BLOG: Reflexivity is key throughout the research process. Here are some questions to get started.
Blogpost by: Dr. Francesca Vaghi, Research Associate at the School of Social & Political Science at the University of Glasgow, in Glasgow, UK, and visiting scholar at the Centre for Research on Discretion and Paternalism (DIPA) in April 2024.
Assessing the practical and ethical questions concerning primary data collection is a key stage of the research process and is additionally important when carrying out research with children and young people. An ample body of scholarly literature and advice exists to help researchers navigate the many ethical dimensions of doing this work (see the ‘Suggested Reading’ section at the end of this blog piece). Below, I present three general questions to consider before embarking on a new project to help ensure that research is done with, and not on, children. This means recognising that children have agency and are “subjects rather than objects of research.”1Thus, they are active contributors to and participants in the research process.
What do we mean by ‘the voice of the child’?
Thanks to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), we have access to an internationally agreed-upon framework that stipulates children and young people’s rights to be heard and to participate (Article 12, respect for the views of the child, and Article 13, freedom of expression). We often thus talk about ‘the voice of the child’ in research, and what this tends to evoke is a normative image of ‘the child’ who can easily communicate verbally or in writing. However, this excludes a large proportion of children and young people: those who might be non-verbal due to age or disability, those who may prefer other forms of communication (such as drawings or story-boarding2), those who may find it difficult to express themselves due to adverse experiences (such as neglect or abuse), or those who may not be able to access formal participation forums, such as school student councils or government consultations. It is fundamental that researchers develop a comprehensive enough methodological toolkit that will allow for this diversity of ‘voices’ to be captured.
It is fundamental that researchers develop a comprehensive enough methodological toolkit that will allow for this diversity of ‘voices’ to be captured.
Dr. Francesca Vaghi
This can include creative methods, such as drawings, collages, role-play, assistive technologies, or ethnographic methods. In-person participation also tends to be favoured over online engagement. However, in a recently published paper by Liliana Arias-Urueña and myself,3 we found that offering children and young people opportunities to participate in research online can increase the avenues available to them to share their views and experiences. Moreover, it can foster their agency and independence and can also help researchers involve participants who may be excluded from research due to being in remote locations or because of health conditions.
Of course, no approach is perfect, and all methods will have limitations. For example, the online study mentioned above would be very restricting in places where an internet connection is not easily accessible. Considering shortcomings and developing a wide range of options can help researchers elicit ‘the voice of the child’ in as inclusive a manner as possible.
Should research with children and young people be ‘fun’?
It is a common misconception that research with children should be ‘fun’. However, this notion risks undermining children’s modes of engaging, framing research methods simply as amusing activities. As suggested above, methods should be varied to allow for a diversity of views and experiences to be captured, and, needless to say, research should not cause harm or distress to participants; as such, methods should be accessible and comfortable to all. Within this flexible approach, some research activities might indeed be considered ‘fun’. Yet, even when that is the case, we need to regard the products of research activities as serious and accurate representations of participants’ views.
Equally, we should not assume children and young people do not understand the ‘adult’ issues around them, which we often try to investigate as researchers. For example, O’Connell and colleagues (2019) have demonstrated that children and young people experiencing food poverty understand the financial pressures their parents face, even when adults try to hide this situation from them. Assuming that young participants do not have an awareness of ‘adult problems’ and not asking their views about these for fear of bringing up ‘difficult’ topics means we will miss on knowing their perspectives.
Assuming that young participants do not have an awareness of ‘adult problems’ and not asking their views about these for fear of bringing up ‘difficult’ topics means we will miss on knowing their perspectives.
Dr. Francesca Vaghi
What counts as ‘evidence’ when reporting research findings?
Research with children and on childhood is often policy-relevant, which calls for findings to be presented as particular kinds of ‘evidence’ to inform calls to action. Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to think that research with young participants can always be collected in formats immediately intelligible to academic or policy audiences. Our work as researchers is thus to contextualise and interpret research materials within the wider debates we contribute to.
Our work as researchers is thus to contextualise and interpret research materials within the wider debates we contribute to.
Dr. Francesca Vaghi
I found this in my own work on children’s eating practices in the early years.4 Relying heavily on creative and visual methods, what children shared with me about what they found meaningful about food and mealtimes took the form of scribbles on paper plates or interactions in the ‘kitchen corner’ at school, not in clearly formulated statements I might be able to succinctly use in policy recommendations. Viewing children’s forms of expression as ‘idioms of childhood’,5 I was able to situate what children shared with me into a broader context and link these to policy-relevant discussions. Having an expansive understanding of ‘evidence’ can thus be another way to guarantee children’s participation, and to ensure that their views are taken into proper consideration.
Concluding remarks: Research with, not on, children
The guiding premise of this piece is the (now) commonly accepted view that children should be active participants in research that concerns them and not passive ‘objects’ of research. I hope the three questions explored in this brief text have helped readers reflect on how we can achieve this: our role as researchers is to facilitate participation and translate evidence. In asking ourselves what we mean by the ‘voice of the child’, we strive to expand the definition of ‘voice’ to include a range of forms of expression and provide a variety of routes for children and young people to be heard. Moving away from assumptions that research with young participants should be ‘fun’, we recognise that children have valid perspectives about and roles to play in their various social spheres, including that of the ‘adult world’. Finally, we can further legitimise participation by considering materials produced by children and young people in the research process as evidence that can be made intelligible to scholarly and policy audiences. This is no small task for researchers – yet, just because it might be difficult does not mean it should not be done.
This is no small task for researchers – yet, just because it might be difficult does not mean it should not be done.
Dr. Francesca Vaghi
Suggested Reading
Bagnoli, Anna. 2009. ‘Beyond the Standard Interview: The Use of Graphic Elicitation and Arts-Based Methods’. Qualitative Research, 9 (5): 547–70
Bailey, S., K. Boddy, S. Briscoe, and C. Morris. 2015. ‘Involving Disabled Children and Young People as Partners in Research: A Systematic Review.’ Child : Care, Health & Development, 41 (4): 505-514.
Clark, Alison and Peter Moss. 2017. Listening to Young Children: A Guide to Understanding and using the Mosaic Approach. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Morrow, Virginia and Martin Richards. 1996. ‘The Ethics of Social Research with Children: An Overview’. Children & Society, 10: 90–105.
O’Connell, Rebecca. 2013. ‘The Use of Visual Methods with Children in a Mixed Methods Study of Family Food Practices’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16 (1): 31–46.
Punch, Samantha. 2002. ‘RESEARCH WITH CHILDREN: The Same or Different from Research with Adults?’ Childhood, 9 (3)
Punch, Samantha. 2002. ‘Interviewing Strategies with Young People: The “Secret Box”, Stimulus Material and Task-Based Activities’. Children & Society, 16 (1): 45–56.
The Connectors Study – archive. Available on: https://childhoodpublics.org/projects/connectors/
Twum-Danso, Afua and Robert Kwame Ame. 2012. Childhoods at the Intersection of the Local and the Global. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Alderson, Priscilla. 2008. ‘Children as researchers: participation rights and research methods,’ in Christensen, Pia Monrad and Allison James. 2008. Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices. 2nd ed. London;New York, N.Y;: Routledge.
↩︎ - “Storyboards comprise sequences of drawings, each representing a camera shot, which filmmakers use to generate a visual outline. Within the social sciences, storyboarding is generally a stage in the process of community-based participatory video, although it has been used as a stand-alone method [and] resemble comics or graphic novels.” Ayrton, Rachel. 2020. ‘The Case for Creative, Visual and Multimodal Methods in Operationalising Concepts in Research Design: An Examination of Storyboarding Trust Stories.’ The Sociological Review (Keele) 68, (6): 1229-1249.
↩︎ - Arias-Urueña, Liliana and Francesca Vaghi. 2023. ‘Online Qualitative Research with Disabled Children and Young People in Scotland: A Reflection on its Advantages and Disadvantages, and how Limitations were Addressed.’ SSM. Qualitative Research in Health, 4: 100362.
↩︎ - Vaghi, Francesca. 2023. Food Policy and Practice in Early Childhood Education and Care: Children, Practitioners, and Parents in an English Nursery. London: Routledge.
↩︎ - Nolas, Sevasti-Melissa, Vinnarasan Aruldoss, and Christos Varvantakis. 2018. ‘Learning to Listen: Exploring the Idioms of Childhood’. Sociological Research Online, 24 (3): 1–20. ↩︎