Engaging children and young people in research
Literature review for
The National Evaluation of the Children’s 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 j.coad@bham.ac.uk
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Executive/user summary
1.
2.
Introduction
1.1. Conduct of the review
1.2. Background to the review
1
Children as research participants: Policy and research context
2.1 Policy context
5
5
1
3. Children as research participants: Ethical concerns and children’s rights
3.1 Social responsibility
3.2 Access/gatekeepers
3.3 Consent/ assent
3.4 Confidentiality/ anonymity/secrecy
3.5 Recognition and feedback
3.6 Ownership
9
9
10
11
14
15
16
4. Children as research participants: Researcher-researched relationships
4.1 Building relationships
4.1.1 Entering the field
4.1.2 Balancing differential power relationships
4.1.3 Sharing control
18
18
19
20
23
5. Children as research participants: Methods and techniques used with
children to explore their views
5.1 Guiding principles
5.1.1 Authenticity
5.1.2 Credibility
5.1.3 Trustworthiness
25
5.2 Overview of possible methods
5.2.1 Interviews
5.2.2 Questionnaires
5.2.3 Observation
5.2.4 Mapping
5.2.5 Drawing and posters
5.2.6 Photographs and video
5.2.7 Role play, drama and story telling
5.2.8 Journals and diaries
5.2.9 ICT-linked
6. Children as research participants: Analyses and Dissemination
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Children as data analysts?
6.3. Dissemination and impact
25
25
27
28
29
29
33
34
35
36
38
39
40
40
42
42
42
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 children’s
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 Government’s 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 children’s perspectives to bear on
all aspects of government policy (see section 2.1 for further discussion of the policy
context).
1
The Children’s 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 Children’s Fund is
children’s active involvement in the development of preventive services reflecting the
then, Children and Young People’s Unit (CYPU) advocacy of children’s 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 Children’s 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. 1
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’
1
Note: unless otherwise indicated the terms ‘child’/’children’ are used in the review to refer to a child or
young person up to age 13.
2
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 rediscovery 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 children’s
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’.
3
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
children’s 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.
4
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 children’s 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
(Children’s 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
5
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, children’s pressure/ information groups (e.g. Article 12. Children’s 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 UK’s 2nd report was submitted in 1999, discussed by the UN in June 2002 and the
UN’s 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;
6
Willow, 2002). Contexts in which children’s 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 UK’s quinquennial review to the UN (January 2004), there was a
torrent of government initiatives, particularly from the Department of Health, involving
hearing children’s 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 Government’s 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 children’s views
and, for many campaigners from the children’s 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
7
policy changes. Why, we might ask, have we recently become so concerned about
hearing children’s 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 children’s 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, children’s
multiple interactions and the ways in which children make sense of these become the focus
of interest without requiring any recourse to adult perspectives.
8
3. CHILDREN AS RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS: ETHICAL CONCERNS AND
CHILDREN’S 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 Lindsay’s (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 Pring’s (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.
9
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.
10
3.3
Consent/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 child’s 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 child’s 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 participant’s 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
11
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 child’s 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).
12
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.
O’Donnell 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 children’s
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 Children’s Fund and nascent Children’s 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 Sen’s 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).
13
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 child’s 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
14
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 children’s 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
15
them. Little seems to have been written on this topic in published accounts of children’s
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 children’s views.
16
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.
17
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
children’s 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 child’s 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.
18
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.
19
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 children’s 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 sociocultural aspects important in a child’s life at home and school and felt that seeing the
world from the child’s perspective was the first step in building of the relationship. Others
dispute that this can be possible when, from an adult’s 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
20
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 ‘naïve curiosity’ in which the researcher is open, honest and
Understanding but not patronising.

Avoid being judgmental but, rather, accepting of the child’s 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 children’s 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
21
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 children’s 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 Children’s Fund, 2003)

Children’s 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 children’s own spaces can enable them to
22
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 adult’s 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).
23
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 people’s views are taken into account (1998);
Young People’s 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.
24
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 researcher’s values will have an impact on the relationship with child
participants. Lewis (1992) warns that the researcher needs to consider carefully whether
the children’s 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 ‘child’s views’ rather than asking the child
directly can be justified. On occasion, intermediaries may be needed to convey the child’s
views. There is a distinction between intermediaries (sometimes termed facilitators)
whose role is to convey the child’s views and proxies who speak for the child. In practice,
the roles elide. The use of proxies, particularly in relation to children with learning
25
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 child’s 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 children’s
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 child’s language is different from
an adult’s 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
children’s voices. Thus, the distance between the translation and the original requires a
compromise which is worked out in the ‘to and fro’ of dialogue.
26
Consequently, there is a need to ensure mutual comprehension between the adult
researcher and the child’s language. Beresford (1997) suggests adopting the child’s
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 children’s 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 child’s 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.
27
5.1.3
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness, or reliability, encompasses the idea that the child’s 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 child’s powers of observation are less reliable
than an adult’s. Second, children are prone to live in a make believe world … Thirdly,
they are also very egocentric…Fourthly 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 children’s evidence
sufficiently seriously to warrant micro-analysis of particular elements (e.g. Soutterances) 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 children’s
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,
children’s 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.
28
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 O’Kane, 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
29
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 O’Kane (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 children’s 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 ‘don’t know’ responses
Encouraging requests for clarification
Using statements rather than questions
Avoiding repeat questions
Avoiding yes/no alternatives
Aiming for an uninterrupted narrative
30
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 child’s 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,
31
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
32
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 Children’s 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).
33
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 observer’s 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 children’s 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
34
‘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 children’s group
(undertaking and being drawn into all the children’s 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
35
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 O’Kane (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 children’s 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
36
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 Children’s 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.
37
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 people’s 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).
38
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 people’s 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
39
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 child’s 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 paperbased 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
40
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 children’s involvement as coresearchers 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.
41
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 children’s roles may develop as
researchers, with respect to the analysis and dissemination of evidence (see section 1.2).
For example, Greig and Taylor‘s (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 child’s world. In this way, verification strategies are
42
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 children’s 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 children’s 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
43
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 coresearchers? 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
children’s voices are to be heard?
44
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 coresearchers, 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 children’s 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
45
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 children’s 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
46
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.
47
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.
48
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.
49
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
50
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 Wood, 1998
development of children across early and Berk, 2003
middle childhood
The
psychology
of
techniques with children
questioning Ceci and Bruck, 1995
Walker, 1999
Zaragoza, 1995
Data collection and analysis frameworks Robson, 2002
used with children
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 children’s and
51
young people’s 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 Children’s 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
52
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.
1.2.2 Phase 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 review’s 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 review’s 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.
53
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.
54
Appendix 2
Bibliography
Action for Sick Children (1998) Pictures of Healthcare. A child’s 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 childcentred 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 Children’s 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 Voices of Children: Ethnography and
Discourse Analysis’ in J.Ribbens and R.Edwards (eds.) Feminist Dilemmas in
Qualitative Research: Public Knowledge, Private Lives, Sage Publications, 147170
Allmark, P. (?date) The ethics of research with children Nurse Researcher Vol 10, no 2
Altman, D.G. and Chalmers, I. (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis
in context 2nd ed. London : BMJ Books
Amato, P.R. and Orhiltree, G. (1987) Interviewing children about their families: a note on
quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 49, p669-675.
55
Anderson, N. L. R., Koniak-Griffin, D., Keenan, C. K., Uman, G., Duggal, B. R. and
Casey, C.(1999). Evaluating the outcomes of parent-child family life education...
including commentary by Hayman LL. Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice,
13(3), 211-238.
Anzul, M., Evans, J. F., King, R., and Tellier-Robinson, D. (2001). Moving Beyond a
Deficit Perspective with Qualitative Research Methods. Exceptional Children,
67(2), 235-249.
Armstrong, C., Hill, M., and Secker, J. (1998). Listening to Children. London: Mental
Health Foundation.
Audit Commission. (2003). Services for Disabled Children. London: Audit Commission.
Balen, R., Holroyd, C., Mountain, G. and Wood, B. (2000). Giving children a voice:
methodological and practical implications of research involving children.
Paediatric Nursing, 12(10), 24-29.
Barker, J. and Smith, F. (2001). ‘Power, Positionality and Practicalities: Carrying Out
Fieldwork with Children’ Ethics, Place and Environment, 4, 142-147.
Barker, J. and Weller, S. (2003). ‘Never Work with Children? Methodological Issues in
Children’s Geographies’ Qualitative Research.
Barker, J. and Weller, S. (2003). ‘Is it Fun?’ Developing Children Centred Methods’
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy.
Bauchner, H. and Sharfstein, J. (2001). Failure to report ethical approval in child health
research: review of published papers. British Medical Journal, 323(7308), 318319.
Baumann, S.L. (1997). Qualitative research with children. Nursing Science Quarterly. 10,
2, 68-69.
Begley, A. (2000). The educational self-perceptions of children with Down Syndrome. In
A. A. Lewis and G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching Children's Perspectives (pp. 98111). Buckingham: Open University.
Bemak, F. (1996). Street Researchers: A New Paradigm Redefining Future Research with
Street Children. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 3(2), 147-156.
Ben-Arieh, A. and Ofir, A. (2002). Time for (More) Time-Use Studies: Studying the
Daily Activities of Children. Opinion, Dialogue, Review. Childhood: A Global
Journal of Child Research, 9(2), 225-248.
Bendelow, G., Willams, S.J. and Aclu, A. (1996). It makes you bald: Children’s
knowledge and beliefs about health and cancer prevention. Health Education. 3:
12 –19.
56
Bennett, F. and Roche, C. (2000) Developing indicators: the scope for participatory
approaches. New Economy. 7(1): 24-28.
Bennett, F. and Roberts, M. (2003) Participatory Research on Poverty. Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.
BERA (2004). Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. Edinburgh:
BERA/SCRE.
Beresford, B. (1997). Personal accounts: Involving disabled children in research. Social
Policy Research Unit, University of York: Stationery Office.
Berk, L. E. (2003) Child Development 6th ed. London: Allyn and Bacon.
Berger, P. and Berger, B. (1991). Becoming a member of society . In Waksler F (Ed).
1991. Studying the Social Worlds of Children. London, Falmer Press.
Berman, H. (2003). Getting critical with children: empowering approaches with a
disempowered group. ANS - Advances in Nursing Science, 26(2), 102-113.
Berrick, J. D., Frasch, K. and Fox, A. (2000). Note on research methodology. Assessing
children's experiences of out-of-home care: methodological challenges and
opportunities. Social Work Research, 24(2), 119-127.
Blinn-Pike, L. M. and Others, A.. (1993). Assessing What High Risk Young Children
Know about Drugs: Verbal versus Pictorial Methods. Journal of Drug Education,
23(3), 151-169.
Bliss L.S. McCabe A. Miranda A.E. (1998). Narrative Assessment Profile: discourse
analysis for school-age children. Journal of Communication Disorders. 31(4):34763, 365-8, Jul-Aug.
BMA. (2003). Consent Tool Kit. London: BMA.
Booth, T. and Booth, W. (1996). Sounds of silence: narrative research with inarticulate
subjects. Disability and Society, 11(1), 55-57-.
Booth, W. (1998). Doing research with lonely people. British Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 26, 132-136.
Bourg, W., Broderick, R., Flagor, R., Meeks Kelly D., Lang Ervin, D. and Butler, J.
(1999). A Child Interviewer's Handbook. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.
Boyden, J. and J. Ennew (1997). Children in Focus – a manual for participatory research
with children, Rädda Barnen, Stockholm
Boylan, P. (2004) Children’s Voices project: Feedback from children and young people
about their experiences and expectations of healthcare. Commission for Health
Improvement. Department of Health. www.chi.nhs.uk/childrens-voices/Report.pdf
57
Brannen, J. and O’Brien, M. (?date) (eds) Children and Families: Research and Policy.
Open University.
Brewster, S. (in press). Putting words into their mouths? Interviewing people with
learning disabilities and little/ no speech. British Journal of Learning Disabilities.
Bricher, G. (1999). Children and qualitative research methods: a review of the literature
related to interview and interpretive processes Nurse Researcher, Vol 6 No 4,
Summer.
British-Psychological-Society. (1991). Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles and
Guidelines. Leicester: BPS.
Broome, M.E. and Richards, D.J. (2003). The influence of relationships on children’s and
adolescents participation in research. Nurse Researcher, May –June 52 (3). 191-7
Brotherson, M. J. (1999). Challenged To Expand Our Repertoire of Skills in Qualitative
Research. Journal of Early Intervention, 22(4), 289-290.
Brown, L. M. and Gilligan, C. (1991). Listening for Voice in Narratives of Relationship.
New Directions for Child Development, 54, 43-62.
Buchanan, A., Hunt, J., Bretherton, H, and Bream, V. (2001). Families in conflict:
Perspectives of children and parents on the Family Court Welfare Service.
Bristol: Policy Press.
Bull, R. (1995). Innovative techniques for the questioning of child witnesses, especially
those who are young and those with learning disability. In M. S. Zaragoza (Ed.),
Memory and Testimony in the Child Witness (pp. 179-194). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bull, R. (1998). Obtaining information from child witnesses. In M. e. al (Ed.), Psychology
and Law: Truthfulness, Accuracy and Credibility. (pp. 188-209). London:
McGraw Hill.
Burman, E. (1994). Deconstructing Developmental Psychology. London, Routledge.
Butler, I. and Williamson, H. (1994) Children Speak: Children, Trauma and Social Work.
London, Longman.
Byrne, B. M. and Watkins, D. (2003). The issue of measurement invariance revisited.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(2), 155-175.
Campbell, R. and Berry, H. (2001). Action Research Toolkit, Edinburgh Youth Social
Inclusion Partnership
Canino, G., Shrout, P. E., Alegria, M., Rubio-Stipec, M., Chavez, L. M., Ribera, J. C.,
Bravo, M., Bauermeister, J. J., Fabregas, L. M., Horwitz, S. H. and MartinezTaboas, A. (2002). Methodological challenges in assessing children's mental
health services utilization. Mental Health Services Research, 4(2), 97-107.
58
Carlisle, J. (2000). Professional issues... commentary on McPherson G, Thorne S (2000).
Children's voices: can we hear them? Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 15(1), 22-29.
Carlisle, J. (2000). Professional issues... commentary on McPherson G, Thorne S (2000).
Children's voices: can we hear them? Journal of Child and Family Nursing, 3(5),
366-367.
Callery, P., Milnes, L., Verduyn, C. (2003) Qualitative study of young people’s beliefs
about childhood asthma. British Journal of General Practice. 53, pp 85
Carney, T., Murphy, S., McClure, J., Bishop, E., Kerr, C., Parker, J., Scott, F., Shields, C.
and Wilson, L. (2003). Children's views of hospitalization: an exploratory study of
data collection. Journal of Child Health Care, 7(1), 27-40.
Ceci, S. J. and Bruck, M. (1993). The suggestibility of the child witness: An historical
review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 349-403.
Ceci, S. J. and Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the Courtroom. Washington: APA.
Chappell, A. L. (2000). Emergence of participatory methodology in learning difficulty
research: understanding the context . British Journal of Learning Disabilities,
28(1), p38-43.
Christakis, D. A., Johnston, B. D. and Connell, F. A. (2001). Methodologic??? issues in
pediatric outcomes research. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 59-62.
Christensen, P. and James, A. (Eds.). (2000). Research with Children: Perspectives and
Practices. London: Falmer. 120-135
Clark, A. and Moss, P. (2001). Listening to Young Children. The Mosaic approach.
London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation/ National Children's Bureau.
Clarke, J., Yates, E. and Shears, S. (2002). Can we do research without writing it down?
Paper presented at the SCUTREA, 32nd Annual Conference, University of
Stirling.
Clegg, J. (2001). Healthcare ethics from a hermeneutic perspective. Paper presented at
the seminar series: Methodological issues in interviewing children and young
people with learning difficulties. Funded by ESRC 2001-3, University of
Birmingham, School of Education.
Clegg, J. (2003). The ideal proxy informant. Ethics and Intellectual Disability, 7(2), 1 and
4-5.
Cloke, C. and Davies, M. (1995). Participation and Empowerment in Child Protection.
Chichester: Wiley/ NSPCC.
Clough, P. (1998). Differently articulate? Some indices of disturbed/ disturbing voices. In
P. Clough and L. Barton (Eds.), Articulating with Difficulty (pp. 128-145).
London: Paul Chapman.
59
Clough, P. and Barton, L. (Eds.). (1998). Articulating with Difficulty: Research Voices in
Inclusive Education. London: Paul Chapman.
Coad, J. (2002). Research and commentary: conducting focus groups with children.
Paediatric Nursing, 14(10), 12.
Coad, J & Morgan, L (2004) Chapter 8. ‘Getting Research into Children’s Nursing’
Clifford C. and Clark J. ‘Getting Research into Practice’ Harcourt Brace.
Coad, J, Horsley, C and McCabe, A (2004 in press) Participatory Workshops for
Indicators. Report. NECF. Birmingham.
Coates, E. (2004) ‘I forgot the sky!’ Children’s stories contained within their drawings. In
Lewis et al (eds.) The Reality of Research with Children and Young People. The
Open University. Sage. London
Cole-Hamilton., Harrop., Street, C. (2002). Making the case for play. Children’s Play
Council. National Children’s Bureau. London.
Conte, J. R. and Savage, S. B. (2003). Concluding observations. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence., 18(4), 452-468.
Cook, B. G. and Rumrill, P. d. J. (2001). Speaking of research. New directions in special
education research. Work, 17(2), 143-150.
Corsaro and Molinari (2000) Chapter 9. Christensen, P. and James, A. (Eds.). (2000).
Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices. London: Falmer.
Corey, G., Callanan, M. S. and Corey, P. (2002). Issues and Ethics in the Helping
Professions (6TH 03 Edition): Brooks/Cole.
Cox, A. (1999). Children's role in participatory action research: Australian Association
for Research in Education (AARE). Conference (1999: Melbourne); New Zealand
Association for Research in Education (NZARE). Conference (1999 : Melbourne);
Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) and the New Zealand
Association for Research in Education (NZARE) Joint Conference (1999 :
Melbourne).
Coyne, I. T. (1998). Researching children: some methodological and ethical
considerations. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 7(5), 409-416.
CRD (2001) Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness CRD Report
Number 4 (2nd Edition) York.
Crowther, D., Cummings, C., Dyson, A. and Millward, A. (2003). Schools and area
regeneration. London: Policy Press/Joseph Rowntree.
Crozier, J. and Tracey (2000). Falling out of school; A young woman's reflections on her
chequered experience of schooling. In A. Lewis and G. Lindsay (Eds.),
60
Researching Children's Perspectives (pp. 173-186). Buckingham: Open
University.
Cunningham, H. (1995). Children and Childhood in Western Society since 1500. London:
Longman.
Curtin, C. (2001). Eliciting children's voices in qualitative research. American Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 55(3), 295-302.
CYPU. (2001). Learning to Listen: Core principles on the involvement and engagement
of children and young people.
CYPU. (2002). UK implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child (CRC): An update to the UK's second report to the UN Committee on
the Rights of the Child in 1999.
da Cunha Rego, L. (2003). Beyond conventions: a psycho-educational perspective on
children's right to participation. PhD thesis, University of Warwick, Coventry.
Daiute, C. (1998). Points of View in Children's Writing. . Language Arts, 75(2), 138-149.
D'Arcangelo, M. (2003). On the Mind of a Child: A Conversation with Sally Shaywitz.
Educational Leadership; v60 n7 p6-10 Apr
Dashiff, C. (2001). Data Collection with Adolescents. Journal of Advanced Nursing. Vol
33 (3); p343-349. Feb.
Davis, J. M. (1998). Understanding the Meanings of Children: A Reflexive Process.
Children and Society, 12(5), 325-335.
Davis, J. and Watson, N. (2001). Where are the children's experiences? Analysing social
and cultural exclusion in 'special' and mainstream schools. Disability and Society,
16(5), 671-687.
Davis, J., N., W. and S., C.-B. (2000). Learning the Lives of Disabled Children:
Developing a reflexive Approach. In P. Christensen and A. James (Eds.),
Research with Children. Perspectives and Practices (pp. 201-224). London:
Farmer.
Deatrick, J.A. and Faux, S.A. (1991). Conducting qualitative studies with children and
adolescents.In Morse J (Ed). Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary
Dialogue. Newbury Park CA, Sage.
de Koning, K. and Martin, M. (eds) (1996) Participatory research in health : issues and
experiences London : Zed.
Dent, H. R. (1986). An experimental study of the effectiveness of different techniques of
questioning mentally handicapped child witnesses. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 25, 13-17.
61
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, S.K. (1998) The Handbook of Qualitative Research Vols 1, 2
and 3. Sage. London.
Desjean-Perrotta, B. (1998). Through Children's Eyes: Using the Shadow Study
Technique for Program Evaluation. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25(4),
259-263.
Detheridge, T. (2000). Research involving children with severe learning difficulties. In A.
Lewis and G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching Children's Perspectives (pp. 112-121).
Buckingham: Open University Press.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991) Scale development: Theory and application. Sage. Newbury Park,
CA.
Devine, D. (2002). Children's Citizenship and the Structuring of Adult-Child Relations in
the Primary School. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 9(3), 303320.
DoH. (2003). Department of Health. National Service Frameworks. London. DoH
DFES. (2001a). Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Pupils with
Special Educational Needs. London: DFES.
DFES. (2001b). Toolkit for Special Educational Needs. London: DFES.
DFES. (2003). Every child matters. Green paper. London: DFES.
DFES (2004). Removing Barriers to Achievement. London: DFES.
DFES. (2004). Every child matters; The next steps. March. London: DFES.
Di Gallo, A. (2001). Drawing as a means of communication at the initial interview with
children with cancer Journal of Child Psychotherapy, Vol.27,no.2: Aug p197-210
Docherty S, Sandelowski M. (1999). Focus on Qualitative Methods. Interviewing
children. Research in Nursing and Health. 22, (2): 177-185.
Dockett, S. and Perry, B. (1999). Starting School: What Do the Children Say? Early
Child Development and Care, 159, 107-119.
Dockrell, J., Lewis, A. and Lindsay, G. (2000). Researching Children's Perspectives -.a
psychological perspective. In A. Lewis and G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching
Children's Perspectives (pp. 46-58). Buckingham: Open University.
Dorn, L. D., Susman, E. J. and Fletcher, J. C. (1995). Informed consent in children and
adolescents: age, maturation and psychological state. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 16(3), 185-190.
Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and
Information Technology, 21(1), 1-25.
62
Dunlop, A.W. (1998). Using Research Methodology To Explore Quality of Social
Interaction. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 6(1), 87104.
Earls, F. and Carlson, M. (1999). Children at the Margins of Society: Research and
Practice. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development(85), 71-82.
Educable. (2000). No choice: no chance. The educational experiences of young people
with disabilities Belfast: Save the Children.
EPPI. (2003). Supporting pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) in
mainstream primary schools: a systematic review of recent research on strategy
effectiveness (1999-2000). London: EPPI Centre, University of London Institute
of Education.
Evans, M. E., Mejia-Maya, L. J., Zayas, L. H., Boothroyd, R. A. and Rodriguez, O.
(2001). Conducting research in culturally diverse inner-city neighborhoods: some
lessons learned. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 12(1), 6-14.
Evans, P. and Fuller, M. (1998) Perceptions of children International Journal of Early
Years Education 6 1 60-74
Everson-Bates, S. (1988). Research involving children: ethical concerns and dilemmas.
Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 2(5), 234-239.
Faulkner, D (1998). Cited from Christensen, P. and James, A. (Eds.). (2000). Research
with Children: Perspectives and Practices. London: Falmer.
Faux, S.A. et al. (1988).Intensive interviewing with children and adolescents. Western
Journal of Nursing Research. 10,2, 180-194.
Fine, G.A, Sandstrom, K.L. (1988). Knowing Children: Participant Observation with
Minors. Newbury Park CA, Sage.
Fivush, R. (1991) The social construction of personal narratives, Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 37, 59-82.
Ford, M. and Fasoli, L. (2001). Indigenous early childhood educators' narratives : some
methodological considerations. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 26(3), 1217.
France, A. (2000). Youth researching youth: The triumph and success peer research
project. National Youth Agency/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Fraser, S., Lewis,V., Ding, S. et al. (2003). Doing research with children and young
people. Sage. London.
Freeman, C., Henderson, P., Kettle, J. (1999). Planning with children for better
communities: the challenge to professionals, Bristol: Policy Press.
63
Friedland D. and Penn C. (2003). Conversation analysis as a technique for exploring the
dynamics of a mediated interview. International Journal of Language and
Communication Disorders. 38(1):95-111, 2003 Jan-Mar.
Fritzley, V. H. and Lee, K. (2003). Do young children always say yes to yes-no
questions? A meta-developmental study of the affirmation bias. Child
Development . 74, 1297-1313.
Garth, (2003). ‘I value what you have to say with a disability’ – Seeking perspectives of
children Disability and Society 18 (5) P561-576.
Garth, B. and Aroni, R. (2003). 'I value what you have to say'. Seeking the perspective of
children with a disability, not just their parents. Disability and Society, 18(5), 561576.
Germain, R. (in press). An exploratory study using cameras and Talking Mats to access
the views of young people with learning disabilities on their out of school
activities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities.
Gersch, I. (1996) Listening to children in educational contexts, in R.Davie, G.Upton, and
V. Varma (eds) The Voice of the child; A handbook for professionals London:
Falmer
Gettings, D and Gladstone, C (2001) Using ICT based questionnaires in attempting to
gain the views of students with severe learning difficulties, ERSC series;
University of Birmingham
Gillen, J. and Young, S. (2000). Participatory Research with Young Children:
Engagements in Dialogue by Instrumental Music-Making and Telephone Talk.
Paper presented at British Educational Association Conference. University of
Sussex. September 2-5.
Ginsburg, H.P. (1997). Entering the child’s mind. University Press. Cambridge.
Gordon, A. (2001). Exclusions in England: Children's Voices and Adult Solutions?
Educational Studies, 27(1), 69-85.
Grady, S. (1999). Asking the Audience: Talking to Children about Representation in
Children's Theatre. Youth Theatre Journal, 13, 82-92.
Grainger, T., Goouch, K. and Lambirth, A. (2002). The Voice of the Child: "We're
Writers" Project. Reading: Literacy and Language, 36(3), 135-139.
Greig, A. and Taylor, J. (1999). Doing Research with Children. London: Sage.
Gunther, H. (1991) Interviewing street children in a Brazilian city. Journal of Social
Psychology. 132, p359-367.
64
Hammersley, M. (2001) Some questions about evidence-based practice in education.
Paper in Symposium: Evidence-based practice. BERA conference, September
2001
Hamill, P. and Boyd, B. (2002). Equality, Fairness and Rights – The Young Person’s
Voice. British Journal of Special Education, 29(3), 111-117.
Harr, J. (2001). Issues in researching the perspectives of deaf children. Journal of
Research in SEN, 1.3.
Harrell, J. S., Bradley, C., Dennis, J., Frauman, A. C. and Criswell, E. S. (2000). Schoolbased research: problems of access and consent. Journal of Pediatric Nursing,
15(1), 14-21.
Hart, R. (1992). ‘Children’s Participation: from tokenism to citizenship’, Innocenti Essay
No.4, UNICEF, New York.
Hart, R. A. (1997) Children's participation: the theory and practice of involving young
citizens London: UNICEF and Earthscan
Hart, S. N. (2002). Making Sure The Child's Voice Is Heard. International Review of
Education, 48 (3-4), 251-258.
Hazel, N. (1995). Seen and heard: An examination of methods for collecting data from
young. Unpublished MSc. University of Stirling.
Hazel, N. (2003). Elicitation techniques with young people. Social Research, 12.
University of Surrey and Unpublished thesis. University of Stirling.
DoH (1992). Memorandum of Good Practice on Video-recorded Interviews with Child
Witnesses for Criminal Proceedings. London: HMSO.
Hek, R. (2002). ‘Integration not segregation’ – experiences of young refugees in British
Schools. FMR, p14-15.
Hek, R and Sales, R (2001) Supporting refugee and asylum seeking children: An
examination of experiences and support structures that facilitate settlement in
school. Unpublished report. Middlesex University.
Hengst, H. (1987) The liquidation of childhood, in J. Qvortup (ed) The sociology of
childhood: International Journal of Sociology 17 2 58-80
Henry, L. A. and Gudjonsson, G. H. (1999). Eyewitness memory and suggestibility in
children with mental retardation. AJMR, 104(6), 491-508.
Hewson, C. (2003) Conducting research on the internet. The Psychologist, 16(6), 290293.
65
Hibbert, P. (2002) Voices and choices: young people participating in inspections.
Barnados. www.barnardos.org.uk/resources
Hickmann, M. (2003). Children's Discourse: Person, Space and Time across Languages.
Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Paper.
Hill, M., Laybourn, A. and Borland, M. (1996). Engaging with primary-aged children
about their emotions and well-being: methodological considerations. Children and
Society, 10, 129-144.
Holmes, R. (1998). Fieldwork with Children, Sage Publications.
Homan, R. (2001). The principle of assumed consent: the ethics of gatekeeping. Journal
of Philosophy of Education, 35(3), 329-343.
Hood, S. et al. (1996). Children as research subjects: a risky enterprise. Children and
Society. Vol 10. June. 117-128.
Hood, S., Mayall, B. and Oliver, S. (Eds.). (1999). Critical Issues in Social Research.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Horner, S. D. (2000). Focus on research methods. Using focus group methods with
middle school children. Research in Nursing and Health, 23(6), 510-517.
Hoskins, M. L., Pence, A. and Chambers, E. (1999). Quality and Day Care: What Do
Children Have To Say? Early Child Development and Care, 157, 51-66.
Hurley, J.C. and Underwood, M.K. (2002). Children’s understanding of their research
rights before and after debriefing: Informed assent, confidentiality and stopping
participation. Child Development, 73, 132-143.
Huston, A. C. (2002). From Research to Policy: Choosing Questions and Interpreting the
Answers. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development(98), 29-41.
Innes, M., Moss, T. and Smigiel, H. What do the children say? The importance of student
voice. Research in Drama Education, 6(2), 207-221.
Inspire Training and Development. (2002). ‘I Am We Are’ Activities Pack: creative
activities to help children explore their identities, Smethwick: Inspire.
Investing in Children Projects (1998 – 2001) ‘Sour Grapes’ – How young people’s views
are taken into account (1998) Young People’s Mental Health (2000), Fares Fair’ Investigating local transport (2000) and Young People and the Police (2001),
Courtesy of Felicity Shelton (see acknowledgements); Co. Durham, UK
Ireland L., Holloway I. (1996). Qualitative health research with children. Children and
Society. 10, 155-164.
James, A. (1996) Learning to be friends: methodological lessons from participant
observation among English school children Childhood 3 313-330
66
James, A. et al. (1998). Theorizing Childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.
James, A. and Prout A. (Eds). (1997). Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood:
Contemporary issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. Falmer Press,
London.
Johnson, A. J. (2002). So..? Pragmatic implications of So-Prefaced questions in formal
police interviews. In J. Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the Legal Process (pp. 91110). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Johnson, B.H. (1990). Children’s Drawings as a projective technique. Pediatric Nursing.
Vol 16 (no 1) 11- 17.
Johnson, K (2003) Use of photographs with a group of Australian school-aged children.
Unpublished. By kind permission.
Johnson, V., E. Ivan-Smith, G.Gordon, P.Pridmore, P.Scott (eds.) (1998). Stepping
Forward. Children and young people’s participation in the development process.
Intermediate Technology Publications. Filey, N.Yorkshire.
Johnston, J. (2001). Evaluating National Initiatives: The Case of "On Track." Children
and Society, 15(1), 33-36.
Jordan, K. M., Kolak, A. M. and Jason, L. A. (1997). Research with children and
adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome: methodologies, designs, and special
considerations. Journal of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, 3(2), 3-13.
Joseph, R. M. (1998). Intention and Knowledge in Preschoolers' Conception of Pretend.
Child Development, 69(4), 966-980.
Joseph-Rowntree-Foundation. (2001). Findings: consulting with disabled children and
young people. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Karppinen, S. (2000). Repertory Grid Technique in Early Childhood as a Tool for
Reflective Conversations in Arts Education.
Kassam-Adams N. Newman E. (2002).The reactions to research participation
questionnaires for children and for parents. General Hospital Psychiatry. Vol
24(5) (pp 336-342).
Kefyalew, F. (1996). The Reality of Child Participation in Research: Experience from a
Capacity-Building Programme. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research,
3(2), 203-213.
Kelly, N. and Norwich, B. (2002). Perspectives of pupils with MLD on their mainstream
and special school provision and themselves. Exeter: University of
Exeter/Nuffield Foundation.
67
Kennedy, C., Charlesworth, A. and Chen, J. (2003). Interactive data collection: benefits
of integrating new media into pediatric research. CIN: Computers, Informatics,
Nursing, 21(3), 120-127.
Kerr, A., Makuluni, A. H. and Nieves, M. (2000). The Research Process: Parents, Kids,
and Teachers as Ethnographers. Primary Voices K-6, 8(3), 14-23.
Khan, S. (1997) A Street Children’s Research. Save the Children. October.
Kinard, E. M. (1998). Methodological Issues in Assessing Resilience in Maltreated
Children. Child Abuse and Neglect. The International Journal, 22(7), 669-680.
Kirby, P. (1999). Involving Young Researchers: How to enable young people to design
and conduct research, York: JRF / Youth Work Press.
Kirby, P., Lanyon, C., Kronin, K. and Sinclair, R. (2003). Building a culture of
participation. London: CYPU.
Kirkbride, L. (1999). I'll go first: The planning and review toolkit for use with children
with disabilities. London: Children's Society.
Klein, R (2003) We want our say: children as active participants in their education.
Stoke on Trent: Trentham.
Koocher, G.P, Keith-Spiegel, P. (1994). Scientific issues in psychosocial and educational
research with children. In Godwin, Glanz LH (Eds). Children as Research
Subjects. New York NY, Oxford. University Press.
Kortesluoma, R.-L., Hentinen, M. and Nikkonen, M. (2003). Conducting a qualitative
child interview: methodological considerations. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
42(5), 434.
Kurtz, Z. and Thornes, R. (2000). The health needs of school aged children – the views of
children, parents and teachers linked to local and national information.
Department of Education and Employment. London.
Kyngas, H., Barlow J. (1995). Diabetes: an adolescent’s perspective. Journal of Advanced
Nursing. 22, 941-947.
Lansdown, G. (2001) Promoting chidlren’s participation in democratic decision-making,
Florence: UNICEF
Lansdown, G. (1994). Children’s Rights. In Mayall, B (Editor); Children’s Childhoods
Observed and Experienced, London: Falmer Press.
Lansdown, G. and Lancaster, Y. P. (2001) Promoting chidlren’s welfare by respecting
tehri rights in G. Pugh (ed) Contemporary Issues in the Early Years London: Paul
Chapman/ Sage
68
Lansdown, G., Waterston, T. and Baum, D. (1996). Implementing the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child. British Medical Journal, 313, 21-28.
Lewis, A. (2001). Reflections on Interviewing Children and Young People as a Method
of Inquiry in Exploring their Perspectives on Integration/Inclusion. Journal for
Research in Special Educational Needs, 1(3), www.nasen.uk.com/ejournal.
Lewis, A. (2001) Research involving young children, in T. David (ed) Promoting
Evidence-based Practice in Early Childhood Education: Research and its
implications. Advances in Applied Early Childhood Education. Volume 1. pp
251-269 London; JAI/ Elsevier Science.
Lewis, A. (2002). Accessing, through research interviews, the views of children with
difficulties in learning. Support for Learning, 17(3), 110-116.
Lewis A. (2004) ‘And When Did You Last See Your Father?’ Exploring the views of
children with learning difficulties/ disabilities British Journal of Special
Education 31(1), 4-10.
Lewis, A. (in press) Researching a marginalized population: methodological issues. In P.
Garner et al (eds) International handbook of Emotional and Behavioural
Difficulties London: Sage
Lewis, A. (in press) Exploring the views of children with learning disabilities, in C. Toren
and G. Evans (eds) Methods for making sense of children’s experiences
Uxbridge: Brunel University, Centre for Child-Focused Anthropological Research
Lewis, A. and Lindsay, G. E. (Eds.). (2000) Researching Children's Perspectives.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lewis, A. and Porter, J. (in press). Interviewing children and young people with learning
disabilities: Guidelines for researchers and multi professional practice. British
Journal of Learning Disabilities
Lewis, V., Kellet. M. et al (2003). The Reality of research with children and young
people. Sage/ Open University: London.
Lightfoot, J. and Sloper, P. (2002). Having a say in health: involving young people with a
chronic illness or physical disability in local health services development.
Children and Society.
Lindsay, G. (2000). Researching children's perspectives: ethical issues. In A. Lewis and
G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching Children's Perspectives (pp. 1-20). Buckingham:
Open University.
Luxmoore, N. (2000) Listening to young people in school, youth work and counselling
London : Jessica Kingsley
Lyle, S. (2002). Talking to learn: the voices of children, aged 9-11, engaged in role-play.
Language and Education. Vol 16, No 4. 303-317.
69
Masson, J. (2000). Researching children's perspectives: legal issues. In A. Lewis and G.
Lindsay (Eds.), Researching Children's Perspectives (pp. 34-45). Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Mahon, A., Glendinning, C., Clarke, K. and Craig, M. (1996). Researching children:
methods and ethics. Children and Society, 10, 145-154.
Marchant, R. and Cross, M. (2002). How it is. London: NSPCC.
Mason, J., and Urquhart, R. Developing a model for participation by children in research
on decision making. Children Australia, 26(4), 16-21.
Masson, J. (2001). Ethical issues from a legal perspective. Paper presented at the seminar
series: Methodological issues in interviewing children and young people with
learning difficulties. Funded by ESRC 2001-3, School of Education, University
of Birmingham.
Mauthner, M. (1997). Methodological aspects of collecting data from children; lessons
from three projects. Children and Society. 11 (1) 16-28.
Mavers, D (2001) Concept Maps: Representing Thinking. ERSC series. University of
Birmingham.
Mayall, B. et al. (1996).Children’s Health in Primary Schools. London, Falcon Press.
Mayall, B. (1998). Towards a sociology of child health. Sociology of Health and Illness.
20, 3, 269-288.
Mayall, B. (2000). ‘Conversations with Children – Working with Generational Issues’ in
P. Moss, J. (2000) Researching children’s perspectives: a book review textualised
by Liam’s sorting drawing. Australian Educational Researcher. V. 27 (3) 185191.
McCarthy, M. (1998). Interviewing people with learning disabilities about sensitive
topics: a discussion of ethical issues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26,
140-145.
McCrum S, Bemal P. (1994). Interviewing Children: A Training Pack for Journalists.
Buckfastleigh, Save the Children Fund.
McGurk, H. and Glachan, M. (1988). Children’s conversations with adults. Children and
Society. Vol 2, 20-34.
McIntosh, N., Normand, C., Alderson, P., Brykczynska, G., Cooke, R., Dunstan, G.,
Lloyd, D. J., Montgomery, J., Nicholson, R., Pembrey, M., Bates, P., Goldman,
A., Harvey, D., Larcher, V., McCrae, D., McKinnon, A., Patton, M., Saunders, J.,
Shelley, P. and Hull, D. (2000). Guidelines for the ethical conduct of medical
research involving children. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 82(2), 177-182.
70
McKenzie, B. C. (1997). Developing First Nations Child Welfare Standards: Using
Evaluation Research within a Participatory Framework. Journal of Program
Evaluation/La Revue canadienne d'evaluation de programme, 12(1), 133-148.
McNeish, D. (1999).Promoting participation for children and young peopl: Some key
questions for health and scoial welfare organisaitons. Journal of Social Work
Practice. Vol 13
McNeish, D., Newman, T., Roberts, H. (2002). (eds) What Works for Children?
Buckingham: OUP
McTaggart, R (1996) Issues for Participatory Action Researchers. In Ortrun ZuberSkerrit (ed) New
Directions in Action Research. London, Falmer Press.
Medd, W. (2001). Making (Dis)Connections: Complexity and the Policy Process? Social
Issues, 1(2), http://www.whb.co.uk/socialissues/undex.htm.
Merton, B. (2002). Build It In. Evaluating innovation in work with young people. NYA.
Miller, J (1996) Never too young – How young children can take responsibility and make
decisions. A handbook for early years workers. The National Early Years
Network/Save The Children. London.
Miller, J. (1998) ‘No fun in Bilsthorpe’ Social Action Today. January. No 7, pp9-11.
Miller, S. (1999) Hearing from children who have diabetes. Journal of Child Health. 2
(1); pp5-12
Miller, S. (2000). Analysis of phenomenological data generated with children as research
participants. Nurse Researcher, Vol 10, No 4 74, 1297-1313.
Mills, J. with Mills, R. W. (2000) Childhood studies : a reader in perspectives of
childhood London : Routledge
Milne, R. and Bull, R. (2001). Interviewing witnesses with learning disabilities for legal
purposes: A review. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 93-97.
Minkler, M. (2003) Community based participatory research for health Chichester: John
Wiley
Montandon, C. and Osiek, F. (1998). Children's Perspectives on Their Education.
Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 5(3), 247-263.
Moore, M., Beazeley, S. and Maelzer, J. (1998). Researching Disability Issues.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Morgan, M., Gibbs, S., Maxwell, K. and Britten, N. (2002). Hearing children's voices:
methodological issues in conducting focus groups with children aged 7-11 years.
Qualitative Research, 2(1), 5-20.
71
Morris, J. (1998). Don't leave us out: Involving disabled children and young people with
communication impairments. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Morris, J. (2003). Including all children: finding out about the experiences of children
with communication and/or cognitive impairments. Children and Society.
Morrow, V. (1998) Understanding families: children's perspectives London: National
Children's Bureau/ Joseph Rowntree
Morrow, V. (1999). It's cool ... 'cos you can't give us detentions and things, can you? In P.
Milner and B. Carolin (Eds.), Time to listen to children (pp. 203-215). London:
Routledge.
Morrow, V. (2001a). Using qualitative methods to elicit young people's perspectives on
their environments: Some ideas for community health initiatives. Health
Education Research, 16(3), 255-268.
Morrow, V. (2001b). Young people's explanations and experiences of social exclusion:
retrieving Bourdieu's concept of social capital. International Journal of Sociology
and Social Policy 21(4/5/6) 37-63
Morrow, V. and Richards, M. (1996). The ethics of social research with children: an
overview. Children and Society, 10, 90-105.
Moss, J. (2000). Review essay: Researching Children's Perspectives : a book review
textualised by Liam's sorting drawing. Australian Educational Researcher, 27(3),
185-191.
Moston, S. (1987). The suggestibility of children in interview studies. First Language, 7,
67-78.
Mulderij K. (1996). Research into the lifeworld of physically disabled children. Child:
Care, Health and Development. 22, 5, 311-22.
Mullender, A. et al. (2002) Children's perspectives on domestic violence London: Sage.
Murphy, J. (2002). Let your mats do the talking. Speech and Language Therapy in
Practice, Spring, 18-20.
Narring, F. (2001). Qualitative research methodology: A critical review of its application
to adolescents. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health. Vol
13(1) (pp 25-29), 2001
National Children’s Bureau. (1993). Guidelines for research. London: NCB.
NCH. (2001). Participating in good practice: A resource pack to support user
participation in NCH projects. London: NCH.
72
NEF. (1998). Participation Works! 21 Techniques of community participation for
children and young people, Save the Children, London.
Nesbitt, E. (2000) Researching 8 to 13 year olds’ perspectives on their experience of
religion In A. Lewis and G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching Children's Perspectives
(pp. 135-149) Buckingham: Open University.
Nichols, S. (2002). Parents' construction of their children as gendered, literate subjects: a
critical discourse analysis Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, Vol.2,no.2: Aug
2002 123-144.
NHS (2004) National Health Service. Standard Operating Procedures for Research Ethics
Committees in the United Kingdom. Central Office for Research Ethics
(COREC). Version 1.0. February.
Novak, J. D. and Gowin, D. B. (1984) Learning How to Learn. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
NSPCC (2000) Listening to children: a guide for parents and carers London;
Wordworks
Oakley, M. (2000). Children and young people and care proceedings. In A. Lewis and G.
Lindsay (Eds.), Researching Children's Perspectives (pp. 73-85). Buckingham:
Open University.
O'Donnell, L. N. and Strasburger, V. (1998). Parental permission in adolescent health
research (multiple letters). Journal of Adolescent Health, 23(5), 252-253.
O'Donnell, L. N., Duran, R. H., San Doval, A., Breslin, M. J., Juhn, G. M. and Stueve, A.
(1997). Obtaining written parent permission for school-based health surveys of
urban young adolescents... including commentary by Santelli J. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 21(6), 376-387.
O’Quigley, A. (2000) Listening to children’s views: The findings and recommendations
of recent research York: Joseph Rowntree
Oliver, M. (1997) Emancipatory research: Realsitic goal or impossible dream? In C.
Barnes and G. Mercer Doing Disability Research Disability Press
Ovadia, R., Hemphill, L., Winner, K., Bellinger, D. (2000) Just Pretend: Participation in
Symbolic Talk by Children with Histories of Early Corrective Heart Surgery.
Applied Psycholinguistics; v21 n3 p321-40 Sep
Parkinson, D. D. (2001). Securing Trustworthy Data from an Interview Situation with
Young Children: Six Integrated Interview Strategies. Child Study Journal, 31(3),
137-156.
Partington, L. (undated). We want to be heard. London: Children's Society.
73
Ponder, K. W. (2001). Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Practitioner Perspective:
Assessing Child-Care Quality with a Telephone Interview, 16(2), 241-243.
Ponder, Karen W. (2001). Practitioner Perspective: Assessing Child-Care Quality with a
Telephone Interview. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; v16 n2 p241-43 2001.
Porter, J. and Lewis, A. (2001). Methodological issues in interviewing children and
young people with learning difficulties. Paper presented at the ESRC-funded
seminar series: Methodological issues in interviewing children and young people
with learning difficulties. School of Education: University of Birmingham.
Porter, J., Ouvry, C., Morgan, M. and Downs, C. (2001). Interpreting the Communication
of people with profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties. British Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 29(1), 12-16.
Pridmore, P. and Bendelow, G. (1995). Images of health: Exploring beliefs of children
using ‘draw and write’ technique. Health Education Journal. 54. 473-488.
Pring, R. (2000). Philosophy of Educational Research. London: Continuum.
Prior, M. e. (2002). Investing in our children: developing a research agenda.: Academy
of the Social Sciences in Australia.
Prout, A. (2000). Children's Participation: control and self-realisation in British Late
Modernity. Children and Society, 14, 304-315.
Prout, A. (2001). Representing Children: Reflections on the Children 5-16 Programme.
Children and Society, 15(3), 193-201.
Prout, A. (2002). Researching Children as Social Actors: An Introduction to the Children
5-16 Programme. Children and Society, 16(2), 67-76.
Punch, S. (2002). Interviewing strategies with young people: the secret box, a stimulus
material and task-based activities. Children and Society. Vol 16, Issue 1. January.
45-56.
Punch, S. G. (2002). Research with Children: The Same or Different from Research with
Adults? Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 9(3), 321-341.
Radford, J. and Tarplee, C. (2000). The management of conversational topic by a ten year
old child with pragmatic difficulties. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics.
14(5):387-403, Jul-Aug
Raschick, M. and Critchley, R. (1998). Guidelines for conducting site-based evaluations
of intensive family preservation programs. Child Welfare, 77(6), 643-660.
Rechner, M. (1990). Adolescents with cancer: getting on with life. Journal of Pediatric
Oncology Nursing. 7, 4, 139-144.
Rich, J. (1968). Interviewing children and adolescents. Macmillan press. London.
74
Ridge, T. (2002) Childhood poverty and social exclusion : from a child's perspective
Bristol : Policy Press, 2002
Ring, K. (2000). Young children talking about their drawings: methodological dilemmas.
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual
Conference, Cardiff University.
Ring, K. (2003). Young children drawing: the significance of the context. Paper presented
at the Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational
Research Association, 13-15 September 2001, University of Leeds, England.
Robertson, C. (2001). Autonomy and identity: the need for new dialogues in education
and welfare. Support for Learning, 16(3), 122-127.
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Rollins, P.R. McCabe, A. Bliss, L. (2000). Culturally sensitive assessment of narrative
skills in children. Seminars in Speech and Language. 21(3):223-34, 275-6.
Ronen, G. M., Rosenbaum, P., Law, M. and Streiner, D. L. (2001). Health-related quality
of life in childhood disorders: A modified focus group technique to involve
children. Quality of Life Research, 10(1), 71-79.
Rosenblatt, A. and Woodbridge, M. W. (2003). Deconstructing research on systems of
care for youth with EBD: frameworks for policy research. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 11(1), 27-37.
Rosenquest, B. B. (2002). The 3 Rs of Research in Child Care: Roles, Rights, and
Responsibilities. Child Care Information Exchange, 144, 54-59.
Rotherham Participation Project, (2001). Young People’s Charter of Participation, The
Children’s Society.
Royal College of Nursing (2004) Research Ethics The RCN Research Society Ethics
Guidance Group. RCN, London
Saito, M. (2003) Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach to Education: A Critical
Exploration Journal of Philosophy of Education 37 1 17-33
Sapsford, R. and Jupp, V. (1996) Data Collection and Analysis London: Sage
Sartain, S, Clarke, C.L. (2000). Hearing the voices of children with chronic illness.
Journal of Advanced Nursing Vol 32 (4); p913-921.Oct.
Save the Children (1997) A Matter of Opinion. Save the Children, London.
Save-the-Children. (2000). Children and Participation: Research, monitoring and
evaluation with children and young people. London: Save the Children.
75
Save the Children (2003) All Together Now. London: Save the Children.
Saywitz, K. J. and Snyder, L. (1993) Improving children's testimony with preparation.
In G. S. Goodman and B. Bottom (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses: understanding
and improving testimony. New York: Guilford Press.
Saywitz, K. J. (1995). Improving Children's Testimony: The question, the answer and the
environment. In M. S. Zaragoza (Ed.), Memory and Testimony in the Child
Witness (pp. 113-140). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Scharer, K. (1996). Researching sensitive issues in child psychiatric nursing: ethical
concerns. Journal of Child and Adolescent; Psychiatric Nursing. 9, 3, 17-27.
Schiller, W. (1999). Adult/Child Interaction: How Patterns and Perceptions Can Influence
Planning. Early Child Development and Care, 159, 75-92.
Schofield, G. and Thoburn, J. (1996). Child Protection: The Voice of the Child in
Decision Making London: IPPR
Scott, D. (2000). Realism and Educational Research. London, Routledge/Falmer.
Scotland. (2002). VITAL VOICES - Helping Vulnerable Witnesses Give Evidence - Policy
Statement - Scotland.
Sengstock, M. C. and Hwalek, M. (1999). Issues to Be Considered in Evaluating
Programs for Children and Youth. Research and Practice: Completing the Circle.
New Designs for Youth Development, 15(2), 8-12.
Shaw, I. (1996). Unbroken voices: Children, young people and qualitative methods. P1936. In Butler, L. and Shaw, I (eds) A case of neglect? Children’s experiences and
the sociology of childhood. Aldershot, Avebury.
Sheffield Children’s Fund (2003). Humberstone, C and Corbett, A. Let’s Get Involved! A
practical guide for involving and consulting children and young people. Sheffield.
August.
Shepard, M. P., Orsi, A. J., Mahon, M. M. and Carroll, R. M. (2002). Mixed-methods
research with vulnerable families. Journal of Family Nursing, 8(4), 334-352.
Shin, H. S. (2001). A review of school-based drug prevention program evaluations in the
1990s. Journal of Health Education, 32(3), 139-149.
Silverman, D. (1993) Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and
interaction. Sage, London.
Sinclair, R., Cronin, K., Lanyon, C., Stone, V. and Hulusi, A. (2002). Aim High Stay
Real - Outcomes for Children and Young People: The Views of Children, Parents
and Practitioners. London: CYPU.
76
Skinner, J. (1998). Research as a Counselling Activity? A Discussion of Some Uses of
Counselling within the Context of Research on Sensitive Issue. British Journal of
Guidance and Counselling, 26(4), 533-540.
Solberg, A. (1996). The challenge in child research: from ‘Being’ to ‘Doing’. In Brannen,
J and O’Brien, M (Eds). Children in Families. Falmer, London
Spencer, J. R. and Flin, R. (1990). The evidence of children. London: Blackstone Press.
Stafford, A., Laybourn, A., Hill, M. and Walker, M. (2003). Having a say: children and
young people talk about consultation. Children and Society.
Stanley, B., Sieber, J. (1992). The ethics of participatory research on children and
adolescents; ethical issues. Sage, London.
Steward, M et al. (1993). Implications of developmental research for interviewing
children. Child Abuse and Neglect 17, 25-37.
Stiegler, L.N. and Hoffman, P.R. (2001). Discourse-based intervention for word finding
in children. Journal of Communication Disorders. 34(4):277-303, 367-70, 2001
Jul-Aug.
Suarez-Balcazar, Y and Harper, G.W. (eds) (2003) Empowerment and participatory
evaluation of community interventions : Multiple Benefits New York: Haworth
Press
Swain, J., Keyman, B. and Gilman, M. (1998). Public research, private concerns: Ethical
issues in the use of open-ended interviews with people who have learning
difficulties. Disability and Society, 13(1), 21-36.
Takai W (2004) How do deaf infants attain first signs? In Lewis V et al. (eds). The
Reality of Research with Children and Young People. The Open University. Sage.
London.
Tammivaara, J., Enright D. (1986). On eliciting information: dialogues with child
informants.Anthropology and Education Quarterly. 17, 218-238.
Terzi, L. (2003) A capability perspective on impairment, disability and special, needs:
Towards social justice in education; paper prepared for 3rd conference on the
Capability approach: From sustainable development to sustainable freedom;
Pavia, Italy, Sept 03
Tetley, J and Hanson, E. (?date). Participatory research; Nurse Researcher Vol 8, No 1
Thomas, J. A. and Montgomery, P. (1998). On Becoming a Good Teacher: Reflective
Practice with Regard to Children's Voices. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(5),
372-380.
Thomas, N. and O'Kane, C. (1998). The Ethics of Participatory Research with Children.
Children and Society; v12 n5 p336-48 Nov.
77
Thomas, G. V. and Silk, A. M. (1990). An Introduction to the Psychology of Children's
Drawings. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Treseder, P. (1997). Empowering Children and Young People, Children’s Rights Office
and Save the Children. London.
van't Riet, A., Berg, M., Hiddema, F. and Sol, K. (2001). Meeting patients' needs with
patient information systems: Potential benefits of qualitative research methods.
International Journal of Medical Informatics, 64(1), 1-14.
Varga, D. (2000). Hyperbole and Humor in Children's Language Play. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education; v14 n2 p142-51, 14(2), 142-151.
Varga, D. (2000). Hyperbole and Humor in Children's Language Play. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education; v14 n2 p142-51 Spr-Sum.
Waksler, F. (1991). Studying children: phenomenological insights. In Waksler F (Ed).
Studying the Social Worlds of Children. London, Falmer Press. 1991.
Walker, A. Graffam (1999) Handbook on questioning children : a linguistic perspective
2nd ed. - Washington, D.C.: ABA Center on Children and the Law.
Walker, Z; Townsend, J; Oakley, L; Donovan, C; Smith, H. (2002) Health Promotion for
adolescents in primary care. British Medical Journal. 325; 524.
Walters, A. E. (2001). Making art: the child's perspective.: Queensland University of
Technology.
Ward, L. and Flynn, M. (1994). What matters most: disability, research and
empowerment. In Rioux, M.H and Bach, M. (?date) (eds) Disability is not
measles. New Research Paradigms in Disability. North York, Ontario, Roeher
Institute.
Ward, L. (1996). Seen and Heard: Involving disabled children and young people in
research and development projects. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Ward, L. (1998). Practising partnership: Involving people with learning difficulties in
research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 128-132.
Ware, J. (in press). Interviewing people with Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties
- contextual issues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities.
Warren, S (2000) Chapter 10. Lewis, A. and Lindsay, G. E. (Eds.). (2000) Researching
Children's Perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Weisner, T. S. (1999). Bringing Together Variable-Based and Person-Based Methods.
Journal of Early Intervention, 22(4), 291-293.
78
Wellman, H., Phillips, A,. Rodriguez, T. (2000). Young Children's Understanding of
Perception, Desire, and Emotion. Child Development; v71 n4 p895-912 Jul-Aug.
West, A. (1995) You’re on your own. Young People’s research on leaving care. Save the
Children, London.
West, A. (1996a) Young People, participatory research and experiences of leaving care.
PLA notes. February.
West, A. (1996b) Crying out for more. Community Care. 26th September-2nd October
edition; 8.
West, A. (1997) Participatory Research BY Street Children, Dhaka. Interim Report. Save
The Children. London.
West, P. (1990). The status and validity of accounts obtained at interview: a contrast
between two studies of families with a disabled child. Social Science and
Medicine. 30, 11, 1229-39.
Whitmore, K. F. and Norton-Meier, L. A. (2000). Reflections. Primary Voices, K-6(3),
43-47.
Whitney, J. D. (2000). Down the rabbit hole or in search of evidence? Journal of
Wocn???????????, 27(1), 17-19.
Whittles, S. (1998). Can you hear us?: including the views of disabled children and
young people. London: Save the Children.
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). Children's individual approaches to the organization of
narrative. Journal of Child Language. 24(2):279-309, Jun.
Wilkinson, J. E. and Others, A. (1995). A Participatory Methodology for the Evaluation
of Innovation in the Context of the Integrated Pre-school Services. Early Child
Development and Care, 108, 35-49.
Williams, P. (2001). Children's Ways of Experiencing Peer Interaction. Early Child
Development and Care, 168, 17-38.
Williams, V. (1999). Researching together. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27,
48-51.
Willow, C. (2002). Participation in Practice: Children and Young People as Partners in
Change. London: Children's Society.
Wilson, C. and Powell, M. (2001). A Guide to Interviewing Children. London: Routledge.
Wood, D. (1998) How Children think and Learn. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell
Woodhead, M. (1999). Combatting Child Labour: Listen to What the Children Say.
Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 6(1), 27-49.
79
Yang, L. and Fox, K. (1999). Ethnography in health research and practice, including
commentary by Roberts H. Ambulatory Child Health, 5(4), 339-349.
Young, L. and Barrett, H. (2001). 'Ethics and Participation: Reflections on research with
street children' Ethics, Place and Environment 4, 130-134.
Zaragoza, M. S. (Ed.). (1995). Memory and Testimony in the Child Witness. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Zimmerman, D.P. (2002). Parallel dimensions in child, adolescent and adult analytic
work. Therapeutic Communities: International Journal for Therapeutic and
Supportive Organizations. Vol 23(3) (pp 204-218).
80
Appendix 3
Systematic mapping for the review
Details of studies (n=56) to demonstrate the systematic map
Key – numbers refer column number as per table
1. Item details
To include author (s), title and details
2. Focus/Theme
Basics
Ethics
Children’s Rights
Legal aspects
Research context
Access
Methodological issues (Methods)
Building child-researcher relationships
Balancing differential power relationships.
Levels of child participation in research
Research parameters [Authenticity/ credibility/ trustworthiness]
Techniques used with children to elicit their views
Conceptual issues
Children’s competencies and perceptions
Discourse Analysis
Research issues
Challenges /Gains
Policy
Wider impact
International context
Professional Base
Health, Social work, Education, Psychology, Legal
3. Sample and Method
Includes size re: numbers (n=) and age of participants
Brief detail of method used
Interviews,
Art/ drawing
Drama, / role play
Debate
Mapping
Questionnaire
Survey
Observation
Type of material: such as
discursive material
critique /opinion piece
literature/systematic review
policy document
Type of analysis such as
Discourse Analysis
Conversation analysis
5. Field impact / Key points
Final comments or perceptions
81
82
Version 2: Details of studies in the systematic map
Item details
(Author/title)
Author: Alderson,
P.; Morrow, G.
Year: in press
Title: Ethics, social
research and
consulting with
children and young
people.
City: London
Institution:
Barnardo's
Alderson P, Goodey
C. (1996).
Research with
disabled children:
how useful are childcentred ethics.
Children and Society
10, 106 -116.
Focus/Theme
Allmark, P
The ethics of
research with
children
Nurse Researcher
Vol 10, no 2
Ethics, Children
Rights
Health
Critique
Overview
voluntary sector
psychology
ethics
social policy
Methodology/
approach
Respect for chn’s rights
as key theme;
increasing interest in
research ethics
Comprehensive
discussion of ethics,
rights, methods, policy
context
Sample +method
Field impact / Key points
N/A
updated version of seminal 95 text. incl
ref to changing policy agenda since 95;
imp of multiple methods of accessing
chn's views; impact of moving away
from the testing of chn; revised context
of newer approaches to child
development e.g. Burman
Ethics
Article –Question = 22
schools
using
Social Science
‘what kind of school is interviews with 45
Research study best for me’
children aged 7 – 17,
& opinion piece
their parents, teachers
and
classroom
assistants, governors,
councillors and LEA
staff.
Article - Guidelines on N/A
ethical
conduct
of
research with chn focus
primarily
quantitative
research
(e.g. RCPCH 2000).
1
Discusses access issues in urban
working-class area (named as East City
and West County).
Uses personal experience (written in 1st
person) so informative and easy to read.
Ethics and gaining access outlined
including dilemmas.
Child-centred ethics critically evaluated
as having many weaknesses and
suppositions.
Some assumptions and terminology,
before briefly describing the history of
the development of health ethical
regulation. Specific ethical issues are
scientific validity, welfare, and rights
and dignity.
Very useful overview on this field.
Barker J, and Weller
S. (2003). ‘Is it
Fun?’ Developing
Children Centred
Methods’
International Journal
of Sociology and
Social Policy
Research Study
Baumann S.L.
(1997). Qualitative
research with
children. Nursing
Science Quarterly.
10, 2, 68-69.
Author: Beresford,
B.
Year: 1997
Title: Personal
accounts: Involving
disabled children in
research
City: Social Policy
Research Unit,
University of York
Publisher:
Stationery Office
Opinion piece
Rights
Article – Two research
projects adopting child
centred methodologies.
Children consulted in
design and use of
pseudonyms.
Used
photographs, drawings,
diaries,
in-depth
interviews,
questionnaires.
N/A
Early text in the field
but has stood the test of
Research
time well. Argues that 'it
techniques
is [however] from the
field of research with
models
of disabled adults that the
participation
most useful models of
participation [re chn]
can be gleaned' [p 64]
Study 1 = 4 to 11 year
old
Study 2 = 13 to 16
year olds.
Highlights wealth of information about
methods and techniques. Adult and child
power-relationships are covered. Refers
to work more children centred and less
adult centred. Very clear article to read.
N/A
Two page brief overview of how
qualitative research with children as
participants. Useful scene set.
N/a
incl background section on chn's rights,
adults as proxies. Research techniques
[esp qual] summarised incl indiv +group
interviews, observn, + specific tools.
How research with chn differs from that
with adults > ethical issues,
practicalities, language/ communication,
cognitive level, context.
2
Bricher, G. (1999).
Children and
qualitative research
methods. Nurse
Researcher, Vol 6
No 4, Summer.
Methods
&
research context
Health
Socio.
Literature
review
Article
–
literature Lit review centred
review
around chn. aged
Discussion relates to 6 – 12 yrs
primary school age
children, between the
ages of six and 12 years.
3
Useful Australian review - interviewing
chn and interpretive processes. Review
discusses challenges to researchers,
partly because there is limited guidance
within the nursing literature related to
interviewing children. Key articles
reviewed which crosses disciplinary
boundaries, predominantly into
sociological discourse.
Discusses the lack of literature
addressing the ways in which
researchers can interpret the perceptions,
feelings and experiences of children.
Purports that challenges occur across the
disciplines that undertake research with
child participants.
Issues pertaining to privacy and
confidentiality and the ethical and legal
complexities of undertaking research
with children, are recognised as
significant and interconnected to the
ways in which research is carried out but
have not been explored in this paper.
Author: Bull, R
Year: 1998
Title: Obtaining
information from
child witnesses
Editor: Memon, A.;
Vrij, A.; Bull, R.
Book Title:
Psychology and
Law: Truthfulness,
Accuracy and
Credibility.
City: London
Publisher: McGraw
Hill
Pages: 188-209
Law
Methods
Reviews various
contextual matters e.g.
closed circuit TV.
suggestibility- v broad
review. cites Ceci.
Latest wave of research
has lked at conditions
under which chn are/ not
suggestible [rather than
asking -are chn
suggestible].
Stereotypes- Ceci 'Sam
Stone' exp [cf earlier
work on naughty Harry].
N/a
'Most of the research on the
investigative interviewing of child
witnesses/ victims has been published in
the last ten years' (p 189).
Interesting re raising issues about adults’
reliability as witnesses. Ambiguity re
whether rapport is nec a gd thing. script
theory cf Saywitz. If chn undeveloped re
expectations about scripts then less
likely than adult to be misled 'an adult
with a well developed script may be
more likely to be tricked by a scriptconsistent (yet incorrect) suggestion' (p
200).
4
Author: Bull, R.
Year: 1995
Title: Innovative
techniques for the
questioning of child
witnesses, especially
those who are young
and those with
learning disability
Editor: Zaragoza,
M.S.
Book Title: Memory
and Testimony in the
Child Witness
City: Thousand
Oaks
Publisher: Sage
Pages: 179-194
Methods
Psychology
Law
Review re HO docs.
Outline of interview
protocol re chn.
following HO
memoranda of 1992
[?since revised]: 4
phases: rapport, free
narrative, questioning,
closing interview.
Specifics re chn with
LD. -notes that HO
memo says little re this.
N/a
Key point: debate about acquiescencedraws heavily on Sigelman et al 81.
Notes paucity of research -based
evidence about interviewing LD.
General vs specific questions cf Dent's
research.
5
Carney, T., Murphy,
s., McClure, J.
Bishop, E., Kerr, C.,
Parker, J., Scott, F.,
Shields, C., &
Wilson, L. (2003).
Children's views of
hospitalization an
exploratory study of
data collection.
Journal of Child
Health Care, 7(1),
27-40.
Research study
Author: Ceci, S. J.;
Bruck, M.
Year: 1995
Title: Jeopardy in
the Courtroom
City: Washington
Publisher: APA
Law
Methods
Overall aim of the study
was to investigate the
personal views of a
children regarding their
stay in hospital, to aid
continuing development
of
a
child-centred
service.
Used
1
in
4
questionnaires to cover
both
structured
/unstructured & verbal
/visual
questionnaire
types.
The
verbal
unstructured
questionnaire
asked
children to write a story
or poem about their stay
in hospital. The visual
questionnaire consisted
of five hospitalisation
drawings and each child
was invited to write
their feelings about the
picture.
Focus is on the
credibility of chn as
witnesses; mainly US
research/ context. Much
referenced to suspected
child abuse +
interviewing of chn in
that context..
All school aged
children (but age in yrs
not cited) over a three
month period, (n=
213), from the
paediatric wards of
two district hospitals.
9 categories identified, each important to
children - Organisation of events,
physical environment, procedures that
had occurred (pain), interaction with
staff, emotions, perception of hospital,
information given,
home life. Describing pictures were
found to be limited as the predetermined drawings did not fit in with
what the children were actually verbally
describing.
Key debate = The verbal structured
questionnaire was found to be the most
effective tool with this age group.
Findings highlighted that hospitalisation
experience relates to age/development of
the
child
and
that
preparation/explanations are required to
help children settle.
N/a
Important text in the field, much quoted
and summarizing seminal research by
Ceci and co-workers. V small section on
ethics [surprisingly understated] -take
on this is a negative one about what is
unacceptable. Wider context e.g. rights
issues/ notions of childhood
not
explored
6
Author: Cloke, C;
Davies, M.
Year: 1995
Title: Participation
and Empowerment
in Child Protection
City: Chichester
Publisher: Wiley/
NSPCC
Eclectic range 14 chapters, rights and n/a
of papers around social policy emphases.
theme of chn’s
participation
Coyne, I. T. (1998).
Researching
children: some
methodological and
ethical
considerations
Journal of Clinical
Nursing,
7(5), 409-416.
Method issues
Conduct
Child
&
researcher
Ethics
Informed
consent
Health setting
Reflective
account
on
research study
Book
Key
note
authors
Christensen, P., &
James, A. (Eds.).
(2000). Research
with Children:
Perspectives and
Practices. London:
Falmer.
Incl Lansdown on critique of chn’s
rights to participation –useful review of
field by key figure in the area. Incl
individual chapters on marginalised
groups eg black chn, disabled children,
looked after chn, abused chn. See esp
Cloke on policy links
Article
–
methodological
&
ethical issues of research
with experiences of
hospitalized
children
aged 7 – 15.
Interviews
Clearly
written
outline
of
Rapport
established methodological issues. Useful on
with
establishing rapport & conduct during
1 drawings
interview process. Some case examples
2 Leaflets
included. Some issues relating to
3 Tape rec.
decision-making e.g single or group
interviews; privacy and confidentiality
Sample – 14
N/A
N/A
Excellent wide resource book written by
a wide range of authors in the field.
Draws on experience covering issues
pertaining to perspectives of childhood
7 how to facilitate participatory research
with children including listening and
relationship.
7
Davis, J. M. (1998).
Understanding the
Meanings of
Children: A
Reflexive Process.
Children & Society,
12(5), 325-335.
Ethics
Reflexive
process
listening
children
N/A
Davis, J., Watson. N
, & CunninghamBurley, S. (2000).
Learning the Lives
of Disabled
Children:
Developing a
reflexive Approach.
In P. Christensen &
A. James (Eds.),
Research with
Children.
Perspectives and
Practices (pp. 201224). London:
Farmer.
Participation
Reflexivity
Docherty S,
Sandelowski M.
(1999). Focus on
Qualitative Methods.
Interviewing
children. Research in
Nursing and Health.
22, (2): 177-185.
Opinion piece/ N/A
Literature
Paper
–
identifies
process
of
understanding
children’s
voices.
Includes ethics, roles and tools for
listening to children.
N/A
of
to
Includes
illustrative Entry into the field a Involved chn from a special school
material from small key focus
[PMLD] in Scotland. Stresses the
group ‘interviews’
importance of
researchers into
children's lives exploring their own
preconceptions about children's worlds.
Ref to Bourdieu -social identity as
defined and asserted through difference
and associated group process (cross ref
with Prout and co-workers). Particular
focus on entry into the field and ways in
which interpretations are negotiated
between participants.
Key message – in health shift from
seeking views about children to seeking
views from them. Discusses practical
issues about content of an interview,
timing and number, structure prompts
and props. Largely conduct of
interviews; analysis not covered.
N/A
8
Author: Educable.
Year: 2000
Title: No choice: no
chance. The
educational
experiences of
young people with
disabilities
City: Belfast
Publisher: Save the
Children
Methods
Participation
interesting study as Survey
reports research project
conducted by [with
support from various vol
bodies] 9 young people
with various disabilities
who came together to
carry out research.
Friedland D. & Penn
C. (2003).
Conversation
analysis as a
technique for
exploring the
dynamics of a
mediated interview.
International Journal
of Language &
Communication
Disorders. 38(1):95111, 2003 Jan-Mar.
Research study
Conversation
(CA)
stresses heterogeneity of researchers and
researched. Cites Beresford (97) that
disabled are ‘doubly disadvantaged ‘ re
research [i.e. as children and as
disabled]
Analysis Parents
of
head- Brief introduction about method used.
injured child in a Principles of CA are outlined. Patterns
speech-language
that emerged between interviewer,
practice.
mediator/ translator and parents are
identified e.g. establishment of roles,
distribution of roles, interview
techniques, code switching (where
parties understand each other and codes
they use switch), familiarity issues,
inhibitors, interruptions, errors and
trends. Key message = CA helps provide
a systematic process of reviewing and
reflecting on interview data such as
dynamics, shifting roles and power.
Also useful in cross-cultural and crosslingual work.
9
Author: Fritzley,
V.H. ; Lee, K.
Year: 2003
Title: Do young
children always say
yes to yes-no
questions? A metadevelopmental study
of the affirmation
bias.
Journal: Child
Development
Volume: 74,
Pages: 1297-1313
Psychology
Methods
Acquiescence
Author: Hart, S. N.
Year: 2002
Title: Making Sure
The Child's Voice Is
Heard
Journal:
International Review
of Education
Volume: 48
Issue: 3-4
Pages: 251-258
ethics
rights
395 chn aged 2-5 yrs
asked a range of yesno questions to do
with familiar and
unfamiliar objects.
Opinion piece, informed
by background as (US)
academic working in
SEN field.
Two-year-olds showed a consistent
tendency to answer "Yes", irrespective
of whether they were familiar with the
object, or whether they understood the
question. By contrast, the only bias
shown by 4-5-yr-olds was to say "No"
when they were asked questions they
didn't understand. Results from the 3-yrolds were a mixed bag, suggesting they
might be at a developmental transition
phase between the other age groups. It
was very rare for any of
the children to answer "I don't know"
even when they were positively
encouraged to do so. The authors argue
that their findings "have important
implications for designing
developmental studies as well as for
conducting forensic interviews with preschool children".
UNCRC articles 12 critiqued. Notes
breadth/ depth of 'child's voice' and
range of spheres for its influence.
Section re evolving needs, capacities
and 'best interests'. Asks -how much
weight should be given to child's views/
how this is to be determined. [NOTEchallenging position] Reviews
mechanisms through which to hear chn's
views [does not address chn as
researchers explicitly]
10
Hazel, N. (1995).
Seen and heard: An
examination of
methods for
collecting data from
young. Unpublished
MSc. University of
Stirling.
Hazel, N. (2003).
Elicitation
techniques with
young people. Social
Research, 12.
University of Surrey
and Unpublished
thesis. University of
Stirling (Grey lit)
Doctoral
and
MSc Thesis
Research study
(two reflections)
Qualitative project in Children aged 11 to 14
Scottish schools setting years.
using multi methods to
elicit views
Range of fieldwork issues discussed.
Include
–
vignettes,
pictures,
photographs, quotations e.g . well
known catch phrases or titles from
popular culture. Popular culture used
such as TV programmes and media
events. Presented problems and rules for
discussion. Key message = variety of
techniques used with supplement
interviews helpful in gaining confidence
and eliciting information (includes
sensitive information)
Hek, R. (2001).
‘Integration not
segregation’ –
experiences of
young refugees in
British Schools.
FMR, p14-15.
Unpublished report
by kind permission
Research Study
Social Policy
Education
Pilot project to examine
structures for refugee
and asylum seeking
children at school.
2 school – North
London area. In-depth
interviews. School A =
10 students (6 girls + 4
boys) and 2 teachers.
School B = 5 boys +
head. Wide diversity
of young refugees.
Records
and
procedures
also
analysed.
Key messages = aspects that aid
settlement were specialist teachers,
friends, attitude of school & teachers,
bullying, links to home & emotional
support. Hence importance of treating
child as an individual and listening was
important. Technique.
11
Author: Henry,
L.A.; Gudjonsson,
G.H.
Year: 1999
Title: Eyewitness
memory and
suggestibility in
children with mental
retardation
Journal: AJMR
Volume: 104
Issue: 6
Pages: 491-508
methods
suggestibility
Live scene enacted in
mornings [cf Ceci] .Chn
with MR tested on recall
NB MR=mental of staged event 1 day
retardation
later cf CA and MA
matched peers
Hill, M., Laybourn,
A., & Borland, M.
(1996). Engaging
with primary-aged
children about their
emotions and wellbeing:
methodological
considerations
Children and
Society, 10, 129-144.
Methods
Social policy
Research study
MR grp=28 chn age
11-12. 16 from spec
sch, mean mental age
=7.0. n=19 in CA
comparable grp from
local sec sch. n=21 in
MA comparable grp.
from 2 local prim schs.
MR comparable with CA re free recall,
gen q, open q, correctly leading q, More
suggestible re closed leading q than
were chn in CA comparable grp.
yield vs shift. re suggestibility. Major
difference between MR vs CA
comparable = re closed leading
questions where MR=more suggestible.
poss bec weaker memory trace? BUT
may have been under-using strategies
they did have. hence imp for ecol
validity
NOTE- MR sim to MA
comparable grp re suggestibility.
Stresses sim re recall for MR compared
with CA ie comparable FOR NONLEADING QUESTIONS. Increase in
free recall and decrease in suggestibility
7-11 yrs. Flags poss source monitoring
diffs.
Article –links to study 12 groups of 6 Overview
on
methodological
chn. Qualitative focus children (n=96)
considerations – Focus Group interviews
group & individual Aged 5 –12 with aim used with brainstorming & visual
interviews used
to describe emotional prompts of cards etc. 28 individual
and mental well being. interviews.
Benefits of combining focus groups ints
with individual ints are outlined.
Practical advise on field work with chn.
Techniques are shared that researchers
found useful. Some findings implicit to
article but not data analysis.
12
Home Office.
(2002). Achieving
best evidence in
criminal
proceedings:
guidance for
vulnerable or
intimidated
witnesses, including
children. London:
Home Office
Communication
Directorate.
Ethics
Rights
Law
Methods
Hood et al (1996)
Children as research
subjects: a risky
business. Children
and Society. 10, 117128.
Access
Competence
Social
Science
Research study
Replaces
1992 Includes sub-sections
Memorandum of good on
planning
practice
interviews,
questioning
techniques,; addressed
separately for (1)
children
and
(2)
vulnerable
and
intimidated witnesses.
Specific sections on
the legal context,
notably
witness
support
and
preparation,
and
witnesses at court.
Article – Draws on Interviews at home
qualitative
research with children and
study to assess ‘Risk’
families in 1 area. 46
chn/59 parents
Includes brief reference to specialist
techniques such as cognitive interview.
Important reference document for legal
contexts. Particularly relevant in e.g.
interviewing children in cases of
suspected child abuse; cross reference
with material on forensic interviewing
e.g. Bull (see above and bibliography)
Age related article – uses sociological
underpinning to work.
Sound comments related to context &
environment about researching chn at
home, school, gatekeepers e.g. head
Also – 6 pairs of 9 yr teacher, G.P.
old chn at school & 3 Interview process discussed – topics of
groups of 12 yr old risk included choices, decisions, things
chn at a youth club.
that worry chn, understanding of risk.
Some narrative accounts discussed
(parental influence on child).
No discussion about analysis
13
Author: Hurley, J.C.
; Underwood, M.K.
Year: 2002
Title: Children's
understanding of
their research rights
before and after
debriefing: Informed
assent,
confidentiality and
stopping
participation
Journal: Child
Development
Volume: 73
Pages: 132-143
Rights
Ethics
Experimental designstudy to test claims
routinely given about
ethical procedures re
chn- questions how far
chn really understand
these.
N=178, age 8-12.
Qaire to complete
pre/post involvement
in research. Researcher
adhered
to
usual
ethical protocols.
Ireland L,
Holloway I. (1996).
Qualitative health
research with
children. Children
and Society. 10,
155-164
Research study
Health research
Qualitative study to Purposive sample of Practical and ethical issues outlined.
explore experience of 10 children aged 9 – Research
relationship,
negotiating
childhood asthma.
12 yrs.
access, ethics, issue of informed
consent, children’s language, researcher
conduct.
14
Post debriefing qaire suggested that
older chn understood the debriefing but
younger chn less clear eg younger chn
did not understand implics re
confidentiality. Many chn still had diffs
describing research goals accurately.
Author: Johnson,
A.J.
Year: 2002
Title: So..?
Pragmatic
implications of SoPrefaced questions
in formal police
interviews
Editor: Cotterill, J.
Book Title:
Language in the
Legal Process
City: Houndmills,
Basingstoke
Publisher: Palgrave
MacMillan
Law
Kirby, P. (1999).
Involving Young
Researchers: How to
enable young people
to design and
conduct research,
York: JRF / Youth
Work Press.
Participation
Young
researchers
Linguistic
analysis
focus on so- utterances
in legal contexts >
micro-level analysis
5 child interviews
[child witnesses in
suspected abuse cases]
and 5 adult interviews
[defendants in range of
cases] scrutinized..
Typology of so- usage [4 classes]. 1.
Contrasting pattern of usage for
interviewers [adverbial/ questionprefacing] cf child +adult interviewees
[conjunction]. 2. more use in adult
interviews by interviewee bec more
narrative 3. absence of so- turns in very
young children (prefer 'and') [implies
developmental cause] . So- used as a
topic boundary marker. Concludes that
'institutional context is more influential
on the formal and pragmatic properties
of talk than [is] interviewer style' [p
108]
Book – range of projects
discussed
NA
An excellent practical, resource book
used by both authors. Highlights how
researchers can involve children at all
stages of research. Small exemplars help
read.
15
Author: Kirby, P.;
Lanyon, Clair;
Kronin, K.; Sinclair,
R.
Year: 2003
Title: Building a
culture of
participation
City: London
Publisher: CYPU
Participation
Extensive review +
handbooks for
increasing children’s
participation
29 case studies
Lewis, A.
2004'And When Did
You Last See Your
Father?'
Exploring the views
of children with
learning
difficulties/disabiliti
es. British Journal of
Special Education,
31(1), 4-10.
Methods
Policy
Review article drawing UN context discussed,
together policy and review of evidence
methods aspects
from
psychological
work and forensic
interviewing
concerning
interviewing children,
especially those with
learning difficulties
Concludes with 4 challenges: dangers in
over-formalising
the
process
of
exploring children’s views, defining
competence/ capability, developing a
collective voce, and taking appropriate
follow up action once children’s views
have been heard.
Lewis, A and
Lindsay G. (eds)
2000
Researching
Children’s
Perspectives
Buckingham
Open University
Press
Ethics
Methods
Book – ethical, legal,
psychological
and
sociological
perspectives critiqued
and range of individual
projects discussed
Integrates a range of methodological,
professional
and
disciplinary
perspectives ; strong
inclusion of
material related to ‘special needs’
contexts. Editors suggest that choice of
method will reflect researchers’
epistemological position, practicality,
personal preferences and ethical
considerations. Reconciling methods
and purpose is discussed; and concerns
about validity and reliability examined.
5
‘perspectives’
examined; 9 individual
projects discussed –
spanning
health,
social, psychological
and
educational
contexts; overview by
editors summarises the
emerging issues. Some
sample schedules etc
incl in appendices.
16
Review of range of participation,
Info + practical advice
Promoting effective participation
Mahon, A.,
Glendinning, C.,
Clarke, K., & Craig,
M. (1996).
Researching
children: methods
and ethics. Children
and Society, 10, 145154.
Ethics
Methods
Social Science
& policy
Paper
Reflection
on
methods
&
ethics with chn.
Article – Reflection
from
researcher
experience
from
2
studies
(Study 1 & 2)
Miller, S. (2000a).
Nurse Researcher,
Vol 10, No 4
Analysis of
phenomenological
data generated with
children as research
participants. 74,,
1297-1313.
Phenomenology
Research study
Phenomenological study
with children who have
diabetes mellitus. Indepth conversations
with parents and
children.
Health related
Interviews –
Authors draw on own experiences of
Study 1. 25 families interviewing chn. A number of trends
chn. age 9-20 yrs
are identified – social (changing family),
political, legal which had impact on
Study 2. 12 chn. Aged theoretical problems and validity of their
10-17 yrs.
studies. Methodological issues outlined
about researcher conduct and ethical
issues that gave them concern in their
studies. Some practical issues are
included at the end of the article which
are very helpful in considerations.
Six children aged 7-12 Both studies build up a profile of this
years
interesting study about chdn with
diabetes mellitus and their experiences.
Key message = process of data analysis
is clearly outlined (one few articles that
spells out how this was undertaken).
Also common issues of challenge e.g.
ethics,
seeking
consent,
access,
communicating, location and privacy.
Miller, S (2000b)
Researching
children: issues
arising from a
phenomenological
study with children
who have diabetes
mellitus. Journal of
Advanced Nursing
31 (5), p 1228-1234
17
Morgan, M., Gibbs,
S., Maxwell, K., &
Britten, N. (2002).
Hearing children's
voices:
methodological
issues in conducting
focus groups with
children aged 7-11
years. Qualitative
Research, 2(1), 5-20.
Focus group interviews
were used which
complemented an earlier
phase that used personal
interviews and
drawings. Performed
with an ‘experienced’
facilitator and cofacilitator conducting
the groups and a third
person recording the
observations and
undertaking field notes.
Broad topics were used
for the discussion.
42 children aged 7-11
years, drawn from a
socio-economically
and ethnically mixed
urban area. The
sample was identified
by local general
practitioner’s (G.P.) in
the appropriate age
group who were
prescribed a type of
prevention medication
for Asthma.
18
Aim of the study was to elicit children’s
own views and experiences of living
with Asthma. Sound process. The
findings indicated that sizes of groups
were problematic if they were too large
(resulting in non-interactive sessions)
and too small (2 – 3 children was found
to be tiring for all concerned). Key
debate = Issues of participation were
devised such as strategies for setting the
scene (including informal atmosphere,
using first names and warm up
activities), room space, setting-up
arrangements and permitting ‘fiddling’
all appeared to help towards collecting
data. Assessing the children’s meanings
was facilitated with the use of probing,
clarification checks and introducing
supplementary data collection tools such
as art and role playing. The use of
observation was also important in
relation to the assessing the group
dynamics and most specifically provided
important insights about tensions and
‘sensitive’ issues such as disclosures of
bullying.
Author: Morris, J.
Year: 1998
Title: Still missing?
Vol.1 : Experience
of disabled children
and young people
living away from
their families
City: London
Publisher: Who
Cares? Trust
Rights
Survey /discussion
Morrow, V., &
Richards, M. (1996).
The ethics of social
research with
children: an
overview. Children
and Society, 10, 90105.
child interviews N/A
ethics
Social science
Paper as an
overview
–
Opinion piece
incl views of 30
severely disabled;
17/30 had been at
boarding school
incl these young
people in steering grp
Notes: incl egs of facilitators not being
helpful. Focus is on disabled chn who
lived away from home, as 'research
subjects' [p 46 -this term dates the bk]
and not as co-researchers but ahead of
its time in taking seriously attempts to
access views of this grp. Relatively little
on methods.
N/A
Overview of ethical issues re social
research + practical & methodological
suggestions.
Sound intro for current debate in this
field.
Key point =way in which chn are
conceptualised
[vulnerable/
incompetent/ powerless] impacts on
research. Over-protectionism as possibly
leading to aspects of chn's lives about
which adults know little. Links with
sociology of childhood eg Prout, James,
Qvortrop. Key debate = whether general
ethical principles/ codes dev with adults
in mind apply equally to research with
chn. Issue of how childhood/chn are
defined + how this varies across
rof/disciplinary contexts. Consent cf
assent. Stresses heterogeinty of 'child'
group. Imp of multiple methods. Chn as
researchers.
19
Morrow, V. (1999).
It's cool ... 'cos you
can't
give
us
detentions
and
things, can you? In
P. Milner & B.
Carolin (Eds.), Time
to listen to children
(pp.
203-215).
London: Routledge.
Author: Morrow,V.
Year: 1998
Title: Understanding
Families: Children's
Perspectives
City: London
Publisher: National
Children's Bureau /
Joseph Rowntree
Morrow, V. (2001).
Using
qualitative
methods to elicit
young
people's
perspectives on their
environments: Some
ideas for community
health
initiatives.
Health
Education
Research,
16(3),
255-268.
Chapter
Qualitative study to 2
schools
in Well written and easy to read about
Researcher
explore chdn views of Cambridge
UK, authors experience of school based
account
from school.
Range
of sample of 96 chdn study. Key messages – theoretical
own study
techniques used
aged 8 – 14 yrs.
underpinning, field entry, techniques
including
drawing
and
writing,
sentences completion and writing and
focus group discussions. Issues related
to ethical permission are also helpful.
Excellent key debate about power
relationships hence title of article.
Chn’s views of Multi-methods approach
bData colln 96-7, 8 class groups in 4 schs
the family incl to access views of range
in east Anglia: 2 sec + 2 primary ( 1
‘unconventional of chn incl Pakistani sub
village + 1 town for each ) schs, Chn age
’ families.
group.
c 8-13
Methods =
Draw and write
Text focuses on discussion of findings
Sentence completion
rather than methods
Short qaire
Grp discussion
V little comment evaluating method; as
we note elsewhere v little on process of
analysis
Research study
Qualitative project in 102 children aged 12 – Paper discusses research setting,
Health
Education 15 yrs in 2 parts of methods used, including visual methods,
Authority in order to deprived town in S. consent and ethical issues that arose.
explore young peoples Eastern England
Discusses how interconnected data
idea of well-being and
emerged to bring together issues of
health
quality of life.
20
Moston, S. (1987).
The suggestibility of
children in interview
studies. First
Language, 7, 67-78.
Research study
One to one interviews 72 chdn from 3 age
following witnessing a groups (6, 8 and 10
Reliability
of previous ‘staged event’. years)
chdn testimony
16 questions; 8 were
real about the event and
8 were false. Don’t
know response was an
option in responses.
Nichols, S. (2002).
Parents' construction
of their children as
gendered,
literate
subjects: a critical
discourse
analysis
Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy,
Vol.2,no.2:
Aug
2002 123-144.
Northway,
R.
(2002). University of
Glamorgan,
UK.
Commentary Nurse
Researcher
Research study
Discourse
analysis
and
interpretive
frameworks
Qualitative study
Semi-structured
interviews with 56
middle
class
Australian parents (31
mothers
and
25
fathers).
Opinion piece
Commentary
N/A
N/A
Really interesting paper on issues
relating to chdn language and answering
questions.
Quantitative responses were measured.
Repeated questioning = decrease in
number of correct answers. Key
messages = Issues about chdn use of
‘don’t know’. Recommend don’t know
should be accepted in good faith not
indicative of incomprehension. First
answers should be accepted as when
repeated question chdn changed their
mind.
Outline of discourse theory. Parents
discussed how they viewed child as an
individual (using gendered labelled
descriptors), child as an active learner,
and perceptions of child as normal,
advanced or delayed. Key message =
discourse analysis model identified
gender web (e.g. boys vs. girls reading).
Key message = Vulnerable groups
encourage researchers to develop new
ways of facilitating data collection,
ethics and analysis. Message is about
flexibility.
21
Pridmore, P. &
Research study
Bendelow, G.
(1995). Images of
health: Exploring
beliefs of children
using ‘draw and
write’ technique.
Health Education
Journal. 54. 473-488.
Two case studies using
‘Draw and write’
method and interviews
Case study 1 – 100 Review of literature and draw and write
chdn aged 9 or 10 method outlined.
Key message =
years in S.E. England. sophisticated data from draw and write
method resulting in valuable insight into
Case study 2 – 11 chdn’s health perceptions. Simple
Bushmen children and technique
but
concern
over
100 Botswana chdn interpretation is noted. Critical appraisal
aged 9-10 years
included of method and need for debriefing identified.
Author: Prout, A
Year: 2000
Title: Children's
Participation: control
and self-realization
in British Late
Modernity
Journal: Children &
Society
Volume: 14
Pages: 304-15
Nature of childhd future-oriented.
N/a
ethics
sociology
Policy changes oriented to those chn's
adult lives not lives as chn. Chn's
participation in public life cf tension
between control and self realisation
found in late modernity. Public
policy/practice marked by intensification
of control around chn. Stress on 'early
intervention' but as this recurrently fails
chn subject to more control. Chn as
human capital > a means of controlling
the future. Contrasted with private
sphere in which chn increasingly
'sequestered' by the family. The space of
chn as becoming more specialised and
more localised. Cites O’Neill 94 re
advocacy of a civic childhd that
guarantees all chn minimum levels..
Argues for 'more responsive institutions
that engage in a more creative dialogue
with their users ' p. 312
22
Punch, S. G. (2002).
Research with
Children: The Same
or Different from
Research with
Adults? Childhood:
A Global Journal of
Child Research,
9(3), 321-341.
Paper
Literature/
Opinion piece
N/A
N/A
Article explores several methodological
issues detail – ways of seeing children
affect ways of listening; differences with
children from adults; reflections of task
based methods; drawings; photographs;
PRA (Participatory Rural Techniques);
Diaries,
worksheets,
combining
methods,
23
Ring, K. (2000).
Young children
talking about their
drawings:
methodological
dilemmas. Paper
presented at the
British Educational
Research
Association Annual
Conference, Cardiff
University.
AND
Ring, K. (2003).
Young children
drawing: the
significance of the
context. Paper
presented at the
Paper presented at
the Annual
Conference of the
British Educational
Research
Association, 13-15
September 2001.,
University of Leeds,
England,
Conference
papers
Research study
Qualitative longitudinal
research study (3 yrs
time frame) to explore
socio-cultural
aspects
important in child’s life
at home and school that
help children make
meaning.
Uses
conversational
interviews
,
2D
drawings
and
photographs (3D) of
children’s found objects.
7 young children at
home and at school
aged rising 5’s to 7
yrs.
Parent
/
adult
interviews.
24
Preliminary findings but these very
interesting papers (written in ‘I’) very
helpful in decision-making process.
Excellent key messages on preparation
and when & how best to convey
information to child in interview.
Dynamic process is clearly exemplified
in extracts of transcripts. Significance of
drawing, photos and distraction is also
underpinned.
Rollins, P.R.
McCabe, A. Bliss,
L. (2000).
Culturally sensitive
assessment of
narrative skills in
children. Seminars
in Speech &
Language.
21(3):223-34, 275-6.
Sartain, S, Clarke,
C.L. (2000).
Hearing the voices
of children with
chronic illness.
Journal of
Advanced Nursing
Vol 32 (4); p913921.Oct.
Narrative skills N/A
Framework
–
discussion paper
N/A
Qualitative
research study
Chronic illness
Grounded Theory using
exploratory interviews
in family home with art
/drawing
techniques.
Data analysed as open,
axial
and
selective
coding.
Convenient sample of
7 families, their carers
and children who were
aged 8 –14 yrs.
Inclusion due to child
being able to articulate
their perceptions.
Stiegler, L.N.&
Hoffman, P.R.
(2001). Discoursebased intervention
for word finding in
children..
J. of Communication
Disorders.
34(4):277-303, 36770, 2001 Jul-Aug.
Evaluation
method
of Discourse
Based
Intervention
using
multi-methods
of
Research study
pictures,
stories,
conversation starters in
Language
school. Included five
phased approach of 15
mins per session per
subject.
Three 9 year old boys
with
diagnosed
language-learning
disabilities (LLD)
25
Chldn personal narratives as formulated
by Labov’s work. Work focuses on
narratives from differing cultural groups
and considers developmental sequence.
Very clearly written in a step by step
process of narrative skills including
diagrammatic representation
(Eliciting, coding and scoring the
narrative are outlined). Appendix
worked example also included.
Children were described as competent
interpreters of their world (Deatrick and
Faux 1991) . Understood services so
must be listened to. Key messages =
competence and rights.
Quantitative analysis performed on data.
Identified and categorised chdn word
finding as they occur in discourse.
Potentially has useful considerations
when undertaking discourse analysis.
Steward, M et al.
(1993). Implications
of developmental
research for
interviewing
children. Child
Abuse and Neglect
17, 25-37.
Research
literature review
N/A
N/A
Covers literature (1993 published)
pertaining to children’s development
issues and their cognition, memory and
language.
Provides
pointers
for
interviewing children and pointers for
children’s reporting about abuse.
Thomas, N. &
O'Kane, C. (1998).
The Ethics of
Participatory
Research with
Children. Children &
Society; V12 n5
p336-48 Nov.
UNICEF
(2004)
State of the World’s
Children
Research study N/A
– reflections
Ethical
problems
N/A
Paper discusses ethical problems in
participatory research. Shares issues
pertaining to participation and choice
and how this can improve validity.
Interesting reflections on payments and
power balance
Child interpretations on data analysis are
noted.
World
wide Review
incl
review incl ref statistical data
to children ’s
participation
key N/a
26
Author: Ward, L.
Year: 1996
Title: Seen and
Heard: Involving
disabled children
and young people in
research and
development
projects
City: York
Publisher: Joseph
Rowntree
Foundation
Ethics
West, P. (1990). The
status and validity of
accounts obtained at
interview: a contrast
between two studies
of families with a
disabled child.
Social Science and
Medicine. 30, 11,
1229-39
Research study Two studies explored Not included
about
Chn. from mid 1970’s. Each
accounts
similar
topics
and
approach in relation to
disabled child.
Medical
Sociolgy
Procedures
discusses inv chn and N/a
young people as partners
to projects at planning,
consultancy, advisory
group, data collection,
analysis
and
dissemination stages
short sections on rights/ ethics.. Also
acknowledges equal opps issues re age,
gender, race, disability. Includes a 10
point checklist for action; involvement,
ethics, support, methodology,
practicalities, inclusion, dissemination,
budget, proposal and partnership.
27
Study 1 – a ‘glowing’ account of the
way parents make sense of having a
disabled child and Study 2 – a ‘gloomy’
account of struggle encountered.
Contrasts between the two are made.
Key message – status and validity of
accounts in an interview.
Suggests process of triangulation.
Author: Willow, C.
Year: 2002
Title: Participation
in Practice: Children
and Young People
as Partners in
Change
City: London
Publisher:
Children's Society
rights
social policy
review of UNCRC/ N/a
article 12 and ensuing
policy.
links with rights agenda, repercussions
of implementing article 12 in the UK.
Detailed grid of policy changes/
guidelines associated with this. Warning
note that pursuit of ‘practical tips’ may
‘conceal fundamental questions about
the purpose of promoting participation’
[p 30]
28