findings. (Clark and Moss, 2001; Christensen and James, 2003; Coad et al, 2004 in press). However, some children may find this type of research challenging if they do not want to perform or have the required cognitive listening abilities. Whilst there are limited critical reviews of such approaches, what would seem indicated is that the facilitator must have well-developed skills in order for quality evidence to be collated.
5.2.8 Journals and diaries
Many participatory techniques will employ supplementary techniques (Christensen and James, 2000). Where children are literate and able this is useful. However, Save the Children (2000) note that children do not have to be expert writers as they can list, fill in forms or complete a questionnaire with adult help. Writing letters and devising poetry has been used with a degree of success although again much depends on the childs reading and writing abilities (Save the Children, 2000).
5.2.9 Information and Communications Technology (ICT) -linked
Information Communications Technology (ICT) is providing new vehicles for engaging children in research. For example; Gettings and Gladstone (2001) reported the use of PowerPoint as a stimulus to child researchers interviewing other children. They also used computer-based questionnaires to attempt to gain the perceptions of a group of students, post 16 years, with severe learning difficulties about the role and value of collaborating within the Young Enterprise Scheme. They reflected that eliciting the views of a heterogeneous group of students with severe learning difficulties was complex and fraught with difficulties; procedural, methodological and ethical. However, ICT was used in order to attempt to meaningfully gain the views of those students for whom paper-based questionnaires were not accessible. The student group were involved in the design of the questionnaires and photo, pictorial, symbol and sound cues were used to support access to the questionnaire as well as a variety of switch access modes. Whilst Gettings and Gladstone (2001) note that obtaining valid and reliable views is problematic and multi-methods were also used, they conclude that this technique enabled the children to engage and views were collated effectively.
As Gettings and Gladstone (2001) illustrate, the internet provides a possible forum for web-based questionnaires and on line interviews. Both are relatively new and as yet largely untested approaches as far as engaging children is concerned. These approaches have the potential to make a useful supplement to the more conventional techniques discussed above. As children tend to be avid ICT users these may have strong motivational aspects in comparison with conventional methods. We also might expect to see a growing methodological literature in relation to childrens involvement as co-researchers in web-based approaches. This would parallel texts concerning web-based data collection involving adult participants (e.g. Hewson, 2003). In due course, the web context may generate unique situations for children as co-researchers; for example, their status and identity as children could be masked and fluid, enabling age-free identities to be explored.
6. CHILDREN AS RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS: ANALYSES AND DISSEMINATION
6.1. Introduction
Whereas, as noted earlier, there is a strong and growing body of work about child-centred approaches to research, we found very little material that related explicitly to how traditional power relationships are broken down and how childrens roles may develop as researchers, with respect to the analysis and dissemination of evidence (see section 1.2). For example, Greig and Taylors (1999) text on research with children appeared to suggest that all data analyses and dissemination would be conducted by an adult researcher. One explanation for that omission may be the date of the book as ideas in this field have changed very rapidly in recent years. These topics raise a number of pressing questions.
6.2. Children as data analysts?
The first consideration in children being data analysts, is to what extent, would like to be involved in the process of analysis. For example children may decide to fully opt in, opt in for a small involvement or totally opt out of the analysis. Another suggestion offered is that adults undertake the analysis and allow children to verify the findings (Kirby, 1999). Deatrick and Faux (1991) support this, suggesting that if the project is thorough during the planning and data collection processes, then it should follow that the researcher will be a competent interpreter of the childs world. In this way, verification strategies are built in after analysis has taken place by the adult researcher. However, Mayall (1996; 2000) found that, when undertaking such a procedure, a time lapse of one year had taken place from the time of data collection to verification of the analysis. A concern then was that childrens views may have altered over that time span.
Such issues are clearly contentious, and not easily resolved by the literature. Punch (2002) provides a useful, but alternative view, in which she suggests that, in relation to analysis, children should be seen as positioned along a continuum which moves back and forth according to individual needs and desires. Although her discussion paper is largely descriptive it would be useful to test out the approach during the data analysis stage of a project. It is clear from the literature that a decision needs to be made at the research planning stage about childrens level of involvement in analysis (Kirby, 1999; Christensen and James, 2000).
Second, who should undertake the process of interpreting data i.e. should this be the child or the adult researcher? In many of the projects reviewed, the adult researcher had interpreted the findings (Wigglesworth, 1997; Sartain and Clarke, 2000; Miller, 2000). This was due in part to the approach taken in which the adult researcher took the lead role, sometimes as a result of the (perceived) limitations in the skills and cognitive abilities of the children. This appears to be a feasible and realistic approach but one where the position overlooks the growing recognition that adults and children inhabit different cultural worlds (McGurk and Glachan, 1988; Fine and Sandstrom, 1988; Alderson, 2000 and Kirby, 1999). Thus, a small number of researchers (e.g. West, 1996a; 1996b; Shelton 2004) argue that children do have the cognitive understanding and skills to undertake analysis of data, and indeed, if research is to represent their views should be given the training and support.
Third, are there certain approaches that lend themselves to analyses by child co-researchers? Wigglesworth (1997) notes that the ability to organise a narrative appears to be age linked. However, Kirby (1999) does not enter in to such debate, illustrating how children may code and categorise data. Kirby (1999) notes that in the case of quantitative data it may be coded by children on to coding sheets which are clear and designed simply for data input whilst for qualitative data it can be coded by children using a line by line reading of transcripts.
A series of studies by one author outlined a fully participatory model of children undertaking their own data analysis (West 1996a; 1996b). West (1996a; 1996b) invited children to be involved in the process of analysis and subsequent write up of the report. Building on this work, Shelton (2004) used similar processes whereby children were solely responsible for the analysis and write up of their findings. West (1996a; 1996b) notes that whilst support and training are required, the benefits of children researching and speaking for themselves outweighs the challenges that this may bring. Other authors, such as Ward (1997), sought a compromise whereby the young people who were research participants commented on reports at an early stage. The question for researchers remains: how much should adult researchers be involved in the analysis of data if childrens voices are to be heard?
6.3. Dissemination and impact
Dissemination is crucial in achieving any impact from research. The growing involvement of children in the policy-making arena (see section 2.1) is providing various forums in which children are developing skills of being active disseminators. Indeed, we found that related web sites (see 2.1) provided illustrations of materials produced by children to disseminate collective or individual views of research. It is worth noting that some of the points made in the previous section apply also in relation to children, as co-researchers, in the dissemination process. However, there are essential, general considerations surrounding this issue, some of which include:
Who is the audience?
What is your message?
What is the most effective way to get your message across?
When is it most likely to have impact and for what purpose?
Specific issues will be elaborated upon. It is noted that research undertaken by children may have a novelty value given the current user-involvement climate (Kirby 1999). In the potential distribution lists, publications, press releases, presentations and/or media interviews such innovation may be subsequently viewed as a strength. Children have been involved in dissemination both to peers and to adults. There are interesting examples (West, 1996a; 1996b; 1997; Kirby, 1999) of childrens involvement in dissemination; techniques include presentations, web sites, newsletters and interviews in local media. These activities can include children with learning difficulties (Beresford, 1997; Morris, 1998; 2003). Importantly, some concerns have been voiced about the possible exploitation of children in these contexts. Allard (1996) notes that children may feel that placing them in situations like conferences and/or meetings may be embarrassing or indeed counter-productive. Therefore, careful dissemination processes require solid, detailed planning and discussion. Furthermore, as Stafford et al (2003) note that following consultation with children, any information to be disseminated should also be agreed using a similar child-centred approach.
There is also a quality issue related to dissemination. Many authors purport that children have a voice and can produce good quality research for wide dissemination given the support required (Save the Children, 2003). One example is Shelton (2004), who developed training sessions and new models of working in order to ensure children disseminated their own work, in their own words. Thus, models of good practice can only emerge through experience. Some professionals, however, question the validity of the research undertaken and note that subsequent impact may be lost (Lewis and Lindsay, 2000).
In addition, involving children in the dissemination of research can have impact on professionals, both those involved in the project and the readers, making them more aware of childrens lives (Morrow, 2001a; 2001b). Involving local and national professionals throughout the project may help the commitment to the agenda. This is particularly relevant to those who will have to act upon the findings and recommendations of the project, so in turn fuelling the change agenda (Stafford et al, 2003).
The alternative of the dissemination by children of findings, is researchers dissemination of results to child participants. This is now recognised good practice in research involving children as participants and reflects the ethic of involvement. Increasingly, such feedback is adapted for a level suitable to young children or to children with special needs and/or learning difficulties. Such approaches reflect a logical progression from the careful introduction of the research questions to child participants even when they may have severe learning difficulties or severe autistic disorders (Tozer and Beresford, 2002). Dissemination to children with special needs may require appropriate costings (e.g. for braille translations) to be written into proposals and such costs recognised by funding bodies.
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, this review used a systematic approach to highlight some issues found in the growing literature on engaging children and young people in research. We thus hope that the review is not only a useful background resource for the NECF team and colleagues in the relevant fields, but will also help to inform subsequent participatory research with children and young people.
Throughout the review, we have aimed through the numerous examples to draw attention to children and young people being participants in a variety of ways in research projects. We have stressed that children are a primary source about their own views and experiences and must be therefore listened to. However, as outlined in the review, engaging children in research raises particular challenges and concerns. Thus, there is a need to carefully consider such issues if research with children and young people is to be taken seriously.
Appendix 1
The review process
The processes embodied in meta analyses and systematic reviews have been widely critiqued in recent years as government agencies, in particular, have been drawn to such approaches as guides to policy-making (e.g. Altman and Chalmers, 2001). The use of such reviews as bases for policy decisions reflects wider issues about the relationships between the academy and government, sadly beyond the scope of this review.
Criticisms of the medically-oriented Cochrane reviews, and many of the similarly narrow although socially-oriented Campbell collaboration reviews, have centred on the nature of evidence excluded. Those approaches privilege a particular type of evidence, obscure the processes of combining/balancing contrasting sources and offer false promises about simplistic evidence-practice links (Hammersley 2001). In response to such critiques, other systematic reviews in social policy have tended to adopt a less narrow and less rigid approach. We took this latter orientation and thus included a broad spectrum of papers encompassing quasi experimental designs, ethnographic research, case study, surveys, practitioner accounts, critiques and opinion pieces. This inevitably generated a vast array of material from our first search (see Appendix 2). This work identified approximately 4000 publications and grey literature pertinent to exploring the views of children and young people spanning social policy, education, health and psychology.
The review process is now described here in full. It comprised two phases, the first of these phases consisted of three distinct elements.
1.2.1. Phase 1
The first part of Phase 1 involved successive searching and refining of relevant material. This procedure paralleled established approaches taken in major systematic reviews (e.g. CRD 2001, ScHARR 1996) and EPPI (2003). (See http://www.campbellcollaboration.org and http://www.cochrane.org for a range of such reviews as well as links to methodological papers; for example, comparing hand with electronic searches as the basis for systematic reviews; and the use of grey literature.)
Relevant research reports and articles were located through systematic searches of electronic databases and libraries. Systematic searches focused on 1990 onwards; the results of these searches were supplemented with a small number of seminal papers known through our prior knowledge of the field. Search terms included terms from the fields of health, education, social policy and psychology. These processes generated source material in English, which was predominantly from the United Kingdom (UK).
The following electronic databases were searched recurrently (two to three occasions per search engine between early September and November, 2003):
British Education Index
Cochrane/York databases
Campbell collaboration databases
Cumulative Index Nursing and Health Literature (CINAHL)
Embase
ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center).
Medline
PsychLit
Given the potential breadth of the review, alongside time and wordage constraints, existing reviews were used in relation to four sets of work:
(i) cognitive and socio-emotional development of children across early and middle childhood
(ii) the psychology of questioning techniques with children
(iii) data collection and analysis frameworks used with children
(iv) epistemologies of research
Key texts for the respective fields are shown in Table A.
Table A: Secondary reviews used
Cognitive and socio-emotional development of children across early and middle childhood
Wood, 1998
Berk, 2003
The psychology of questioning techniques with children
Ceci and Bruck, 1995
Walker, 1999
Zaragoza, 1995
Data collection and analysis frameworks used with children
Robson, 2002
Sapsford and Jupp, 1996
Silverman, 1993
Epistemologies of research
Oakley, 2000
Pring, 2000
Denzin and Lincoln, 1998
The second element of Phase 1 focused on searching key journals and publications to identify relevant sources. Related, important publications were located such as the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI). This publication appraises 59 reports provided to CHI by both statutory and voluntary organisations in which childrens and young peoples views have been sought (Boylan 2004). In addition, relevant literature known to us through our previous work in the field but not otherwise located was included in the set of material reviewed (see appendix 2). These approaches enabled a stronger set of non-UK literature to be included.
The third element of Phase 1 involved contacting key workers in the field of child-centred research for their own, and other, key publications (including material in press, see Appendix 2). Contacts included:
a range of academics (from the Universities of Sheffield, Stirling and Warwick),
personnel from voluntary bodies known for their work in this field (Action for Sick Children, Barnardo's, National Childrens Bureau, Save the Children, NCH)
multi-professional contacts specialising in this topic and identified by reputation and
NECF team members.
Process of collating Phase 1 material and some observations about the process
Endnote was used to collate, summarise, categorise, store and retrieve the output from the searches described above. The list of material generated by the searches was converted to a Word document (see Appendix 2).
The multi-professional and cross-disciplinary nature of the field generated a vast number of relevant sources and we amassed over 300 references including published and grey literature. This enabled us to identify key theorists and researchers in the field. The extensive pool of relevant material masks considerable similarities across sub-disciplines and professional groups as well as, however, points of significant difference (particularly concerning ethical guidelines).
Interestingly, our impression was of researchers and writers still working predominantly within their own spheres in terms of documents cited, leading to extensive but parallel material. Consequently material, unusually, referenced across these boundaries (e.g. Alderson and Morrow, 1995; Christensen and James, 2000; Lewis and Lindsay, 2000) is likely to have been important in spanning professional or academic groups and hence we tend to make strong use of these boundary-crossing references.
1.2.2Phase 2
A very small minority of apparently peripheral references collated through phase 1 were discarded at this stage (resulting in the list given in Appendix 2).
The remaining references (Appendix 2) were reviewed to produce a more focused sub-set of source material, to be used in depth in the review (Appendix 3). Judgements were made on the basis of relevance of each article to the reviews focus (see 1.1) and was initially carried out from information such as the title, abstract and keywords and our knowledge of the field. More specifically (following ScHARR 1996) papers included in the in-depth sub-set reflected:
prominence within the field
relevance to the reviews focus
strengths and clarity of methodology
strengths and clarity of methods
The end result of this process meant that brief details of a range of papers could be accessed quickly.
The main constraints of the review process were time (the whole process to be completed between September 2003 and January 2004, extended to March 2004) and wordage. Missing data was also a common problem in the review process (ScHARR 1996). Therefore, if the information required was not available from one source we attempted to find alternative sources. We found that many articles were summaries of much larger reports of studies and these often contained the information that we required.
Appendix 2
Bibliography
Action for Sick Children (1998) Pictures of Healthcare. A childs eye view. Action for Sick Children, London
Alanen, L. and Mayall, B. (2001). Conceptualising child-adult relationships. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Alderson, P. (1993). Children's Consent to Surgery. Buckingham: Open University.
Alderson, P., Goodey C. (1996).Research with disabled children: how useful are child-centred ethics. Children and Society 10, 106 -116.
Alderson, P. (1995). Listening to Children: Children, Ethics and Social Research. Barkingside: Barnardos.
Alderson, P. (1999). Disturbed young people: research for what, research for whom? In S. Hood and B. Mayall and S. Oliver (Eds.), Critical Issues in Social Research. (pp. 54-67). Chichester: Wiley.
Alderson, P. (2000) Children as Researchers The effects of Participation Rights on Research Methodology, in P.Christensen and A. James, Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices, London: Falmer Press, 241-257.
Alderson, P. (2000). Save the Children Young Childrens Rights, London: Jessica Kingsley
Alderson, P. and Morrow, G. (in press). Ethics, social research and consulting with
children and young people. London: Barnardo's.
Aldridge, M. and Wood, J. (1998). Interviewing Children: A guide for child care and forensic practitioners. Chichester: Wiley.
Aldridge, J. (2003) Children caring for parents with mental illness : perspectives of
young carers. Bristol: Policy Press
Alldred, P. (1998). Dilemmas in Representing the Voic