by Kim Brown
I have compiled
some thoughts on researching with children from my point of view as a parent, a
teacher, a researcher, and an advocate of social justice. I have taken extracts
from my Masters and mixed these with more recent deas reflections.
Positioning
children within research relations demands awareness of the asymmetrical power relations between
researchers and younger participants. The notion of voice encapsulates children’s
capacity to speak and their right to do so (Thomson, 2008). Indeed, Roberts
(2006) reflects on social research practice that is well-rehearsed in listening to children but not hearing them. Simply adopting child-centred approaches to research may not
provide children sufficient opportunity to be heard.
Children’s voice represents
a “hard-won” gain in research, yet might equally present researchers with
ethical dilemmas when considering how far to acknowledge children’s agency (Kraftl,
2013). Questioning whether it is possible for an adult researcher to create
equality with a child participant, Jenks advises recognising “the grounds of
difference” (2006, p. 87). One aspect of difference draws attention to adult
responsibility, particularly in research domains not conventionally thought of
as child-friendly, sexuality being an obvious example (Kraftl, 2013). Drawing
upon critical reflexivity may support a researcher in the precarious act of
recognising rather than assuming differences. Additional actions may involve
participatory roles for the students in the research design or creative modes
of communication. Again, I caution
that providing children with choices during the research process does not
necessarily equate to balancing power differentials between researcher/subject
or adult/child. If I reflect on my own research with child participants during
my Masters, I can see that I created additional workload for the the young
people involved despite my espoused principles of addressing differential power
relations.
I sought to empower
children to express themselves in flexible ways, both as individuals and as a
group, and elicit data to investigate the research question. I chose visual
approaches, in part inspired by scrapbooks (Bragg & Buckingham, 2008), and an
anti-CV (Higgins, Nairn, & Sligo, 2009). What strikes me in retrospect (ah,
the value of hindsight) was my emphasis on using visual approaches to provide
tools that ease communication, and not necessarily generate data as a visual
product. I now see this distinction as being particularly important. Why agonise
over the process of setting and gathering indepedent research activities from
children if my intention was to create an atmosphere for ease, conversation and
interaction? Having devised an independent presentation and a group activity,
the latter was by far the most efficient approach. I am extremely grateful for
the efforts that the young people put into their independent activities, but I
suspect I might have been able to save them some time had I started with the
group activity.
On the day of the activity,
I turned up at school laden with morning tea goodies. My visit, whilst
pre-aranged was not in the school diary, nonetheless, a member of the
administration team facilitated a space for me to meet the young people and
then called them up on the intercom. The young people were also not expecting
me, so I offered them the chance to opt in or out. All came along. Using
low-tech pen and paper, they set about the task of writing a guide book (their
prefered form of communication) on the topic of my research. They enjoyed the
morning tea, conversing in-depth whilst they doodled, made lists and wrote
ocassional sentences. The conversation was the source of rich data analysis,
proving that the visual medium of the guide book served it purpose as a
conversation starter. Equally important, I think we all had a pleasant morning.
I have learned several important lessons from
my Masters experience around researching with children and school:
- We know that schools are busy places and present particular challenges for research activity, for example, around communication, access, recruiting participants, free space, and so on. This being the case, why design research that might be overly-reliant on multiple visits? I am not suggesting superficiality here. When our research is small scale, not directly related to curriculum activity, and lacking status of external funding or accomplished researchers, I have found simplicity to be most effective approach.
- Be clear about the focus of my research. Am I researching methodology or a particular phenomenon? I may have gotten a little enthusiastic about the research design without really thinking about what I was asking of already busy young people. Lambert, Glacken and McCarron (2013) discuss achieving a balance between creative instruments and comonplace conversation when researching with children, and offer some very helpful key considerations in their paper.
- Building a relationship with the children involved in research is critical, and if time is short and I am unable to meet with children, I must rely on ethical practices. Procedural ethics offer some widely recognised standards to scaffold research practices, but I would argue, these need to be substantiated by ethical reflexivity or ethical integrity. Maintaining ethical reflexivity involves ongoing critical self-analysis and scrutiny of the research process that moves beyond a simple form of self-confession. Ethics of reflexivity involve an acceptance that differences between researcher and participant extend beyond our research roles and practices, and include values, experiences and dispositions we bring to and maintain beyond the process.
If you'd like any literature references, let me know. :)
