participation, participatory research, methods and analysis · web viewcritical and postmodern...

Draft paper - please do not cite or quote without permission

The (im-)possibility of using participatory methods to access and represent young children's views

Heloise Maconochie - PhD StudentCentre for Education and Inclusion Research, Sheffield Hallam University

[email protected]

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 3-6 September 2008

Key Words: participatory methods, young children, competence, children's

views, representation, reflexivity.

Abstract: Research which seeks to gain an understanding of the views of

children under the age of five is still relatively uncommon. This may be due in

part to the assumption that issues of access and representation are more

problematic in research with young children than with older children or adults

because young children often do not rely on verbal or written forms of

communication. One response to this methodological problem has been the

development of ethnographic and participatory methods that recognise

children’s multi-modal communicative practices. This paper critically examines a

number of these methods but does so within a wider debate that addresses

notions of competence, children's 'views', representation and reflexivity. During

the course of the discussion I make the following propositions. Firstly, whilst I

recognise the difficulty of accessing and representing young children’s views, I

argue that we should question the assumption that research with young children

is intrinsically more problematic than any other research which seeks to include

the voice of the ‘Other’. Secondly, I argue that participatory methods may offer

the possibility of eliciting young children's situated and diverse perspectives,

however such methods are inevitably partial and inferential and therefore

researchers should be cautious in their claims to access young children's views.

Lastly, I suggest that it is impossible for the researcher to fully represent young

children's views and experiences as they are filtered through the author's

interpretation and research account. Such a realisation demands that the

1

mailto:[email protected]


researcher reject the idea of an essential, authentic representation of children's

views in favour of multi-faceted, reflexive re-presentations.

Introduction

The main focus of this paper is to consider the question: 'Is it possible to access

and represent young children's views?' Until recently, traditional approaches to

researching young children emanating from developmentalism and socialisation

theories were more interested in producing a universal picture of childhood than

in considering the question of how to access children's views. Within this

positivist orientation the tendency to conceptualize children as transitional

objects en route to becoming adults rather than as social beings possessing

views and standpoints has meant that adults rarely listen to children (Hendrick,

2000).

By contrast, work in the field of the 'new social studies of childhood' over the

last twenty years has enabled us to appreciate that children have specific views

on the social world that are worth listening to (Mayall, 1996; James and James,

2001; Alanen, 2001). The conceptualization of children as social agents and as

participants in the research process (James and Prout, 1990; Jenks, 1996;

James, et al., 1998; Woodhead and Faulkner, 2000) has spawned a mass of

studies that have sought to access children's views and allow children a more

direct voice in their representation. However, research which seeks to access

and represent the views of children aged five and younger is still rare (Hogan,

2005; Waller, 2006; Birbeck and Drummond, 2007). This may be due in part to

the assumption that methodological issues of access and representation are

more problematic in research with young children than with older children or

adults. Are babies, toddlers and young children competent enough to be able to

express a view? Is it possible to access the views of young children who may

not rely on verbal and written forms of communication? Is it possible for adults

to represent young children's views? One response to these methodological

questions has been the development of ethnographic and participatory methods

in research with young children. This paper critically examines a number of

2


these methods but does so within a wider debate that addresses notions of

competence, children's 'views', representation and reflexivity.

Children's Competence

Children as Incompetent

Perhaps one of the main reasons for why researchers have failed to listen to the

views of children under the age of five has been due to the adult assumption

that young children are not competent enough to express an opinion.

Traditionally research about children has tended to focus on individual

development as a natural progress towards adulthood. The hegemony of

developmental psychology and theories of socialization have viewed children as

passive objects of social, biological and psychological processes and structures

rather than as active agents (James and Prout, 1990). 'Ages and stages'

models of childhood, such as Piaget's (1932) theory of cognitive development,

have presented a linear pathway to maturity with infant sensory-motor

intelligence at the lowest end and adult formal operative intelligence at the

higher end. Whilst Piaget had a deep respect for children's ways of thinking, the

implied hierarchical progression suggests that child thought has less value than

that of the mature adult. Likewise, within traditional theories of socialisation, an

emphasis upon children as 'not-yet-social' has meant that children's present day

views have been disregarded as legitimate subjects of study (Jenks 1996;

Corsaro, 1997, James and Prout, 1997; Prout, 2005). Notions of incompetence,

immaturity and dependency have led to the assumption that young children are

unreliable witnesses in their own lives (Qvortrup et al., 1994). As a result

significant adult carers, such as parents, teachers, and social workers have

tended to speak for children (Ridge, 2002).

Children as Competent

Over the last two decades scholars from the field of the 'new social studies of

childhood' have criticised this approach arguing that children should be

reconceptualized as competent agents in the everyday social world 'contributing

to its events and thereby also to its reproduction and transformation' (Alanen,

3


2004: 4). Children are viewed as experts in their own lives and there is

recognition that children may see different issues to adults and see issues

differently. Consequently children's views, everyday experiences and

knowledges should be researched directly and first-hand (James and Prout,

1990). Children's competence arises through a combination of experience and

relationships, and should not necessarily be seen as age- or stage- related

(Christensen and Prout, 2002; Morrow, 2005). Indeed, Morrow and Richards

assert that respect for children's competencies 'needs to become a

methodological technique in itself' (1996: 100).

Socio-cultural psychologists have also questioned the dominance of traditional

developmental approaches to researching children. They assert that children

appear less competent when they are subjected to clinical interviews, tests and

surveys in experimental settings than when observed in their everyday social

environments (Vygotsky, 1978; Donaldson, 1978; Bronfenbrenner, 1979;

Hogan, 2005). Therefore, research concerned with understanding children's

views and experiences needs a methodological approach that shows and

enables children's competencies within their everyday social settings (Alderson,

2004; Kellett and Ding, 2004). For this reason ethnography and the adoption of

participatory methods which borrow from Freirian pedagogy, participatory rural

appraisal (PRA) (for example, Chambers, 1997) and participatory action

research (for example, Kemmis and McTaggart, 2005) have been employed as

a means of accessing the views of children and young people about a variety of

issues, although this has occurred to a lesser extent with children under the age

of five (Waller, 2006).

Roberts (2000) and Davis and colleagues (2000) argue that children who have

dependencies such as those with impairments and the very young have largely

been excluded from research within these new approaches to the study of

childhood. One of the reasons for this may be that, whilst these approaches

have challenged the idea of children as incompetent and incomplete by arguing

that children have agency, Lee (1998; 2001) suggests that they have failed to

recognise the existence of dependencies and immaturity within children's

agentic action or 'competence'. Lee does not conceptualise agency as the

4


essential possession of individuals as some scholars from the 'new social

studies' might, but as the emergent property of networks of dependency.

Children and adults are all incomplete and dependent upon each other. From

this perspective a young child's ability to participate in research or to

communicate her views centres not upon the pre-existence of competence or

lack of it within each individual but rather upon the interdependent social

networks available to her. Thus agency is something that is dependent on

mediation and supplementation, through context, cultural tools and collaborative

relationships. For example, drawing upon Actor Network Theory (Latour 1987;

1988; Law 1998) Lee (2001) argues that in legal proceedings the child witness

becomes more agentic as more supplementations or ‘actors’ are added to their

‘network’. Cultural tools such as video cameras, videotape, and television

screens, alongside the assistance of police and social workers, increase

children’s agency to participate as independent witnesses. If, as Lee (1998)

suggests, children and adults can be moved in and out of competence, then the

methodological challenge for researchers seeking to ascertain young children's

views is to consider how competence can be nurtured through the research

process.

Competent-Incompetent Participants

Instead of grappling with issues of whether babies and young children are either

incompetent or competent to be able to communicate their views researchers

might resist such dichotomous constructions and tolerate this ambiguity. Since

neither adults nor children have an individualised agentive existence (Lee,

1998; 2001; Prout, 2005) we are mutually dependent upon one another in social

and research processes. Therefore, if we are to open up the possibility of

accessing young children's views then we need to conduct research with

children in their everyday social environments, employ cultural tools and

methods in the sense that they act as supplementations to enable a process of

knowledge co-construction, and acknowledge that both children and adults are

competent-incompetent participants in the research process. Having considered

the issue of competence I now turn to the notion of 'children's views'.

5


Children's Views

Some authors argue that accessing children's views is a 'difficult enterprise'

(Sharp, 2002: 21; Woods, 2000) that poses methodological challenges for the

researcher 'who has most likely been trained to conduct research among adults'

(Downe, 2001:166). Indeed, in research with young children who may not rely

on verbal or written forms of communication, children's views may not be

immediately accessible or apparent. This might lead some researchers to

assume that research with young children is intrinsically more problematic than

research with older children or adults. Alderson (2008) identifies a number of

reasons for why adults may find accessing young children's views problematic:

lack of time, lack of confidence, lack of skill in talking with children, fear of losing

control, anxiety about children's distress, and prejudice that it is not worthwhile

to listen to young children's views. However, each of these problems equally

could be applied to research with other groups of people. Exploring people's

views therefore presupposes that people, including those with little or no

speech, have something to say and that as researchers we become skilful in

accessing those views. However, before we address the complex issue of how

we might access young children's views, which is a matter of method, we need

to examine what we mean by the child's 'view' or 'voice', which is a wider issue

of epistemology and axiology.

Conceptual Issues

Casteneda (2001) argues that because the child has been viewed as the adult’s

ontological origin by researchers from a modernist, scientific perspective, the

adult can claim to know him/her by way of method or academic discipline.

However, academics working from a social constructionist position argue that is

it impossible to claim to fully know, understand or access children's views. The

focus shifts from an essentialist understanding of 'childhood' and 'voice', the

truth of which can be discovered through science, to an understanding that

these concepts are socially constructed and subject to change. Children's views

are not 'out there' waiting to be extracted; rather they are understood to be

social, contextual, contingent and ambiguous. Consequently, the notion of

'voice' is understood not as an individual property but as a product of social

6


interaction (Komulainen, 2007). Thus the process of accessing young children's

views becomes one that focuses on meaning making rather than truth finding

(Dahlberg et al., 1999). Listening to children's views is 'not about making

preformed ideas visible but more about, hearing, interpreting and making

meaning' (Ebrahim and Muthukrishna, 2004: 85; Tolfree and Woodhead, 1999).

It involves a process of co-construction between the research participant and

the researcher. Furthermore the process of meaning-making involves more than

the communication of verbal or textual articulations. Samulsson (2004) argues

that meaning making by pre-verbal toddlers becomes visible when one focuses

on how they communicate with their bodies and produce actions. Thus

children's views are both embodied and produced within social interactions.

Ethical Issues

Foregrounding meaning making rather than seeking to directly capture the

child's 'true' voice acknowledges values such as interpretation, contextuality,

subjectivity, uncertainty and provisionality (Dahlberg et al., 1999). Researchers

working from a social constructionist position are therefore cautious in their

claims to be able to access children's views, recognising that their attempts to

understand children's meaning making are inferential and subject to practices of

translation, interpretation and mediation (James, 2007). Moss (2005) argues

that this approach carries an ethical responsibility which addresses the issue of

how we relate to the Other when seeking to access their views and

experiences. Drawing upon Levinas' (1989) notion of 'the ethics of an

encounter' Moss posits that our research interactions with children should be

based on a respect for the alterity and unknowability of the Other. Taking

responsibility means not seeking to totalise or grasp the views of the Other. It

involves 'trying to listen to the Other from his or her own position and

experience and not treating the Other as the same' (Moss, 2005:12). For

example, James (2007) warns that we need to be aware of the danger of

homogenising children's views or of seeking children's views simply to confirm

our own established prejudices. From this perspective research which seeks to

access the views of young children involves relating to the Other in a

responsive and mutually dependent way that recognises commonality but

honours difference.

7


Whilst Levinas' 'ethics of an encounter' helps to provide a broad framework of

how we might approach accessing young children's views, a large array of

ethical dilemmas remain. It is beyond the scope of this paper to address ethical

considerations such as the issue of power, consent, confidentiality and

protection, however, several authors suggest that participatory approaches to

research with children are a means of conferring respect and contributing to

ethical practice (Thomas and O'Kane, 1998; Alderson, 2001). Alderson argues,

'To involve children more directly in research can rescue them from silence and

exclusion, and from being represented, by default, as passive objects' (2001:

142). For this reason, research which seeks to access young children's

perspectives is increasingly making use of participatory methods.

Methods of Accessing Young Children's Views

Perhaps one of the most well-known approaches to accessing the views of

children under the age of five is the 'Mosaic Approach' devised by Alison Clark

and Peter Moss (Clark and Moss, 2001; 2005; Clark et al., 2005) and inspired

by the work of the Italian preschools of Reggio Emilia. This framework was

developed with two- to four-year-olds as a means of evaluating early childhood

services and designing nursery spaces. The approach 'plays to children's

strengths rather than to adults' (Clark et al., 2005: 47) by encouraging children

to communicate their views through a combination of participatory methods

such as taking photos, map-making and child-led tours alongside more

traditional research tools of observation and interviewing. The desire to play to

children's strengths is part of a methodological debate concerning the question

of whether researchers need to devise ‘child-friendly’ methods to ascertain

children's views (Alanen, 1988; Solberg, 1996; Christensen and James, 2000;

Punch, 2002).

Child-friendly Methods?

There is a tension between researchers who call for the use of innovative or

adapted research techniques that are developmentally appropriate to the age of

8


the participating child (for example Boyden and Ennew, 1997) and others who

argue that there is no need for a specific set of child-friendly methods

(Christensen and James, 2000). Punch (2002) argues that it is not difficult to

argue that research with a 5-year-old is different from research with a teenager

or adult, but developmental distinctions should be used critically

as competencies vary and are socially and culturally located, rather than

universal. She suggests that what is needed in research with children, as in

research with adults, are 'participant friendly' rather than 'child-friendly' methods

(Punch, 2002). Similarly, Christensen and James (2000) argue that the methods

chosen should reflect the particularities of the persons involved, should be

appropriate to the cultural context and appropriate to the research questions.

Methods Used with Young Children

Punch (2002) argues that it is prudent to recognise that children are not a

homogenous group and that children’s preferences for different methods vary

as do their competencies and ways of communicating. This has led many

researchers to use a combination of participatory methods that recognise the

different 'voices' or languages of children (Rinaldi, 2001). Clark and colleagues'

(2003) review of children under five years old participating in research in

Denmark and England found that four broad types of method are commonly

used: observation and ethnographic approaches; traditional consultation

techniques; structured activities; and multi-sensory methods.

Observation and Ethnographic Approaches

According to the ‘new social studies of childhood’ ethnographic methods allow

children a ‘more direct voice’ and ‘participation in the production of data’ (James

and Prout, 1990: 9) because children control what they do, when and with

whom (Tudge and Hogan, 2005). Ethnographic research takes place in the

natural settings of people’s everyday lives and involves an extended period of

fieldwork. It aims to offer an in-depth understanding of the way people live and

work and the culture in which they do so by providing ‘thick’ descriptions

(Geertz, 1993) and by paying particular attention to the motives, emotions, and

perspectives of those studied. Ethnographic methods include direct first-hand

9


observation including participant observation, as well as research conversations

with different levels of formality from interviews to small talk.

An ethnographic framework can enable researchers to conduct research with

children who may not use verbal modes of communication. Traditionally babies,

pre-verbal toddlers, children with communication difficulties, or children who

prefer to communicate in non-verbal ways have been excluded from

participation in research (Davis and Watson, 2000; 2001; Corker and Davis,

2001; Alderson, 2008). However, Davis et al. argue:

...we are all capable of participating with babies and young children

because participation is about developing respectful relationships ... a

gap in speaking skills does not automatically mean a child also lacks

comprehension skills. (2006: 4)

Flewitt's (2005; 2006) longitudinal ethnography of three-year-olds' multimodal

communicative practices combined video, audio and written methods to provide

various avenues to represent the multiple, sometimes conflicting perspectives of

different participants. By focusing on the range of strategies children use to

express meaning, including talk, body movement, gesture and gaze, the

research provided a means of challenging language-biased approaches to

research by 'supporting multimodal expressions of meaning rather than

"pathologizing"...silence' (Flewitt, 2006: 46)

However, although ethnographic methods convey a rich description of children’s

lives they rely on an adult perspective and are therefore inferential, partial and

partisan. Critical and postmodern approaches to ethnography attempt to make

explicit the power relations between the researcher and those studied, and to

uncover the subjective nature of the ethnographic account by developing

diverse forms for presenting ethnographic research such as ‘polyphonic texts’

that represent multiple and conflicting voices, rather than a singular ‘expert’

narrative (Clifford, 1988).

10


Observational research may be more short-term than ethnography. Observation

is a traditional method often used when trying to understand the abilities, needs

and interests of young children (Clark et al., 2003). There are many different

types of observational methods including direct non-participant observation and

structured observation techniques. However, these have been criticised by

many researchers for the way in which these methods can ‘objectify’ children

and because they are premised on modernist, scientific discourses (Woodhead

and Faulkner, 2000).

Participant observation is a more favoured approach in participatory research

with young children because the researcher seeks to join in with the activities as

a familiar person whilst observing and recording the interactions of participants

and interpreting actions and the contexts in which they occur. Several

researchers (such as Mauthner, 1997; Carr, 2000; Brooker, 2001) argue that

the advantage of participant observation is that ‘part of the agency can be

shared with the child’ and this reduces the power of the researcher (Clark et al.,

2003: 30). However, the researcher needs to be aware of the limitations of

observation. Postmodern understandings of observation suggest that we can

never observe children in a fixed and final way and that all observational

accounts are a social and linguistic construction containing possible

contradictions and provisional ‘truths’ (MacNaughton, 2005).

Traditional Consultation Methods

Consultation methods such as interviews and focus groups have traditionally

been used with adults but have also been used with children in participatory

research, although most commonly in gathering the views of older children.

Brooker (2001) identifies some of the common assumptions researchers might

have about young children as interviewees: they are prone to an acquiescence

response bias, are more inclined to say ‘don’t know’; are easily distressed; and

are over-literal in interpreting the wording of questions (Powney and Watts,

1987; Breakwell, 1995). Other concerns include: children may become

monosyllabic (Tizard and Hughes, 1984); and they may try to ‘second guess’

what adults hope they will say (Gollop, 2000).

11


However, these assumptions have been contested by a number of researchers

who argue that ‘the limitations to young children’s competence as respondents

are generally the limitations of those who interview them’ (Brooker, 2001: 164).

For example, Roberts (2000) questions whether children are any more

suggestible than adults, and Spencer and Flin’s (1990) research into children’s

ability to provide factual evidence in court, concluded that even the youngest

children can recall and describe events and situations as accurately as older

witnesses. Young children can comment meaningfully about their experiences,

thoughts and feelings when questioned appropriately (Robinson, 1987; Oakley,

1994; Brooker, 2001) and when the researcher recognises that the interview is

a process of mutual shaping (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Morison et al., 2000).

Clark and Moss (2001) describe how they have used ‘child conferencing’, an

informal yet structured interview method, to ascertain three-year-old's views of

their outdoor play space. However, Clark (2004) acknowledges that not all

children are interested in talking in this way and that for some children research

conversations are best conducted ‘on the move’.

Brooker (2001) argues that the researcher also needs to adopt strategies that

enable young children to ‘talk freely’ and reveal their own agenda. For example,

Evans and Fuller (1996) devised a method of using role-play telephones linked

to a tape recorder into which nursery children entered voluntarily as part of their

play. Toys and puppets have also been used as prompts to engage children in

research conversations (David, 1992; Brown, 1998; Bosisto and Howard, 1999).

Calam et al. (2000) have developed computer assisted interviews to help

children with learning and/or communication difficulties. Three-way interaction is

established between the child, the computer and the supporting adult. This

method makes use of images, sound, speech and video and can be tailored to

the child’s interests.

Several researchers advocate the use of group interviews or focus groups to

ascertain the views of young children (Lewis, 1992; Mauthner, 1997; Carr,

2000; Eder and Fingerson, 2003). As with all methods there are advantages

and disadvantages to this approach. Lewis (1992) argues that group talk may

be less stilted and may elicit responses of greater breadth and depth. Children

12


may feel less intimidated because when children have the support of their peers

it may diffuse the normal adult-child power relations (James, 1993; Morrow and

Richards, 1996) and because group interviews can build on familiar institutional

practices such as ‘Circle Time’ (Mauthner, 1997). However, since they are

dependent on words certain members may dominate whilst others may be

inhibited from participating (Bragg, 2007).

Structured Activities

A number of task-based activities have been developed by researchers

including role-play, the use of projective techniques and ranking exercises.

Alderson asserts that play methods ‘can enhance children’s research

imaginations’ (2001: 147). For example, Miller (1997) describes how playing

‘let’s pretend’ games have involved young children in planning improvements in

playgrounds and nurseries. Several researchers discuss using role-play to help

infant school children explore their experiences in a de-personalised way

(Miller, 1997; Finch, 1998; Cousins, 1999; Bragg, 2007; 2007b).

Some researchers have explored the use of vignettes (Hill, 1997; Barter and

Renold, 2000) and other projective methods such as word association games

and story or sentence completion exercises (Morrow, 1998; 1999; Carr, 2000;

Dulamdary, 2007). Vignettes are short stories or scenarios, usually about

imaginary characters in problematic situations. MacNaughton (2003) combined

the use of vignettes with persona dolls to elicit four- and five-year-old children's

understandings of gender, race and class. Dickens et al. (2004) argue that

some children are more comfortable expressing their views this way rather than

in response to direct questioning. However, Barter and Renold (2000) argue

that there is a theoretical limitation in the use of vignettes because of the

distance between the vignette and social reality. If children articulate their views

of a situation portrayed in the vignette how representative is this of their actual

perspective? For that reason, Barter and Renold (2000) suggest that vignettes

may not be useful as a stand alone technique.

Ranking exercises have also been used as participatory methods. For example,

happy or sad faces enable young children to demonstrate how much they

13


like/dislike a situation or activity (Gadd and Cable, 2000; Brooker, 2001).

However, some researchers argue that these methods run the risk of being

tokenistic if this is the only way for children to express their opinions (Clark et

al., 2003) and because they tend to deal with a narrow range of issues (Bragg,

2007).

Multi-Sensory Methods

In recent years methods which rely solely on verbal and written competence

and ‘provide limited access to the emotional and symbolic aspects of children’s

experiences and media-related modes of expression’ have been criticised

(Bragg, 2007: 36). Consequently a range of multi-sensory methods such as arts

activities, the use of cameras, audio recordings, child-led tours and mapmaking

have been developed which shift the balance away from the written or spoken

word (Clark et al., 2003) and potentially allow a wider range of children to

participate in research (Davis et al., 2000).

Drawings and other arts-based activities have been used to ascertain young

children’s views and gain insights into their experiences (Williams et al., 1989;

Punch, 2002; Christensen, 2004). The advantage of art is that it can be used to

capture more abstract concepts, experiences or phenomena (Szto et al., 2005).

Drawing is a popular medium that many children are familiar with and frequently

engage in at nursery and school (Mauthner, 1997). However, Barker and Weller

(2003) argue that drawings may be popular with some children and

inappropriate with others. Further, individuals’ perceptions of their ability to draw

may limit what they depict (Backett and Alexander, 1991). The use of drawings

needs to be considered carefully as it is easy to misinterpret such information

(Thomas and Silk, 1990; Lange-Kuttner and Edelstein, 1995). Barker and

Weller (2003) argue that it is necessary to discuss the drawing with the child to

ensure that the drawing comes closer to representing the child’s meaning and

interpretation, rather than that of the researcher.

Photography is another visual method which yields data requiring further

discussion and interpretation with the participating child. In the Spaces to Play

Project (Clark and Moss, 2005) three- and four-year-olds, including children with

14


speech and language delay, were given single-use cameras and asked to 'take

photographs of what is important ' in the outdoor areas of their early years

settings. Kaplan et al. (2007) argue that photographs can stimulate

conversations in the data generation and analysis stages and have the potential

to engage children in a meaningful way, not just as subjects of research, but as

researchers or co-researchers. Like drawings, cameras enable children to

control how they represent themselves and provide an emic perspective (Booth

and Booth, 2003; Gabhainn and Sixsmith, 2006).

Visual methods elicit a range of views and uncover a plurality of meanings that

challenge literal and simplistic approaches to ascertaining children’s

perspectives. Kaplan et al. (2007) highlight the fluidity between a photograph’s

potential for realism and expressionism and argue that this inherent duality

raises questions about slippery concepts such as ‘perspective’ and ‘voice’,

which arguably, remain more hidden in other forms of data. Bragg (2007)

argues that photographs may give access to unconscious aspects of responses

providing valuable data, however this might also be seen as intrusive and thus

ethically dubious. Other potential difficulties arising from photography include:

gathering ‘negative’ images that an institution might not want publicised (Bragg,

2007); not every child may feel confident or comfortable with this method

(Barker and Weller, 2003); and ethical dilemmas concerning confidentiality,

consent and ownership of the data. Prosser (1992) argues that the researcher

needs to establish guidelines about how images are to be used at the time and

afterwards.

Other multi-sensory methods include guided tours and mapmaking. These

methods have been adapted from PRA as a means to enable non-literate

communities to articulate their local knowledge of an area and contribute to

environmental planning. In child-led tours young children take the researcher on

a guided walk of their environment such as their pre-school, local museum or

neighbourhood (Hart, 1997; Adams and Ingham, 1998; Clark and Moss, 2001;

Weier 2004). They can control the direction of the tour but also how the

experience is recorded, through taking photographs, making maps and audio

recordings. Clark (2004) argues that the physicality and mobility of this

15


technique means that it lends itself to being used by young children. However,

the nature of this method means that some children may be excluded from

participating fully. For example, in a research study I participated in one child

who used a wheelchair was unable to access certain parts of the school during

his tour due to the restrictions of the building. Hill (2005) cautions researchers to

consider how method choices may exclude the viewpoints of certain children.

Methods of Analysis

Several authors assert that the active participation of children as research

participants is much less evident in the stages of analysis, report writing and

dissemination than in the process of data generation (Coad and Lewis, 2004;

Gabhainn and Sixsmith, 2006). Indeed Mayall (1994) argues that it is the stage

of analysis where power differentials are most clearly experienced. There is a

tension between those who assume that only trained adult researchers have the

ability to analyse data because this requires types of conceptual and theoretical

knowledge that children, or lay people, do not usually possess (Mayall, 1994;

Harden et al., 2000), and those who believe that for research to be truly

participatory children need to contribute to each stage of the process including

the interpretation and analysis of data (Thomas and O’Kane, 1998; Christensen,

2004; Sinclair, 2004).

Although some researchers cite examples of children being involved in analysis

and reporting (for example Alderson, 2001; Kellett, 2005; Coad and Evans,

2008) this occurs in research conducted with older children, typically over the

age of nine or ten. In research with young children the key issue is the

distinction between ‘commenting on or verifying findings’ (Coad and Lewis,

2004) and conducting some method of data analysis. For example in the

Mosaic Approach there are two stages: in stage one the children and adults

gather data; in stage two the data is pieced together by adults and children for

dialogue, reflection and interpretation (Clark and Moss, 2001). Whilst the

Mosaic Approach places a strong emphasis on listening to children’s

interpretations of data and using these reflections as a springboard for affecting

16


change, the children are not involved in formal analysis of any kind. However,

there is very little discussion of adult researchers conducting systematic

analysis of the data either in research conducted according to the Mosaic

Approach (for example, Clark and Moss, 2001; Waller, 2006). It would seem

that there is a tendency to forgo formal analytic methods and instead to

construct lists of themes and highlight the statements of children with minimal

interpretation by the researcher. Perhaps formal data analysis is minimised out

of fear that children’s perspectives will be truncated by the adult-researcher’s

conceptualisations. In future multi-method research with children under the age

of five there is a need for researchers to be explicit about this stage of the

research process, indicating what analytical frameworks have been chosen and

why, as well as describing who is involved in analysis, when, how, and to what

extent.

Having reviewed a variety of methods of research and analysis in participatory

research with young children I now consider the (im-)possibility of accessing

and representing children's views.

The (Im-)possibility of Accessing Views

Researchers working in the field of childhood studies as well as those from a

social constructionist position argue that is it impossible to claim to fully access

children's views as children's voices are 'subjected to the mediating effects that

all forms of social analysis entail' (James, 2007: 268). Children's views can only

ever be partially and inferentially accessed whatever the methodology or

method. Moreover, socio-cultural theories have argued that research conducted

with children must be ecologically valid as context is vital in accessing children's

views, experiences and competencies (Vygotsky, 1978; 1987; Donaldson,

1978; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Tudge et al., 1996; Dunn, 1998; Hogan, 2005).

Consequently researchers who seek to access children's views need to avoid

abstracting children from their everyday environments, should develop methods

that reflect children's competencies and preferred ways of communicating, and

should acknowledge the limits of their project.

17


Groundwater-Smith and Downes (1999) argue that children's voices are

mediated through our research methodologies. Methods are fundamentally

embedded within ontological and epistemological frameworks (Mauthner and

Doucet, 2003) and therefore children's views are always filtered through the

research design and the interpretative mechanisms employed (Groundwater-

Smith and Downs, 1999). Whether we take a participatory approach or not, the

methods of data collection and analysis we choose have the potential to

silence, patronize or misrepresent children. Participatory methods may offer the

possibility of eliciting young children's situated and diverse perspectives

however it is impossible to treat participatory methods as if they are atheoretical

and capable of being used impartially. Nevertheless a participatory approach is

aspirational in its attempt to access children's views through a methodological

process that assumes co-construction, interdependency and methodological

equality between adults and children. This is only possible when researchers

refuse to gloss over the considerable complexities in finding ways of accessing

children's views and acknowledge that there is only so much we can know

about the Other.

The (Im-)possibility of Representing Views

Another issue, central to the question of children's views, is the problem of

representation. Is it possible to interpret the words and communicative

behaviours of young children as an accurate representation of their meanings?

Lincoln and Denzin (2000) describe this problem as a "crisis of representation",

arguing that there can never be a final accurate representation of what is meant

or said because researchers do not have direct experience to another's

experience. Consequently we can only ever produce different textual

representations of different views and experiences. They pose the questions:

Who is the Other? Can we ever hope to speak authentically of the

experience of the Other, or an Other? And if not, how do we create a

social science that includes the Other? (2000: 1050)

18


Of course, these questions apply not just to research with young children, but

across qualitative research as a whole. Issues of representation may be more

obvious in research with babies or young children, but they may not be

inherently more problematic than any other research which seeks to include the

voice of the Other. This is not to suggest that representation of children's views

is unproblematic. Even when we directly report children's words we cannot

claim to accurately represent their voices because the process of representation

always involves selection and interpretation (Clifford, 1988). One solution to this

problem is that we should give up positivist ideals of textual and researcher

authority and instead become reflexively aware of the limited portraits we are

crafting in our research presentations. There should be an emphasis on

reflexivity and 'making ourselves visible in our texts' (Lincoln and Denzin, 2000:

1053).

Reflexive Representations

Reflexivity reminds us that meanings are made not found in social situations

(Mauthner et al., 1998) and that the adult researcher, child participants,

research methods and data are interdependent and interconnected (Mauthner

and Doucet, 2003). Whilst it may be possible to access children's views (albeit

impartially) using methods that listen to children's different voices and body

languages it is impossible to claim that our representations of children's

perspectives present the whole and only truth. Rather, our methods and

representations are socially constructed and require methodologies that reflect

the multiple, shifting and situated nature of children's views and experiences.

Warming (2005) argues that we should replace an illusionary ambition of

representation with endeavours of 'reflexive re-presentations' that acknowledge

the perspectival and constructed character of the presented and that seek to

uncover our position within the research account. She appeals to Richardson's

(1994; 2000) metaphor of the crystal as multi-faceted, complex, partial and

changing to suggest that our re-presentations of children's own presentations

such as their narratives, drawings and photographs, could present different, not

necessarily congruent, perspectives on the same subject.

19


Ruddock et al. argue, ‘however much we convince ourselves that we are

presenting children's authentic voice, we are likely to be refracting their

meanings through the lens of our own interests and concerns’ (1996: 177).

What children say depends on what they are asked, how they are asked it, who

is invited to participate, and then, in turn, on the values and assumptions of the

researcher or audience interpreting their ‘voices’ (Connolly, 1997).

Consequently, the research accounts we construct need to be reflexively aware

of the inter-subjectivity between the researcher, participants and institutions in

the research process (Pink, 2001). They should also reflect the ambiguity of the

child’s voice (Komulainen, 2007) and be moderate in their claims to represent

young children’s perspectives (Cook and Hess, 2007).

Conclusion

This paper has discussed the possibility of accessing and representing the

views of children under the age of five. It has briefly examined the contested

notions of children's 'competence' and what we might mean by children's

'views'. It has questioned an essentialist understanding of these concepts as the

inherent property of individuals, and instead has argued that children's views

might be accessed through a process of interdependent meaning making. It has

also challenged the assumption that research with young children is any more

problematic than research with older children or adults as all research which

seeks to access the views of others is subject to the pitfalls of representation.

Issues of representation go hand-in-hand with issues of responsibility and

value. Accessing and representing the views of children involves welcoming the

Other, being respectful of difference and not seeking to grasp the Other. Other

responsibilities involve: including the Other in our wider research processes, for

example through participatory methodologies; accepting meaning-making rather

than truth-finding; and a commitment to continual reflexivity.

The paper has also discussed the potential and limitations of participatory

methods to access children's views. It has critically examined several methods

of participatory research and analysis with children under the age of five and

20


suggested that a combination of methods that reflect children's multi-modal

communicative practices offer the possibility of accessing children's diverse

views and 'languages'. However, whilst these methods aim to offer children

greater participation in the production and interpretation of data than traditional

research methods, they can only ever provide inferential, partial and partisan

reflections of children’s perspectives. Participatory research offers the possibility

of revealing subjugated forms of knowledge and accessing silenced voices, and

yet it can never directly capture children's perspectives or lived experiences.

Therefore, it is impossible for the researcher to adequately represent children's

views and experiences as they are inevitably filtered through the author's

interpretation and research account. Such a realisation demands that the

researcher reject the idea of an essential, authentic representation of children's

views in favour of multi-faceted, reflexive re-presentations of what is important

and meaningful in young children's lives.

21


References

Adams, E. and Ingham, S. (1998) Changing Places: Children’s Participation in Environmental Planning London: Children’s Society.

Alanen, L. (1988) ‘Rethinking Childhood’ Acta Sociologica 31 (1): 53-67.

Alanen, L. (2001) ‘Childhood as a Generational Condition’ In L. Alanen and B. Mayall (eds.) Conceptualising Child-Adult Relationships London: Falmer Press.

Alanen, L. (2004) ‘Theorizing Children’s Welfare’ WELLCI Network Workshop 1: New Perspectives on Childhood University of Leeds 12-13th November (ONLINE - http://www.ciimu.org/webs/wellchi/reports/workshop_1/w1_alanen.pdf).

Alderson, P. (2001) ‘Research by Children’ International Journal of Social Research Methodology 4 (2): 139-153.

Alderson, P. (2004) 'Ethics' in S. Fraser, V. Lewis, M. Kellett and C. Robinson (eds.) Doing Research with Children and Young People London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Alderson, P. (2008) Young Children's Rights: Exploring Beliefs, Principle and Practice (2nd ed.) London: Jessica Kingsley.

Backett, K. and Alexander, H. (1991) ‘Talking to Young Children about Health: Methods and Findings’ Health Education Journal 50: 34-38.

Barker, J. and Weller, S. (2003) ‘Is it Fun? Developing Children Centred Research Methods’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23 (1): 33-57.

Barter, C. and Renold, E. (2000) ‘I Wanna Tell You a Story: Exploring the Application of Vignettes in Qualitative Research with Children and Young People’ International Journal of Social Research Methodology 3 (4): 307-323.

Birbeck, D.J. and Drummond, M.J.N. (2007) 'Research with Young Children: Contemplating Methods and Ethics' Journal of Educational Enquiry 7 (2): 21-31.

Booth, T. and Booth, W. (2003) ‘In the Frame: Photovoice and Mothers with Learning Difficulties’ Disability and Society 18: 431-442.

Bosisto, K. and Howard, A. (1999) ‘Persona Dolls: The Effects on Attitudes and Play’ In E. Dau (ed.) Child’s Play: Revisiting Play in Early Childhood Settings Sydney: Maclennan and Petty.

22

http://www.ciimu.org/webs/wellchi/reports/workshop_1/w1_


Boyden, J. and Ennew, J. (1997) (eds.) Children in Focus: A Manual for Experiential Learning in Participatory Research with Children Stockholm: Radda Barnen.

Bragg, S. (2007) Consulting Young People: A Report for Creative Partnerships London: Lithosphere.Breakwell, G. (1995) ‘Interviewing’ In G. Breakwell, S. Hammond and C. Fife-Shaw (eds.) Research Methods in Psychology London: Sage.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Brooker, L. (2001) ‘Interviewing Children’ In G. MacNaughton, S. A. Rolfe and I. Siraj-Blatchford (eds.) Doing Early Childhood Research Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Brown, B. (1998) Unlearning Discrimination in the Early Years Stoke: Trentham.

Calam, R., Cox, A., Glasgow, D., Jimmieson, P. and Groth Larson, S. (2000) ‘Assessment and Therapy with Children: Can Computers Help?’ Child Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry 18: 278-290.

Carr, M. (2000) Seeking Children’s Perspectives About Their Learning’ In A. B. Smith, N. J. Taylor and M. M. Gollop (eds.) Children’s Voices: Research, Policy and Practice Auckland: Pearson Education.

Castaneda, C. (2001) ‘The Child as a Feminist Figuration: Toward a Politics of Privilege’ Feminist Theory 2 (1):29-53.

Chambers, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts: Putting the First Last London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Christensen, P. (2004) ‘Children’s Participation in Ethnographic Research: Issues of Power and Representation’ Children and Society 18: 165-176.

Christensen, P. and James, A. (2000) (eds.) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices London: Falmer Press.

Christensen, P. and Prout, A. (2002) 'Working with Ethical Symmetry in Social Research with Children' Childhood 9 (4): 477-497.

Clark, A. (2004) ‘The Mosaic Approach and Research with Young Children’ In N. Lewis, M. Kellett, C. Robinson, S. Fraser and S. Ding (eds.) The Reality of Research with Children and Young People London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Clark, A., McQuail, S. and Moss, P. (2003) Exploring the Field of Listening to and Consulting with Young Children Research Report 445 London: DfES Publications.

23


Clark, A. and Moss, P. (2001) Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic Approach London: National Children’s Bureau.

Clark, A. and Moss, P. (2005) Spaces to Play: More Listening to Young Children Using the Mosaic Approach London: National Children's Bureau.

Clark, A., Moss, P. and Kjorholt, A. (2005) (eds.) Beyond Listening: Children’s Perspectives on Early Childhood Services Bristol: Policy Press.

Clifford, J. (1988) The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature and Art Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Coad, J. and Evans, R. (2008) 'Reflections on Practical Approaches to Involving Children and Young People in the Data Analysis Process' Children and Society 22 (1): 41-52.

Coad, J. and Lewis, A .(2004) ‘Engaging Children and Young People in Research’ National Evaluation of the Children’s Fund (ONLINE – http://www.ne-cf.org/core_files/Elicitingchdrnsviewsjanecoadannlewisoct2004.doc).

Connolly, P. (1997) ‘In Search of Authenticity: Researching Young Children’s Perspectives’ In A. Pollard, D. Thiessen and A. Filer (eds.) Children and Their Curriculum London: Falmer Press.

Cook, T. and Hess, E. (2007) ‘What the Camera Sees and from Whose Perspective’ Childhood 14 (1): 29-45.

Corker, M. and Davis, J. M. (2000) 'Disabled Children - (still) invisible under the law' In J. Cooper (ed.) The Law, Rights and Disability London: Jessica Kingsley.

Corsaro, W. (1997) The Sociology of Childhood California: Pine Forest.

Cousins, J. (1999) Listening to Four Year Olds: How They Can Help Us Plan Their Education and Care London: National Early Years Network.

Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. and Pence, A. (1999) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: Postmodern Perspectives London: RoutledgeFalmer.

David, T. (1992) ‘“Do We Have To Do This?” The Children Act 1989 and Obtaining Children’s Views in Early Childhood Settings’ Children and Society 6 (3): 204-211.

Davis, J. M., Farrier, S. and Whiting, C. (2006) 'Literature Review Participation: Response to Rachel Hinton's Paper' Paper for the Seminar at the University of Edinburgh 4-6th September 2006 (ONLINE - http://www.uwe.ac.uk/solar/ChildParticipationNetwork/News.htm).

24

http://www/


Davis, J. M. and Watson, N. (2000) 'Disabled Children's Rights in Every Day Life: Problematising Notions of Competency and Promoting Self-Empowerment' International Journal of Children's Rights 8: 211-228.

Davis, J. M. and Watson, N. (2001) 'Where Are the Children's Experiences? Analysing Social and Cultural Exclusion in 'Special' and 'Mainstream' Schools' Disability and Society 16: 671-687.Davis, J., Watson, N. and Cunningham-Burley, S. (2000) ‘Learning the Lives of Disabled Children: Developing a Reflexive Approach’ In P. Christensen and A. James (eds.) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices London: Falmer Press.

Dickens, M., Emerson, S. and Gordon-Smith, P. (2004) Starting with Choice: Inclusive Strategies for Consulting Young Children London: Save the Children.

Donaldson, M. (1978) Children’s Minds London: Fontana.

Downe, P. (2001) 'Playing with Names: How Children Create Identities in Self in Anthropological Research' Anthropologica 43: 165-177.

Dulamdary, E. (2007) ‘Paving a Two-Way Street: Encouraging Children’s Participation in a Study on the Physical and Emotional Punishment of Children in Vietnam’ Children, Youth and Environments 17 (1): 88-104.

Ebrahim, H.B. and Muthukrishna N. (2005) 'Research with Under Fours: Some Sense Making Moves' Journal of Education 37: 79-102.

Eder, D. and Fingerson, L. (2003) ‘Interviewing Children and Adolescents’ In J. A. Holstein and J. F. Gubrium (eds.) Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns London: Sage Publications.

Evans, P. and Fuller, M. (1996) ‘“Hello, Who Am I Speaking To?” Communicating with Pre-School Children in Educational Research Settings’ Early Years 17 (1): 17-20.

Finch, S. (1998) ‘An Eye for an Eye Leaves Everyone Blind’ Teaching Children to Settle Conflicts Without Violence London: National Early Years Network.

Flewitt, R. (2005) 'Is Every Child's Voice Heard? Researching the Different ways 3-year-old Children Communicate and Make Meaning at Home and in a Preschool Playgroup' Early Years 25 (3): 207-222.

Flewitt, R. (2006) 'Using Video to Investigate Preschool Classroom Interaction: Education Research Assumptions and Methodological Practices' Visual Communication 5 (1): 25-50.

Gabhainn, S. N. and Sixsmith, J. (2006) ‘Children Photographing Well-being: Facilitating Participation in Research’ Children and Society 20: 249-259.

25


Gadd, L. and Cable, C. (2000) Up to Children Norfolk: Norfolk EYDCP.

Geertz, C. (1993) The Interpretation of Cultures London: Fontana.

Gollop, M. M. (2000) ‘Interviewing Children: A Research Perspective’ In A. B. Smith, N. J. Taylor and M. M. Gollop (eds.) Children’s Voices: Research, Policy and Practice Auckland: Pearson Education.

Groundwater-Smith, S. and Downes, T. (1999) ‘Students: From Informants to Co-Researchers’ AARE Annual Conference University of Melbourne 29th November-2nd December (ONLINE - http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/gro99031.htm).

Harden, J., Scott, S., Backett-Milburn, K. and Jackson, S. (2000) ‘Can’t Talk, Won’t Talk?: Methodological Issues in Researching Children’ Sociological Research Online 5 (2) (ONLINE - http://www/socresonline.org.uk/5/2/harden.html).

Hart, R. (1997) Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care London: Earthscan.

Hendrick, H. (2000) 'The Child as a Social Actor in Historical Sources' in P. Christensen and A. James (eds.) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices London: Falmer Press.

Hill, M. (1997) ‘Participatory Research with Children’ Child and Family Social Work 2: 171-183.

Hill, M. (2005) ‘Ethical Considerations in Researching Children’s Experiences’ In S. Greene and D. Hogan (eds.) Researching Children’s Experiences London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Hogan, D. (2005) ‘Researching “The Child” in Developmental Psychology’ In S. Greene and D. Hogan (eds.) Researching Children’s Experiences London: Sage Publications Ltd.

James, A. (1993) Childhood Identities: Self and Social Relationships in the Experience of the Child Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

James, A. (2007) 'Giving Voice to Children's Voices: Practices and Problems, Pitfalls and Potentials' American Anthropologist 109 (2): 261-272.

James, A. and James, A. L. (2001) ‘Childhood: Toward a Theory of Continuity and Change’ The Annals of the American Academy, AAPSS 575: 25-37.

James, A. Jenks, C. and Prout, A. (1998) Theorizing Childhood Cambridge: Polity Press.

26

http://www/socresonline.org.uk/5/2/harden

http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/gro99031


James, A. and Prout, A. (1990) (eds.) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood London: Falmer.

James, A. and Prout, A. (1997) (eds.) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood (2nd ed.) London: Falmer.Jenks, C. (1996) Childhood New York: Routledge.

Kaplan, I., Lewis, I. and Mumba, P. (2007) ‘Picturing Global Educational Inclusion? Looking and Thinking Across Students’ Photographs From the UK, Zambia and Indonesia’ Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 7 (1): 23-35.

Kellett, M. (2005) ‘Children as Active Researchers: A New Research Paradigm for the 21st Century?’ Published online by ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, NCRM/003 (ONLINE – http://www.ncrm.ac.uk/ publications).

Kellett, M. and Ding, S. (2004) 'Middle Childhood' in S. Fraser, V. Lewis, M. Kellett and C. Robinson (eds.) Doing Research with Children and Young People London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (2005) 'Participatory Action Research' in N. K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.) (3rd ed.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Komulainen, S. (2007) ‘The Ambiguity of the Child’s ‘Voice’ in Social Research’ Childhood 14 (1): 11-28.

Lange-Kuttner, C. and Edelstein, W. (1995) ‘The Contribution of Social Factors to the Development of Graphic Competence’ In C. Lange-Kuttner and G. V. Thomas (eds.) Drawing and Looking London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Latour, B. (1988) The Pasteurization of France Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Law, J. (1998) Actor Network Theory and After Oxford: Blackwell.

Lee, N. (1998) ‘Towards an Immature Sociology’ The Sociological Review 46 (3): 458-482.

Lee, N. (2001) Childhood and Society: Growing Up in an Age of Uncertainty Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Levinas, E. (1989) 'Ethics as First Philosophy' in S. Hand (ed.) The Levinas Reader Oxford: Blackwell.

27

http://w/


Lewis, A. (1992) ‘Group Child Interviews as a Research Tool’ British Educational Research Journal 18 (4): 413-421.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Denzin, N.K (2000) 'The Seventh Moment' in N.K. Denzin and Y.S.Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

MacNaughton, G. (2003) ‘Eclipsing Voice in Research with Young Children’ Australian Journal of Early Childhood 28 (1): 36-43.

MacNaughton, G. (2005) Doing Foucault in Early Childhood Studies London: Routledge.

Mauthner, M. (1997) ‘Methodological Aspects of Collecting Data from Children: Lessons from Three Research Projects’ Children and Society 11 (1): 16-28.

Mauthner, N. S. and Doucet, A. (2003) ‘Reflexive Accounts and Accounts of Reflexivity in Qualitative Data Analysis’ Sociology 37 (3): 413-431.

Mauthner, N. S., Parry, O. and Backett-Milburn, K. (1998) ‘The Data are Out There, Or Are They? Implications for Archiving and Revisiting Qualitative Data’ Sociology 32: 733-745.

Mayall, B. (1994) (ed.) Children’s Childhoods: Observed and Experienced London: Falmer Press.

Mayall, B. (1996) Children, Health and the Social Order Buckingham: Open University Press.

Miller, J. (1997) Never Too Young London: National Early Years Network/ Save the Children.

Morison, M., Moir, J. and Kwansa, T. (2000) ‘Interviewing Children for the Purposes of Research in Primary Care’ Primary Health Care Research and Development 1: 113-130.

Morrow, V. (1998) Understanding Families: Children’s Perspectives London: National Children’s Bureau.

Morrow, V. (1999) '"We Are People Too": Children and Young People's Perspectives on Children's Rights and Decision-making in England International Journal of Children's Rights 7 (2): 149-170.

Morrow, V. (2005) 'Ethical Issues in Collaborative Research with Children' in A. Farrell (ed.) Ethical Research with Children Maidenhead: Open University Press.

28


Morrow, V. and Richards, M. (1996) ‘The Ethics of Social Research with Children: An Overview’ Children and Society 10: 28-40.

Moss, P. (2005) 'From Children's Services to Children's Spaces: Re-thinking Early Childhood' OCTF4 Conference 2005 Adelaide Convention Centre 16th - 18th June (ONLINE - http://www.octf.sa.edu.au/octf/files/links/2_00_Moss.doc).

Oakley, A. (1994) ‘Women and Children First and Last: Parallels and Differences between Children’s and Women’s Studies’ In B. Mayall (ed.) Children’s Childhoods Observed and Experienced London: Falmer.

Piaget, J. (1932) The Language and Thought of the Child London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Pink, S. (2001) ‘More Visualising, More Methodologies: On Video, Reflexivity and Qualitative Research’ The Sociological Review 49 (4): 586-599.

Powney, J. and Watts, M. (1987) Interviewing in Educational Research London: Routledge.

Prosser, J. (1992) ‘Personal Reflections on the Use of Photography in an Ethnographic Case Study’ British Educational Research Journal 18 (4): 397-411.

Prout, A. (2005) The Future of Childhood Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.

Punch, S. (2002) ‘Research with Children: The Same or Different From Research With Adults?’ Childhood 9 (3): 321-341.

Qvortrup, J., Bardy, M., Sgritta, G. and Wintersberger, H. (1994) (eds.) Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics Aldershot: Avebury.

Richardson, L. (1994) 'Writing: A Method of Inquiry' In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Richardson, L. (2000) 'New Writing Practices in Qualitative Research' Sociology of Sports Journal 17: 5-20.

Ridge, T. (2002) Childhood Poverty and Social Exclusion: From a Child's Perspective Bristol: The Policy Press.

Rinaldi, S. (2001) 'A Pedagogy of Listening: A Perspective of Listening from Reggio Emilia' Children in Europe 1: 2-5.

Roberts, H. (2000) ‘Listening to Children: and Hearing Them’ In P. Christensen and A. James (eds.) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices London: Falmer Press.

29


Robinson, C. A. (1987) ‘Preschool Children’s Conceptualizations of Health and Illness’ Children’s Health Care 16: 89-96.

Ruddock, J., Chaplain, R. and Wallace, G. (1996) School Improvement: What Can Pupils Tell Us? London: David Fulton.

Samuelsson, I.P. (2004) 'How do Children Tell Us About Their Childhood?' Early Childhood Research and Practice 6 (1): 1-16.

Sharp, L.A. (2002) The Sacrificed Generation: Youth, History and the Colonized Mind in Madagascar Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sinclair, R. (2004) ‘Participation in Practice: Making it Meaningful, Effective and Sustainable’ Children and Society 18: 106-118.

Solberg, A. (1996) ‘The Challenge in Child Research: From “Being” to “Doing”’ In J. Brannen and M. O’Brien (eds.) Children in Families: Research and Policy London: Falmer Press.

Spencer, J. and Flin, R. (1990) The Evidence of Children London: Blackstone.

Szto, P., Furman, R. and Langer, C. (2005) ‘Poetry and Photography: An Exploration into Expressive/Creative Qualitative Research’ Qualitative Social Work 4:135-156.

Thomas, G. V. and Silk, A. M. (1990) An Introduction to the Psychology of Children’s Drawings Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Thomas, N. and O’Kane, C. (1998) The Ethics of Participatory Research with Children’ Children and Society 12: 336-348.

Tizard, B. and Hughes, M. (1984) Young Children Talking and Thinking at Home and at School London: Fontana Press.

Tolfree, D. and Woodhead, M. (1999) 'Tapping a Key Resource' Early Childhood Matters 91: 19-23.

Tudge, J. and Hogan, D. (2005) ‘An Ecological Approach to Observations of Children’s Everyday Lives’ In S. Greene and D. Hogan (eds.) Researching Children’s Experiences London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987) The Collected Works of L S Vygotsky Vol. 1 Problems of general psychology New York: Plenum.

Waller, T. (2006) ‘“Don’t Come Too Close To My Octopus Tree”: Recording and Evaluating Young Children’s Perspectives on Outdoor Learning’ Children, Youth and Environments 16 (2): 75-104.

30


Warming, H. (2005) 'Participant Observation: A Way to Learn About Children's Perspectives' In A. Clark, A. T. Kjorholt and P. Moss (eds.) Beyond Listening: Children's Perspectives on Early Childhood Services Bristol: Policy Press.

Weier, K. (2004) 'Empowering Young Children in Art Museums: Letting Them Take the Lead' Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 5 (1): 106-116.

Williams, D. T., Wetton, N. and Moon, A. (1989) A Way In: Five Key Areas of Health Education London: Health Education Authority.

Woods, P. (2000) 'Reviewed Work: Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices by Pia Christensen and Allison James' British Journal of Educational Studies 48 (3): 344-345.

Woodhead, M. and Faulkner, D. (2000) ‘Subjects, Objects or Participants?’ In P. Christensen and A. James (eds.) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices London: Falmer Press.

This document was added to the Education-line database on 23 January 2009

31

participation, participatory research, methods and analysis · web viewcritical and postmodern...

Documents