Content uploaded by Dominic McSherry
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dominic McSherry on Jun 20, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Fargas-Malet et al. research with children
175
research with children:
methodological issues and
innovative techniques
Montserrat Fargas-Malet, Dominic McSherry,
Emma Larkin and Clive Robinson
Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
ABSTRACT
In the past few decades, a growing body of literature examining children’s
perspectives on their own lives has developed within a variety of disciplines,
such as sociology, psychology, anthropology and geography. This article
provides a brief up-to-date examination of methodological and ethical
issues that researchers may need to consider when designing research
studies involving children; and a review of some of the methods and
techniques used to elicit their views. The article aims to encourage
researchers to critically refl ect on these methodological issues and the
techniques they choose to use, since they will have implications for the
data produced.
KEYWORDS methodology, research methods, research with children
Until relatively recently, research was fundamentally on children, rather than
with children or for children (Darbyshire et al., 2005; Mayall, 2000; O’Kane, 2000).
Historically, children were seen as objects to be studied, being regarded as
incompetent, unreliable and incomplete (e.g. Barker and Weller, 2003). However, with
the emergence of the ‘new social studies of childhood’ (James et al., 1998) and the
children’s right discourse (the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the
Child, 1989;1 the Children’s Act, 2004), children are now viewed as social actors
who are ‘experts’ on their own lives (e.g. Kellett and Ding, 2004; Mauthner, 1997).
This new approach has meant a methodological shift, involving the emergence
of new ‘participatory’ research methodologies, the adaptation of more traditional
methods, such as observation and questionnaires (Punch, 2002a), and the
development of multi-method approaches, such as the ‘mosaic approach’,
developed by Clark and Moss (2001). As well as that, in recent years, children
journal of
early childhood research
© The Author(s), 2010. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Vol 8(2) 175–192 [ISSN 1476-718X DOI: 10.1177/1476718X09345412]
journal of early childhood research 8(2)
176
have started to become involved in the various stages of the research process,
such as formulating the research questions, planning the methodology, collecting
and/or analysing data, drafting recommendations and disseminating fi ndings
(Coad and Evans, 2008). This has involved differing levels of control-sharing and
of participation in the research process (Alderson, 2000; Brownlie et al., 2006;
McNeish, 1999).
It has been argued that the particular internal images of childhood that
researchers hold will inform their choice of methods, ethical practice, analysis,
and interpretation of data (Christensen and Prout, 2002; Mayall, 2000; O’Kane,
2000; Punch, 2002a). Punch (2002a) identifi ed three different approaches to
research with children:
• one which considers children as practically the same as adults and employs
the same methods as those used with them;
• one which perceives children as completely different from adults and uses
ethnography (participant observation) to examine the child’s world; and
• one which understands children as similar to adults but with different com-
petencies, and which has developed a plethora of innovative and adapted
techniques.
This article seeks to review a range of methodological approaches, in addition
to practical and ethical considerations that have emerged in research conducted
with young children.
research with children: methodological and ethical
considerations
This section focuses upon methodological and ethical considerations iden-
tifi ed in previous research with children, including: gaining access and seeking
consent; the research setting; questions and activities during data collection;
confi dentiality and child protection issues; and debriefi ng and rewards.
gaining access and seeking consent
When undertaking research with children, researchers must gain the co-operation
of a range of different ‘gatekeepers’, such as school staff and parents (Cree
et al., 2002). This process can range in complexity depending upon the situation.
For example, researching children in care or adopted can be quite complex in
terms of gaining access and seeking consent because of the potentially large
number of gatekeepers involved, such as social workers, Social Services managers,
birth parents, adoptive parents, and foster carers (Hepinstall, 2000; McSherry
et al., 2008).
Fargas-Malet et al. research with children
177
Informed consent should be freely given (without coercion, threat or persuasion)
by children who can make an appropriately informed decision. Competent minors
less than 16 years old of age can give consent, with competence being defi ned as
having enough knowledge to understand what is proposed and enough discretion
to be able to make a wise decision in light of one’s own interests (Alderson
and Morrow, 2004). However, it has often been assumed that ‘children are not
competent enough to give their informed consent, that this needs to be gained
from a ‘‘more competent adult’’ and the simpler level of ‘‘assent’’ (agreement
to participate) is suffi cient from the child’ (Kellet and Ding, 2004: 166). Some
researchers have questioned this assumption and claim that children are fully
capable of giving their informed consent. In fact, in several research studies,
researchers have prioritised children as the key consent-core (e.g. Munford
and Sanders, 2004). There are also examples where researchers have sought
active consent from children and passive agreement from their parents/carers
(e.g. Morrow, 2001; Thomas and O’Kane, 1998).
Cocks (2006) argues that the notion of consent might exclude some children,
such as disabled or refugee children, since it might not always be possible to
obtain in those particular contexts. She endorses the concept of ‘assent’ as a
sensitive and appropriate option to include all children in research on issues
that affect them, and argues that the notion of ‘assent’ ‘removes the reliance on
the child demonstrating adult-centric attributes such as maturity, competence
and completeness’ (Cocks, 2006: 257). In her own research with children with
learning impairments, she assessed children’s assent by being attentive to the
children’s behaviour and responses towards her at all times. Similarly, Cree and
colleagues (2002) point out that when researching very young people, their like
or dislike in taking part can be identifi ed, since they may show it in different
ways, such as crying or refusing to engage with materials or the researcher.
Researchers have used information leafl ets, tapes, letters and oral presenta-
tions to explain the research project to children, their parents/carers and other
gatekeepers such as social workers or teachers (e.g. Barker and Weller, 2003;
Morgan et al., 2002; Thomas et al., 1999). A recent innovation in this area has
been the use of a DVD as a friendly and relaxed way to introduce a research
study to children, and what taking part would entail.2 This study is focused upon
children’s pathways through care, and involves interviews with children who
have been adopted from care, who have remained in care on a long-term basis,
and who have returned home from care (McSherry et al., 2008). The interviews
deal with issues such as the child’s concept of family, belonging and identity.
The use of the DVD was deemed particularly important given the potentially
sensitive nature of the interview subject matter.
The quality of information provided to potential participants is very important,
since as Bogolub and Thomas (2005) argue, the ability to give informed consent
journal of early childhood research 8(2)
178
depends on the quality of the explanation. In leafl ets, simple language (e.g.
short sentences, no jargon or acronyms, the active voice rather than the passive
one, and requests rather than commands), the use of diagrams, speech bubbles
or pictures, and large print are strongly recommended. It is also found to be
useful to break the information up into short sections, with subheadings or
through a question and answer format; and it is advisable to run through draft
leafl ets with children and ask for their views (e.g. Alderson, 2004; Alderson and
Morrow, 2004).
context/location
When planning a research project, it is important to bear in mind that the
research context might affect what children will talk about (Backett-Milburn and
McKie, 1999; Barker and Weller, 2003; Hill, 2006; O’Kane, 2000; Punch, 2002a;
Scott, 2000). A diffi culty of many settings in conducting research with young
children is negotiating privacy (Mauthner, 1997) and keeping confi dentiality
(Barker and Weller, 2003).
Although collecting data at schools seems to be more cost-effective than
at home (Scott, 2000), different problems or diffi culties have been identifi ed
concerning the school setting. For example, once school staff members have
given consent, children might fi nd it diffi cult to decline to take part (Backett-
Milburn and McKie, 1999). It has been observed that, although the vast majority
of children in a school class setting would agree to participate, a minority will
just write/draw minimally and/or say barely anything (Morrow, 2001). Other
concerns regarding the school setting are: limitations of timetables, diffi culties
in fi nding available spare rooms (Kellet and Ding, 2004; Punch, 2002b), and the
risk of children interpreting participation in the research as ‘school work’ (Kellet
and Ding, 2004), thus perceiving the researcher in a ‘teacher’ role (Goodenough
et al., 2003; Hill, 2006) and feeling pressured to give the ‘right’ answers to the
research questions (Punch, 2002a). Therefore, children might say what they
think adults want them to say (Backett-Milburn and McKie, 1999; Clark, 2005).
Researchers have tried to minimize these risks by emphasizing and reassuring
children that there are no right or wrong answers (Punch, 2002a), and by
choosing appropriate rooms in the school setting, such as art/activities rooms
(Darbyshire et al., 2005), the ‘resource’ room (Goodenough et al., 2003) or the
store cupboard (Jones, 2008), which represent an in-between of the formal and
informal worlds of the school.
Using the child’s own home as a location can also entail some diffi culties.
Interviews at home are probably more time-consuming and costly (Scott, 2000).
Researchers need to negotiate their social position as a guest in children’s
homes, since this is not clearly defi ned (Mayall, 2000). Finding a private and quiet
Fargas-Malet et al. research with children
179
space in the home can be problematic due to child protection issues (Barker and
Weller, 2003), thus parents or carers might wish to be present, and that might
infl uence children’s responses (Scott, 2000).
data collection: questions and activities
In order to establish rapport, it is advisable to start asking about things the child
already knows or sees as relatively unthreatening (Cameron, 2005), such as
specifi c daily events, routines or feelings (happiest, saddest, most embarrassing
event) (Mauthner, 1997). A period of ‘free narrative’ has also been recommended
when starting an interview, as facilitating ‘both the child’s settling-in phase
and the interviewer’s grasp of this child’s communication style and concerns’
(Cameron, 2005: 601). When the research involves sensitive issues, it is advisable
to present less diffi cult questions fi rst (Wood Charleswort and Rodwell, 1997). The
researcher should be constantly alert to children’s responses (e.g. falling silent
or changing the subject suddenly), in order to respect children’s reluctance to
answer questions that might be diffi cult or painful for them (Kay et al., 2003).
Some research participants might agree to participate but appear to be unwilling,
shy or embarrassed throughout the research. Some might become more involved
with gentle prompting. Alderson and Morrow (2004: 53) suggest that if it becomes
clear that a child does not wish to continue, ‘it is respectful to talk for a while
and then end the interview positively and thank them without suggesting it may
have been a waste of time’.
When interviewing children, it is particularly appropriate for the researcher
to use non-verbal behaviours (e.g. keeping eye contact, sounds like ‘mm’ or
‘really’, and head nods) and verbal prompts (such as ‘tell me more about that’),
which indicate that the interviewer is listening and wants to hear the child’s
story (Cameron, 2005). Exclamations such as ‘Great!’, ‘Terrifi c!’ or ‘Cool!’ may
not be that suitable, as they ‘may discourage the child from telling the whole
story which includes the ‘‘non-cool’’ parts!’ (Cameron, 2005: 603).
Interviewers are recommended to avoid using closed questions when inter-
viewing young children (and even adults), and use open or wh-questions when
possible (Waterman et al., 2001). When closed questions are required, researchers
might prefer to use follow-up questions to make sure that the interviewee is not
just guessing an answer.
Researchers might want to ask questions about issues that are pertinent and
related to children’s own experiences (Scott, 2000), as young children tend to
give monosyllabic answers to questions that they do not consider relevant to
them (Morgan et al., 2002). It may be inappropriate to ask too many questions
(or too few) (Cameron, 2005; Mauthner, 1997). Further clarity of language is
journal of early childhood research 8(2)
180
considered essential (Punch, 2002a). It is advisable to avoid complex and over-
simple words, and notions that restrict children into giving only trivial responses
(Alderson, 2000).
A wide range of activities and techniques have been used in interviews
and focus groups with young children, in order to make them more fun and
interesting, and to give children more control over the focus and agenda (e.g.
Kay et al., 2003; Punch, 2002b; Sanders and Munford, 2005). Using a mixture of
materials and techniques provides children with time to think about what they
would like to communicate, so they do not feel pressured to give a rapid answer
(Punch, 2002b), as well as giving them choice and control on how to express
themselves, and assist them in talking about more complicated, sensitive, and
abstract issues (Thomas and O’Kane, 1998).
Some researchers have used breaks during focus groups with children, such
as group activities and refreshments (Morgan et al., 2002) or a food break
(Goodenough et al., 2003), to keep children engaged and focused, as well as
giving some extra non-structured informal time with them.
confi dentiality and child protection issues
Additional issues come into play with respect to confi dentiality in research
with young children, such as parents’ curiosity and concern for their child as
well as child protection regulations. Parents may tend to ask their child or the
researcher about the content of the interview and that might put stress on the
child (Masson, 2004) and on the researcher (Bushin, 2007). Furthermore, children
might reveal that they are seriously harmed or ill-treated, or the researcher, when
interviewing a child, might identify a medical condition or learning diffi culty
which the parents could take action about.
Children should be informed about the limitations of confi dentiality before
participating in the research in order to enable them to give fully informed
consent (Williamson et al., 2005). When interviewing young children, this could
‘be expressed as the difference between what can be ‘‘just between you and me’’
and what may need to be told to others ‘‘to stop someone from getting hurt’’’
(Thompson and Rudolph, 2000: 35). Thus, it is common practice that if chil-
dren disclose abuse, researchers will encourage the child to talk to adults who
could help or else to agree that the researcher should talk to them (Alderson
and Morrow, 2004). However, what should the researcher do when abuse is
disclosed by the child and she or he does not agree to talk to somebody that
can help? And how does the researcher identify what is ‘harm’ that needs
reporting? Researchers have adopted different approaches. For instance, Lynch
and colleagues (1999), in their study with children who had been sexually
abused, had clear from the start that if a child disclosed information that raised
concerns about her/his safety, they would try to persuade him/her to speak to
Fargas-Malet et al. research with children
181
those concerned with his/her welfare, and if that did not work, confi dentiality
would be breached. Their position was specifi ed in a Code of Confi dentiality,
which was accessible to the participants prior to the interview. In contrast, Hill
(2006) argues that sensitive information or any information given by a child
should only be disclosed to others when the child consents to that, after having
discussed it with him/her.
data collection: debriefi ng and rewards
After the interview, it might be appropriate to have some debriefi ng (Clark, 2005),
and suitable support might be needed in cases where the participants’ feelings
may become overwhelming (Kay et al., 2003).
Giving payments (whether cash or vouchers) to participants is a somewhat
controversial issue. Those who are against this practice argue that payments
can pressurize people into taking part in the research and into saying what
they think researchers want to hear. On the other hand, it may be argued that
payments should be given as an acknowledgement of the participants’ time and
contribution. While some ethical guidelines have advocated for this practice
(Children in Scotland, 2001), others are strongly against it, and an EU Directive
(L121/34) from 2001 advised that paying children to take part in research should
be illegal (Cree et al., 2002).
Cree and others (2002) decided not to pay or give vouchers to the participants
in their research, but to offer them a pack of paper and pens as a sign of their
gratitude. In contrast, Bushin (2007) decided to give a ‘thank you’ voucher to
children, but only informed them about the voucher during the interviews with
them, rather than prior to participating in the research, since that might have
acted as an incentive.
techniques, methods and tools when researching children
Various methods and techniques have been used when conducting research
with children. However, it has been argued that researchers need to critically
refl ect on the methods and techniques they use and the ways they use them
(Barker and Weller, 2003; Sanders and Munford, 2005). The methodology chosen
needs to match the research questions of the project, respect limitations of time
and resources, be sensitive and ethical, and take into account the particular
characteristics and needs of the participants, as well as the cultural and physical
setting where it takes place (e.g. Christensen and Prout, 2002; Punch, 2002a).
using photography
Researchers have employed photography in their studies in a variety of ways.
For instance, researchers are increasingly asking children to take their own
journal of early childhood research 8(2)
182
photographs to be used later as interview stimuli, rather than using other people’s
pictures; since children’s own photographs are probably more likely to refl ect
what matters to them (Samuels, 2004). In addition, children’s own pictures can be
used in an interview as an instrument to help children develop their answers to
particular questions and at the same time, to enable children to express facets of
their lives in a unique way (Clark-Ibáñez, 2004). They can also act as prompts to
a child’s personal story (Newman et al., 2006). Researchers usually use disposable
or instant cameras, since they are relatively economical and simple to use.
Photovoice was one of the methods used by Darbyshire and colleagues (2005)
in their study on children’s perspectives on physical activity. This technique does
not involve interviews; but children write briefl y what their photographs mean.
Dockett and Perry (2005) used a similar method in a study where they asked
children to take photographs in small groups (two–three) around the school. A
classroom book was created with the pictures and the children’s comments,
which were recorded while they planned, took and reviewed the photographs.
Similarly, Kirova and Emme (2006) used fotonovelas (or photo novellas). In
fotonovelas, the photographs are not only used to elicit discussion and dialogue,
but are manipulated and organized in a narrative format.
There are a number of benefi ts to using photography as a tool for doing
research with young children, particularly when interviewing. For example, using
the participant’s photographs may help to build and maintain rapport between
interviewer and interviewee and may capture the interviewees’ attention more
easily and for longer. It also enables interviewees to choose what they talk about
as the issues they feel represent their own experiences and views. Photographs
can also give structure to the interview, provide a focus, and act as a clear and
tangible prompt or as a means for remembering. Thus, they have proved to be a
good way of eliciting relevant detailed information and rich descriptions from the
participants, leading to ‘a far deeper understanding than a simple conversation’
would (Newman et al., 2006: 301). Further, photographs can evoke emotions and
affectively charged responses (Samuels, 2004).
However, there may be some disadvantages in using photography when
researching young children. For example, giving children freedom over their
cameras means that the researchers do not have any idea or control over what
photographs might be taken (Barker and Weller, 2003), thus the participant
might use the camera in inappropriate ways, and some children might be tempted
to take photographs of what they would like to keep as a picture afterwards
(Punch, 2002a). It may pose ethical challenges concerning issues of confi dentiality,
since informed consent from all those who are in the photographs is nearly
impossible to gain. Furthermore, there might be photographs that the interviewee
regrets taking and that the researchers might have already seen when developing
them. To avoid that, it would be good practice to explain to participants that
Fargas-Malet et al. research with children
183
they will be the fi rst to view the photographs and have a chance to take out any
‘regret’ pictures (Clark-Ibáñez, 2004).
Not all children will engage in the same way with this method. Some children
may be confi dent and experienced with cameras and enjoy the activity, while
others may lose their camera, struggle to fi nd inspiration or may be embarrassed
about their photography skills, and just take very few pictures (Barker and
Weller, 2003).
drawings
Drawing has been used as a (usually fun or enjoyable) way for children to
express their own views and experiences. Until recently, researchers focused
exclusively on what they understood the child’s drawing meant rather than on
the child’s explanation of what the drawing was about. However, there appears
to have been a shift of focus ‘from what the children draw to what the children
say about what they draw’ (Driessnack, 2005).
Children have been asked to draw in interviews in numerous research studies
(e.g. Barker and Weller, 2003; Leonard, 2006; Miles, 2000; Morgan et al., 2002; Sartain
et al., 2000). Drawing maps or plans is also a popular method in research with
children; and it has been used in many studies to gather information about
signifi cant spaces for children and to explore their perceptions of these places (e.g.
Darbyshire et al., 2005; Leonard, 2007; Morrow, 2001; Young and Barrett, 2001).
There are different reasons for using drawings in research with young chil-
dren. Drawings can be used as a good ice-breaker, can help children relax and
establish rapport, can act as prompts and as triggers for remembering or for
eliciting discussion, and may help children organize their own narratives (Hill,
1997; Miles, 2000). This technique may also enable children to gain more control
over the interview, since it gives children an opportunity to draw as much or
as little as they like, and also gives them time to refl ect on their own ideas
(Miles, 2000). It has been described as a useful and fairly quick way to gain con-
siderable amounts of information in a relatively short period of time.
However, there are a number of drawbacks in using drawing techniques with
children. For example, not all children consider drawing to be fun and some
children may be inhibited about their drawing capabilities. Older children may
not wish to draw pictures, since they might see it as ‘babyish’. In short, it may not
suit all children. When using the technique in a classroom setting, drawings can
be easily seen and copied by peers, and thus ‘may illustrate socially constructed
rather than individual ideas’ (Leonard, 2006: 61). Children may draw what they
fi nd easy to portray or what they think would please the researcher or other
adults. Finally, researchers using this method can be uncertain about how to
analyse this kind of data (Backett-Milburn and McKie, 1999).
journal of early childhood research 8(2)
184
participatory techniques
Participatory research techniques are now frequently used in interviews and
focus groups with young children to serve different aims. They enable partici-
pants to create ‘inclusive accounts using their own words and frameworks of
understanding, via a range of exercises such as mapping, timelines, cartoons,
matrices and pie charts’ (Pain and Francis, 2003: 46). For instance, charts and
diagrams have been used in a variety of studies as visual aids to enable children
to express themselves in greater depth (see e.g. Christensen and James, 2000;
Punch, 2002b; Thomas and O’Kane, 1998).
In grouping and ranking exercises, ‘children are given a set of cards or
photographs of activities or issues to rank in order of importance’ (Clark, 2005: 494).
A ranking exercise, the ‘Diamond Ranking Exercise’, was used in a group set-
ting in order to explore the opinions of children in care in terms of what they
found most important about contributing to decision-making (Thomas and
O’Kane, 1998). Punch (2002b) used a similar activity in her study with young
people on perceptions of their problems and coping strategies, where the par-
ticipants grouped problems written onto cards into three different piles, rep-
resenting big, middle and little worries, and ranked each pile from most to least
worrying. The ranking exercise stimulated interesting discussions about the
different problems.
Q methodology is another approach that utilises ranking exercises (see Brown,
1980; McKeown and Thomas, 1988). Statements are drawn from discourses
around the subject of investigation (the concourse), and these items are sorted by
participants onto a grid designed to represent a normal distribution curve. Sorting
takes place under the direction of a ‘condition of instruction’, based on ‘more or
less’ (e.g. ‘most representative of my opinion’ to ‘most unrepresentative of my
opinion’). For added depth, it is customary to discuss and record participants’
choices with them as they sort, thus providing a valuable source of qualitative
information. Where Q methodology diverges from other ranking-exercises
techniques is that each statement is coded, and the resultant sorts analysed
using factor analysis.3 Finally, the researcher facilitates the interpretation of
the emergent factors through an ‘internal triangulation’ process, based upon the
arrangement of the sort, the content of the concourse and the meanings attached
to the statements as described by the participants.
Two of the strengths of Q methodology, where research with young children
is involved, are:
• The researcher is not limited to ‘written’ textual statements, being free to
use pictures (Taylor et al., 1994), computer generated imagery (Burt et al.,
2007),4 symbols (Kwon and Kim, 2006), ‘plasticine’ sculptures (Svennungsen
and Allgood, 2006) or even foods (Dunne and McConnell, 2007; Stewart
et al., 2007); and
Fargas-Malet et al. research with children
185
• It is adaptable to different modes of delivery, including face-to-face inter-
view, postal sorts (Ellis et al., 2007), and using computer/web based software
(Burt et al., 2007; Hackert, 2007).
use of ‘stimulus material’ or prompts
When interviewing children, researchers have made use of a range of prompts
and materials to stimulate children’s responses. Written prompts – such as
sentence completion, wishes, word choice prompts, or unfi nished stories to
complete – have been widely used in interviews with children (Clark, 2005;
Morrow, 2001; Punch, 2002b). Some research projects have also used picture
prompts. For instance, Thomas and colleagues (1999), in their study with adoptive
children, used pictorial prompt cards in some of their interviews, in order to
facilitate communication with the children when talking about diffi cult times
in their lives (i.e. issues related to their adoption process). The pictorial cards
represented the different phases of the adoption process. They encouraged the
children to see the adoption process as a journey, since when joined together
in whatever order, they formed a road. If the children thought of other stages,
they were invited to draw new cards.
Feelings faces or feelings cards have also been used especially to facilitate
communication when asking about sensitive issues (Hill, 1997). Veale (2005), in
her workshops or ‘focus groups’ with Rwandan children, introduced happy/sad
drawings. The children were shown a drawing of a happy girl/boy and a sad
girl/boy and asked to discuss what the child was probably thinking.
diaries and other life narrative techniques
Young children have been encouraged to tell their own life stories in a wide
range of ways and formats, such as life story books, memory books, diaries or
life maps.
Diaries are especially useful to explore children’s use and perception of time.
However, for some children, diaries can be too much like school work, while
for others might be a valuable form of communication. A diffi culty might be
ensuring confi dentiality for diary extracts in both the school setting (where
teachers and peers may put pressure to the child to participate) and at home
(where parents may check the child’s diary or even write their own entries)
(Barker and Weller, 2003).
‘Storygames’ have been used when children’s own stories may be deeply
traumatic (e.g. children who have suffered the direct consequences of a confl ict
or genocide; see Veale, 2005). This involves children creating a story, where each
child is invited to give a line of the story and the story goes from one child to
another until it is fi nished.
journal of early childhood research 8(2)
186
Life story books have been frequently used in social work practice with
foster and adopted children (Cook-Cottone and Beck, 2007), but also to research
people with learning disabilities (Hewitt, 2000), and as a therapeutic tool in
family therapy with traumatised children (Hanney and Kozlowska, 2002). Life
story books allow children and others to make sense of their past experiences
and enable them to talk about themselves in a structured way, helping them to
build their own identity. They usually include photographs, drawings, words and
documents that give a chronological account of the child’s story. Their format
is fl exible in the sense that they could be an album of photos with text, a box or
even a timeline (Cook-Cottone and Beck, 2007). A story book has recently been
designed and developed to use, as an interview schedule, in a study looking at the
experiences of children who have been adopted from care, who have remained
in care on a long-term basis, and who have returned home from care (McSherry
et al., 2008). It is a ‘task-based’ (Punch, 2002a) tool that will allow children to
express their own views, according to their own level of ability. Each page refers to
a particular topic (e.g. my family, school, or the future), and involves an activity,
such as drawing, using stickers or circling pictures. Each topic or question is
broad enough to allow the child to talk freely about a particularly issue, thus
giving the child a certain degree of control over the interview.
observation
There seems to be a long tradition of observation as a method for researching
young children, particularly in the fi elds of early years’ education (Clark, 2005)
and developmental psychology (Hill, 1997). However, in child and family social
work research, this method has been barely employed, partly due to reluctance
to intrude in people’s homes (Hill, 1997). Observation has been regarded as
especially suited for researching very young children, but not as useful for older
children, who can be interviewed instead, since as children grow up, they become
more aware of the presence of observers (Dunn, 2005).
Participant observation is a form of observation that involves ‘watching,
listening, refl ecting and also engaging with the children in conversation’ (Mayall,
2000: 121). An example of a study using this method is the ‘Healthy Eating Project’,
described by Mauthner (1997), where researchers observed children eating
during mealtimes, as well as talking about food, cooking and serving food. The
researcher ate and sat with the children during lunchtime, and observed what
foods children selected, how they picked the food, and what they actually ate.
questionnaires
Although less popular than other methods, questionnaires have been used with
children and young people, often using a more ‘child-friendly’ format. For instance,
Fargas-Malet et al. research with children
187
The British Household Panel Study used a pre-recorded questionnaire, which
was played on a personal stereo and was answered by children in a booklet at
their own pace (Scott, 2000). Other researchers have used questionnaires in
which children were asked to draw faces to show how they felt about certain
activities (Clark, 2005).
Apart from self-completion questionnaires completed at home or at school,
questionnaires can also be completed on a computer or by telephone. Computer
Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) has been praised since it provides the
chance to incorporate videos and audio stimuli that lessen the need to rely
just on verbal questioning. Telephone interviewing has been effectively used
with children aged over 10 in the USA, although lack of privacy can be a major
weakness of this technique (Scott, 2000).
Questionnaires may have some advantages, including: being relatively quick
to administer; their potential capacity to collect large amounts of standard data
and reach large samples; and the fact that some children might fi nd it easier to
answer questions in this way rather than face-to-face with a stranger (Hill, 1997).
However, they also have disadvantages. For example, return rates are usually
low and questionnaires require a certain level of literacy; and not all children
fi nd it easy to communicate well in writing. It has been argued that ‘many young
people fi nd questionnaires irrelevant or diffi cult to complete’ (Hill, 1997: 175).
Young children may respond to a question, even if they do not know the answer.
Finally, children’s answers will also be dependent on biases such as social
desirability, context effects and acquiescence bias (Scott, 2000).
conclusions
Researchers, conducting research with children, have developed new and adapted
old social research methods and tools to fi t the aims and objectives of their studies
and the characteristics and needs of the research participants. However, the
disadvantage and limits of, as well as the reasons for, using innovative/traditional
methods and techniques with young children might need to be refl exively and
critically approached; for instance, ‘are certain methods being used with children
purely because they are fun, or because they also generate useful and relevant
data?’ (Punch, 2002a: 330).
This review is intended to encourage researchers to refl ect upon the research
methods and approaches that they use with young children, and the most
appropriate way in which to apply them, in order to, as far as possible, diminish
their drawbacks and maximize their benefi ts. As Hill (1997: 180) argues, ‘It is
important that research-based publications give details of the methods used
and provide assessments and feedback about how satisfactory were particular
techniques.’
journal of early childhood research 8(2)
188
notes
1. Particularly article 12 which states that children have the right to articulate their
opinions regarding decisions that affect them and to be listened to; and article 13
which states that children have the right to seek, get and share information
(see Alderson, 2000).
2. A DVD is currently being used in the Northern Ireland Care Pathways and Outcomes
study (a copy of it can be viewed at: [http://www.qub.ac.uk/iccr/]
3. See Brown (1980) ‘Part II: Technical Procedures’, for a comprehensive discussion of
the factor analysis technique employed in Q methodology.
4. See also [http://face.dur.ac.uk/info/wakka.php?wakka=Home/qsort/rsoc].
references
Alderson, P. (2000) ‘Children as researchers. The effects of participatory rights on
research methodology’, in P. Christensen and A. James (eds) Research with Children.
Perspectives and Practices, pp. 241–57. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Alderson, P. (2004) ‘Ethics’, in S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellet and C. Robinson
(eds) Doing Research with Children and Young People, pp. 97–112. London: The Open
University.
Alderson, P. and Morrow, V. (2004) Ethics, Social Research and Consulting with Children
and Young People. Essex: Barnado’s.
Backett-Milburn, K. and McKie, L. (1999) ‘A critical appraisal of the draw and write
technique’. Health Education Research. Theory & Practice 14(3): 387–98.
Barker, J. and Weller, S. (2003) ‘“Is it fun?” Developing children centred research
methods’. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23(1/2): 33–58.
Bogolub, E.B. and Thomas, N. (2005) ‘Parental consent and the ethics of research with
foster children: beginning a cross-cultural dialogue’. Qualitative Social Work 4(3):
271–92.
Brown, S.R. (1980) Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brownlie, J., Anderson, S. and Ormston, R. (2006) Children as Researchers. London:
SEED Sponsored Research.
Burt, D.M., Kentridge, R.W., Good, J.M.M., Perrett, D.I., Tiddeman, B.P. and Boothroyd,
L.G. (2007) ‘Q-cgi: new techniques to assess variation in perception applied to facial
attractiveness’. Proceedings of the Royal Society B (Biological Sciences) 274 (1627):
2779–84.
Bushin, N. (2007) ‘Interviewing with children in their homes: putting ethical principles
into practice and developing fl exible techniques’. Children’s Geographies 5(3): 235–51.
Cameron, H. (2005) ‘Asking the tough questions: a guide to ethical practices in
interviewing young children’. Early Child Development and Care 175(6): 597–610.
Children’s Act (2004) London: Stationery Offi ce (November).
Children in Scotland (2001) Research/Consultation Guidelines. Edinburgh: CiS.
Christensen, P. and James, A. (2000) ‘Childhood diversity and commonality. Some
methodological insights’, in P. Christensen and A. James (eds) Research with
Children. Perspectives and Practices, pp. 160–78. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Christensen, P. and Prout, A. (2002) ‘Working with ethical symmetry in social research
with children’. Childhood 9(4): 477–97.
Fargas-Malet et al. research with children
189
Clark, A. (2005) ‘Listening to and involving young children: a review of research and
practice’. Early Child Development and Care 175(6): 489–505.
Clark, A. and Moss, P. (2001) Listening to Young Children. The Mosaic Approach. London:
National Children’s Bureau and Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Clark-Ibáñez, M. (2004) ‘Framing the social world with photo-elicitation interviews’.
American Behavioral Scientist 47: 1507–27.
Coad, J. and Evans, R. (2008) ‘Refl ections on practical approaches to involving children
and young people in the data analysis process’. Children and Society 22(1): 41–52.
Cocks, A.J. (2006) ‘The ethical maze: fi nding and inclusive path towards gaining
children’s agreement to research participation’. Childhood 13(2): 247–66.
Cook-Cottone, C. and Beck, M. (2007) ‘A model for life-story work: facilitating the
construction of personal narrative for foster children’, Child and Adolescent Mental
Health 12(4): 193–5.
Cree, V.E., Kay, H. and Tisdall, K. (2002) ‘Research with children: sharing the
dilemmas’. Child and Family Social Work 7: 47–56.
Darbyshire, P., MacDougall, C. and Schiller, W. (2005) ‘Multiple methods in qualitative
research with children: more insight or just more?’. Qualitative Research 5(4): 417–36.
Dockett, S. and Perry, B. (2005) ‘“You need to know how to play safe”: children’s
experiences of starting school’. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 6(1): 4–18.
Driessnack, M. (2005) ‘Children’s drawings as facilitators of communication: a
meta-analysis’. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 20(6): 415–23.
Dunn, J. (2005) ‘Naturalistic observations of children and their families’, in S. Greene
and D. Hogan (eds) Researching Children’s Experience. Approaches and Methods,
pp. 87–101. London: SAGE.
Dunne, L., and McConnell, B. (2007) ‘Implications of local research for young children,
parents and professionals’. Early Years Magazine (Early years – the organizations for
young children, NIPPA, Belfast).
Ellis, G., Barry, J. and Robinson, C. (2007) ‘Many ways to say ‘‘no’’, different ways to
say ‘‘yes’’: applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm
proposals’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50(4): 517–51.
Goodenough, T., Williamson, E., Kent, J. and Ashcroft, R. (2003) ‘“What did you think
about that?” Researching children’s perceptions of participation in a longitudinal
genetic epidemiological study’. Children and Society 17: 113–25.
Hackert, C. (2007) FlashQ [computer programme] Hackert.biz
Hanney, L. and Kozlowska, K. (2002) ‘Healing traumatized children: creating
illustrated storybooks in family therapy’. Family Process 41(1): 37–65.
Hepinstall, E. (2000) ‘Gaining access to looked after children for research purposes:
lessons learned’. The British Journal of Social Work 30(6): 867–72.
Hewitt, H. (2000) ‘A life story approach for people with profound disabilities’. British
Journal of Nursing 9(2): 90–15.
Hill, M. (1997) ‘Research review: participatory research with children’. Child and Family
Social Work 2: 171–83.
Hill, M. (2006) ‘Children’s voices on ways of having a voice: children’s and young
people’s perspectives on methods used in research and consultation’. Childhood
13(1): 69–89.
James, A., Jenks, C. and Prout, A. (1998) Theorizing Childhood. Cambridge: Polity.
journal of early childhood research 8(2)
190
Jones, K. (2008) ‘“It’s well good sitting in the storecupboard just talking about what
we do”: considering the spaces/places of research within children’s geographies’.
Children’s Geographies 6(3): 327–32.
Kay, H., Cree, V., Tisdall, K. and Wallace, J. (2003) ‘At the edge: negotiating boundaries
in research with children and young people’. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 4(2).
Available online at: [http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/].
Kellett, M. and Ding, S. (2004) ‘Middle childhood’, in S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding,
M. Kellet and C. Robinson (eds) Doing Research with Children and Young People,
pp. 161–74. London: The Open University.
Kirova, A. and Emme, M. (2006) ‘Using photography as a means of phenomenological
seeing: “doing phenomenology” with immigrant children’. The Indo-Pacifi c Journal of
Phenomenology 6 (Special issue): 1–12. Available online at: [www.ipjp.org].
Kwon, H.J. and Kim, H.K. (2006) ‘Preference factors in symbol mark design’. Journal of
Human Subjectivity 4(1): 61–70.
Leonard, M. (2006) ‘Children’s drawings as a methodological tool: refl ections on the
eleven plus system in Northern Ireland’. Irish Journal of Sociology 15(2): 52–66.
Leonard, M. (2007) ‘Trapped in space? Children’s accounts of risky environments’.
Children and Society 21: 432–45.
Lynch, M.A., Glaser, D., Prior, V. and Inwood, V. (1999) ‘Following up children who
have been abused: ethical considerations for research design’. Child Psychology &
Psychiatric Review 4(2): 68–75.
Masson, J. (2004) ‘The legal context’, in S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellet and
C. Robinson (eds) Doing Research with Children and Young People, pp. 43–58. London:
The Open University.
Mauthner, M. (1997) ‘Methodological aspects of collecting data from children: lessons
from three research projects’. Children & Society 11: 16–28.
Mayall, B. (2000) ‘Conversations with children. Working with generational issues’, in
P. Christensen and A. James (eds) Research with Children. Perspectives and Practices,
pp. 120–35. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
McKeown, B. and Thomas, D. (1988) Q Methodology. London: SAGE.
McNeish, D. (1999) ‘Promoting participation for children and young people: some key
questions for health and social welfare organisations’. Journal of Social Work Practice
13(2): 191–203.
McSherry, D., Larkin, E., Fargas, M., Kelly, G., Robinson, C., Macdonald, G.,
Schubotz, D. and Kilpatrick, R. (2008) From Care to Where? A Care Pathways and
Outcomes Report for Practitioners. Belfast: Institute of Child Care Research, Queen’s
University.
Miles, G.M. (2000) ‘Drawing together hope: ‘‘listening’’ to militarised children’. Journal
of Child Health Care 4(4): 137–42.
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(5): 5–20.
Morrow, V. (2001) ‘Using qualitative methods to elicit young people’s perspectives on
their environments: some ideas for community health initiatives’. Health Education
Research. Theory & Practice 16(3): 255–68.
Fargas-Malet et al. research with children
191
Munford, R. and Sanders, J. (2004) ‘Recruiting diverse groups of young people to
research: agency and empowerment in the consent process’. Qualitative Social Work
3(4): 469–82.
Newman, M., Woodcock, A. and Dunham, P. (2006) ‘“Playtime in the borderlands”:
children’s representations of school, gender and bullying through photographs and
interviews’. Children’s Geographies 4(3): 289–302.
O’Kane, C. (2000) ‘The development of participatory techniques. Facilitating
children’s views about decisions which affect them’, in P. Christensen and A.
James (eds) Research with Children. Perspectives and Practices, pp. 136–59. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Pain, R. and Francis, P. (2003) ‘Refl ections on participatory research’, Area 35(1): 46–54.
Punch, S. (2002a) ‘Research with children: the same or different from research with
adults?’. Childhood 9(3): 321–41.
Punch, S. (2002b) ‘Interviewing strategies with young people: the ‘‘secret box’’,
stimulus material and task-based activities’. Children and Society 16: 45–56.
Samuels, J. (2004) ‘Breaking the ethnographer’s frames: refl ections on the use of photo
elicitation in understanding Sri Lankan monastic culture’. American Behavioral
Scientist 47: 1528–50.
Sanders, J. and Munford, R. (2005) ‘Activity and refl ection: research and change with
diverse groups of young people’. Qualitative Social Work 4(2): 197–209.
Sartain, S.A., Clarke, C.L. and Heyman, R. (2000) ‘Hearing the voices of children with
chronic illness’. Journal of Advanced Nursing 32(4): 913–21.
Scott, J. (2000) ‘Children as respondents. The challenge for quantitative methods’, in
P. Christensen and A. James (eds) Research with Children. Perspectives and Practices,
pp. 98–119. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Stewart, M.C., Sneddon, H., Dunne, L., Gildea, A., Sloan, S., McErlean, L. and
Iwaniec, D. (2007) ‘Glad study summary and recommendations’. Child Care in
Practice 13(3): 271–80.
Svennungsen, H. and Allgood, E. (2006) ‘Intensive Q-study on personal development
using pictures: working paper’. Paper presented at the International Society for the
Scientifi c Study of Subjectivity Annual Conference, Trondheim, Norway.
Taylor, P., Delprato, D.J. and Knapp, J.R. (1994) ‘Q-methodology in the study of child
phenomenology’. Psychological Record 44(2): 171–83.
Thomas, C., Beckford, V., Lowe, N. and Murch, M. (1999) Adopted Children Speaking.
London: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.
Thomas, N. and O’Kane, C. (1998) ‘The ethics of participatory research with children’.
Children and Society 12: 336–48.
Thompson, C. and Rudolph, L. (2000) Counseling Children. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Brooks/Cole.
United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva: UN.
Veale, A. (2005) ‘Creative methodologies in participatory research with children’,
in S. Greene and D. Hogan (eds) Researching Children’s Experience. Approaches
and Methods, pp. 253–72. London: SAGE.
Waterman, A.H., Blades, M. and Spencer, C. (2001) ‘Interviewing children and adults:
the effect of question format on the tendency to speculate’. Applied Cognitive
Psychology 15(3): 301–20.
journal of early childhood research 8(2)
192
Williamson, E., Goodenough, T., Kent, J. and Ashcroft, R. (2005) ‘Conducting research
with children: the limits of confi dentiality and child protection protocols’. Children
and Society 19: 307–409.
Wood Charlesworth, L. and Rodwell, M.K. (1997) ‘Focus groups with children: a
resource for sexual abuse prevention program evaluation’. Child Abuse and Neglect
21(12): 1205–16.
Young, L. and Barrett, H. (2001) ‘Adapting visual methods: action research with
Kampala street children’. Area 33(2): 141–52.
correspondence
Institute of Child Care Research, Queen’s University Belfast, School of Sociology,
Social Policy and Social Work, 6 College Park, Belfast BT7 1LP, Northern Ireland, UK.
[email: m.fargas@qub.ac.uk]