Too Vulnerable to Participate? Challenges for Meaningful Participation in Research With Children in Alternative Care and Adoption

Abstract

In recent years, a significant amount of research has been conducted with children from a rights perspective, especially concerning the right to be heard and participate. However, children living in alternative care and adoption have often been excluded from participating in research because they are viewed as vulnerable children who lack agency and also due to an adult-centric perspective of protection. In this article, we challenge this idea under the view that participation is a main component of protection, children are experts in their own experiences, and their views should be considered through participative research design and methods. Particular challenges that protection contexts impose for research are analyzed and several ways in which these challenges can be faced are outlined. We provide principles and examples that can be implemented to ensure that children who live in alternative care or adoption have the right as any child to be informed, be listened to, and have their views considered regarding topics that affect them.

Full text

Constructions of ‘Children’s Voices’ in Qualitative Research - State of the Methods
Too Vulnerable to Participate? Challenges
for Meaningful Participation in Research
With Children in Alternative Care
and Adoption
Manuela Garcia-Quiroga
1
and Irene Salvo Agoglia
2
Abstract
In recent years, a significant amount of research has been conducted with children from a rights perspective, especially concerning
the right to be heard and participate. However, children living in alternative care and adoption have often been excluded from
participating in research because they are viewed as vulnerable children who lack agency and also due to an adult-centric per-
spective of protection. In this article, we challenge this idea under the view that participation is a main component of protection,
children are experts in their own experiences, and their views should be considered through participative research design and
methods. Particular challenges that protection contexts impose for research are analyzed and several ways in which these
challenges can be faced are outlined. We provide principles and examples that can be implemented to ensure that children who
live in alternative care or adoption have the right as any child to be informed, be listened to, and have their views considered
regarding topics that affect them.
Keywords
childhood, protection, voices, children’s rights, out-of-home care
Date received: August 30, 2019. Received revised April 7, 2020; Accepted: April 8, 2020
Introduction
The right of the child to be heard is derived from the provisions
of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC; 1989). In 2009, the Committee on the Rights of the
Child published General Comment No. 12, in which the com-
mittee linked Article 12, “the right to be heard,” of the UNCRC
to the concept of participation as “ongoing processes which
include information sharing and dialogue between children and
adults based on mutual respect, and in which children can learn
how their views and those of adults are taken into account and
shape the outcome of such processes” (p. 5). Participation
could be considered the “right of rights,” because it refers
centrally to the exercise of citizenship and its effective fulfil-
ment enables to analyze the degree of validity of other rights
(Giorgi, 2010).
Scholars have had an interesting dialogue and debate
regarding the so-called new paradigm for the sociology of
childhood (Christensen & James, 2000; James et al., 1998;
Mayall, 2000, 2001, 2002; Spyrou, 2011; Prout, 2011 among
others), increasing recognition of children as social actors
whose knowledge and views are worth investigating (Christen-
sen & James, 2000; James & James, 2008; Mayall, 2001).
Children are increasingly seen and related to as democratic
subjects, and the idea of children’s agency is central to the
growing field of childhood studies (Esser et al., 2016; Galla-
gher, 2019; Oswell, 2012; Spyrou, 2020; Sutterlu
¨ty & Tisdall,
2019). According to Mayall (2001), this new perspective
changes from a view of children as objects of adult work to
competent and contributing social actors. This new concept of
1
School of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Cat ´
olic a de Valpara´
ıso,
Valpara´
ıso, Chile
2
Faculty of Psychology, Alberto Hurtado University, Regi ´
on Metropolitana,
Chile
Corresponding Author:
Manuela Garc´
ıa-Quiroga, Escuela de Psicolog´
ıa (PUCV), Avda. El Bosque 1290,
Santa In´
es, Vin
˜a del Mar 2530388, Chile.
Email: psmanuelagarcia@gmail.com
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Volume 19: 1–11
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1609406920958965
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission
provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

children implies that they can be considered as agents inter-
secting with the structures surrounding their lives. As such,
they reproduce and transform such structures and to some
extent, can be effective in altering the conditions of their own
childhoods. Recent literature on children’s agency has
addressed, among other topics, the depth of effect of agency,
the perils of agency, and the relationality of agency (Morrison
et al., 2019). Following this line, Oswell (2012) proposed a
wider vision of agency that overcomes the duality between
agency and structure and highlights children’s engagement
with their everyday lives. In this same vein, Esser et al.
(2016) pointed out that agency is produced in relationships of
interdependence. Spyrou (2020) stated that current understand-
ing of children’s participation with well-intentioned adults
seeking to open spaces for children to participate may be reach-
ing its limits. For this author, agency will have to be viewed
anew in line with the emerging relational thinking in childhood
studies, “not as an individual possession but rather as a highly
networked and distributed potential which can be assembled
and reassembled in different ways and take collective forms”
(Spyrou, 2020, p. 5). In a child protection context, children may
be both vulnerable and agentic. In this context, the tensions and
collision between discourses regarding children’s rights to pro-
tection and participation, when applying the concept of agency
in practice, become visible (Collins, 2017; Morrison et al.,
2019).
In the field of research with children in recent decades, the
UNCRC has paved the way for what can be conceptualized
broadly as a right-based approach to the study of children, in
which predominantly participatory approaches should be
applied (Bradbury-Jones, 2014; Raynaert et al., 2009). The
interdisciplinary field of childhood studies also highlights
issuesrelatedtorespectingchildren’s participation rights
(Mayall, 2001). In this way, social researchers have increas-
ingly engaged children in projects that explore their experi-
ences, views, and understandings (Alderson, 2012; Horgan,
2016). A key concept of this field has been the “voices” of
children (Elden, 2012; Spyrou, 2011, 2016). However, this
notion of children’s voices is vague and nonspecific, and it is
necessary to develop a more complex perspective, assuming
the associated ethical, political, and methodological chal-
lenges. Although more meaningful engagement of children in
research has occurred, there is a debate about how we do so in
both an ethical and credible way (Moore et al., 2008). One
methodological challenge in this area involves the pitfall of
naively supposing that it is enough to collect children’s
“expressions” to include those voices. This idea highlights the
fact that children’s voices are always constructed in inherently
multidimensional and conflicting institutional contexts that
shape them (Elden, 2012; Spyrou, 2011). For Spyrou (2011),
the concern for finding the “authentic voice” of children must
give way to developing reflective and critical research more
focused on the production process of those voices. More
recently, Spyrou (2016) stated the importance of analyzing
children’s silences and nonverbal interactions. This author
emphasized that these factors must be placed in the institutional
and discursive contexts that give rise to them and in this way,
ensuring these voices are heard and represented (Spyrou,
2016). Even though new approaches consider children and
adolescents as social actors intensely involved in the construc-
tion of their own lives, the lives around them, and the societies
in which they live, research that actively and significantly
involves children remains scarce, especially in Latin America
(Garc´ıa-Quiroga et al., 2018; Vergara et al., 2015).
Evidence suggests that when children have the opportunity
to participate in matters concerning their well-being, their
self-esteem, sense of empowerment, and adaptive skills are
developed (Saracostti et al., 2015). However, in some con-
texts, such as hospitals and child protection services, children
have been primarily seen as vulnerable due to their health or
social conditions. This has led to the conceptualization of
children’s lack of agency in these contexts and an adult-
centric model of decision making that has excluded children’s
views. Interestingly, in some countries, new developments in
the last decade highlight the importance of including children
in research in schools (Aguilar et al., in press; N´
un
˜ez et al.,
2016; Pen
˜a Ochoa & Bonhomme, 2018; Ram´ırez-Casas del
Valle & Alfaro-Inzunza, 2018) and the relevant information
they can provide regarding topics such as architecture and
design (Adams et al., 2012). A change of vision from a
family-centred perspective to a child rights view has enabled
new developments in hospitals regarding child participation
and informed consent (Sheahan et al., 2012). Likewise,
research with children in contexts of political crisis and armed
conflicts has provided new and relevant perspectives
(Castillo-Gallardo et al., 2018; Ospina-Alvarado et al.,
2018). These recent experiences, among others, provide evi-
dence that participation of vulnerable children is possible and
desirable. However, these advances have not yet reached chil-
dren in all vulnerable contexts and have been particularly
slower for those in protection systems.
Children are the center of child welfare and protection
systems, and as such, their views are essential to understand-
ing and evaluate system outcomes. However, for several rea-
sons, children’s participation in decision making in these
contexts continues to be scarce and often merely formal or
instrumental (Collins, 2017; Vis & Thomas, 2009). Several
studies have been conducted in the field of child protection, in
which children experience a lack of meaningful participation
in decisions that are most important to them. In a recent
review of 16 studies regarding participation in residential
care, Ten Brummelaar et al. (2017) concluded that there are
very poor opportunities for young people to participate in
almost all domains in these settings. They found that older
children and children with good behavior and fewer previous
placements had more opportunities to participate and express
their views compared to younger children or children with
behavioral difficulties or more than four previous placements.
Other reviews have noted that participation may be difficult,
especially at younger ages and in the presence of disability
(Gallagher et al., 2012), and mentioned professionals’ lack of
understanding of what participation implies as significant
2International Journal of Qualitative Methods

barriers to children’s participation (Van Bijleveld et al.,
2013). One of the dilemmas that has arisen in this field of
research is that of balancing participation with protection.
Academic discourses in childhood studies have highlighted
two apparently opposing points of view: one positioning chil-
dren as primarily vulnerable, with an emphasis on the need to
safeguard and protect, and a second that places the focus on
children’s agency and competence with an emphasis on their
right to participation (Powell et al., 2018). However, this
could be a false dilemma, given that participation can itself
be protective for vulnerable children, increasing their confi-
dence, self-efficacy, and self-worth (Cossar et al., 2016;
Yorke & Swords, 2012). In this sense, some research has
highlighted the relevance of child participation and the rela-
tionship between children’s participation and respect for their
rights and improvement of their health (Bouma et al., 2018;
Cashmore, 2001; Kriˇ
z & Roundetree-Swain, 2017). Addi-
tional studies highlighted that in situations in which children
and young people felt they were excluded or not heard, this
affected their desire to be involved in the process and honest
about their experiences (Kohli, 2007; Mudaly & Goddard,
2006).
In a qualitative study by Archard and Skivenes (2009) with
social workers in Norway and the United Kingdom, the authors
stated “that children’s views may be heard but they don’t really
count” (p. 379). This lack of true participation has important
implications for their sense of dignity and self-worth (Bessell,
2011). The mere physical presence of children does not ensure
effective participation, and often these instances can be uncom-
fortable or frightening (Po¨lki et al., 2012).
Difficulties in the process of listening to and considering
children’s voices in out-of-home care is still a challenge for
researchers and can be overcome through a process of devel-
oping appropriate techniques to gain access to children in these
contexts and involve them in the research process (Berrick
et al., 2000). Emphasizing the concept of authentic or true
participation, Bessell (2011), in a study with 28 young people
who had left care in Australia, stated the value of participation
(both an intrinsic and instrumental value) and that the partici-
pation of children involves three essential components: (a) the
child or young person has sufficient and appropriate informa-
tion to participate; (b) the child or young person has the oppor-
tunity to express their point of view freely; and (c) the views of
the child or young person affect the decision. More recently,
these three components, which are based on Article 12 of the
UNCRC, have been organized in a model of child participation
called “meaningful participation” (Bouma et al., 2018). In their
research, these authors critically analyzed Dutch policy docu-
ments in child protection and stated this model can be applied
to research with children in child protection systems in each of
its three levels: (a) informing, i.e., children should be informed
regarding their right to participate, ways of participation, etc.;
(b) hearing, i.e., children should be heard, meaning they should
have the option and be encouraged to express their opinions
and views, space and time need to be provided to listen to all
children’s queries, and researchers should be aware of verbal
questions but also body and face expressions and silences to
clarify any doubts or anxieties regarding the process; and (c)
involving, i.e., children’s views should be considered when
making decisions, including their opinions and proposals
regarding the design of the research project (additional research
questions, possible preferred techniques and methodologies to
gather data).
The importance to children of being seen, heard, informed,
and involved is evident, particularly as related to experiences
directly affecting their families and futures (Merkel-Holguin
et al., 2019). Strong evidence suggests that adults making deci-
sions about children in care do not always make the best deci-
sions, and the consequences may last a lifetime (Atwool, 2006).
This is especially true for research with children in alternative
care and adoption contexts. Participation in this field continues
to be complex (Cossar et al., 2016; Woodman et al., 2018).
Children and young people’s roles in child welfare and protec-
tion systems’ decision-making processes have been understu-
died (Merkel-Holguin et al., 2019), even though those
decisions directly affect their lives. Many studies conducted
with children in alternative care and adoption do not consider
them as active subjects, and emphasis given to their participa-
tion is scarce. Children and young people in care want to be
involved in research and consulted regarding other aspects of
their lives (Merkel-Holguin et al., 2019; Woolfson et al., 2009).
Usually, they wish to be more involved in how decisions are
made about them, especially where they live and how often
they see family members, and they want to be informed and
involved in the process (Cashmore, 2001). Fortunately, a grow-
ing body of interesting studies has developed an interdisciplin-
ary and critical way to address the challenges of child
participation in research, including their experience of being
in care and adoption (Atwool, 2006; Berrick et al., 2000; Cash-
more, 2001; Clark, 2005; Cossar et al., 2016; Mason, 2008;
Neil, 2012; Soares et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2018; Zeijlmans
et al., 2019, among others) and about their participation in child
welfare system decision-making processes (Merkel-Holguin
et al., 2019; Vis et al., 2012). However, most of these studies
have been conducted in developed countries, and this research
is still underdeveloped in Latin America.
Considering the need to strengthen the meaningful partici-
pation of children in research on these topics, in this article we
develop some key points that should be considered when con-
ducting research with children in alternative care and adoption
contexts, wherein the challenge of constructions of children’s
voices is traversed by multiple dimensions. This paper reflects
critically and makes an effort to systematize the various chal-
lenges involved in meaningful participation in research pf chil-
dren in systems of care (both residential and foster) and
adoption by attempting to outline practical implications that
can help researchers studying children’s perspectives in these
settings reflect on the tensions and dilemmas involved and
direct their research toward greater degrees of child participa-
tion. Along with this, we highlight several international studies
that, in the opinion of the authors, exemplify good practices and
may be useful to other researchers.
Garcia-Quiroga and Agoglia 3

Challenges for Child Participation in
Research in Alternative Care and Adoption
Contexts
There are several challenges in research with children in foster
care or adoption in different areas. First, the relationship
between vulnerability and participation is especially relevant
for research with children who are subject to some kind of
protection measure (such as separation from their families and
placement in some form of alternative care or adoption). Chil-
dren have been defined as a vulnerable group, and these chil-
dren can be conceptualized as having a double vulnerability
(being children and in need of special protection). As Aldrige
(2015) mentioned, these groups defined as vulnerable “are
often overlooked or denied full participation in
research ...[and] may be left out of studies altogether, and thus
our knowledge and insights about their experiences and needs
remains scarce” (p. 1). In this way, they become even more
excluded and vulnerable. For example, Kelley et al. (2016)
explored ethical challenges in research with children defined
as orphans and vulnerable in their study with 12 pediatric
researchers. Their study showed that researchers visualized
vulnerability more easily than agency and expressed concern
about introducing added harm or psychological stress in
research; for this reason, they tended to sometimes exclude
these children from research. Among the challenges research-
ers have identified in working with this population is the dif-
ficulty of identifying vulnerability, because children living in
these contexts vary greatly. However, this variation is not
always considered, and children tend to be classified as vulner-
able and therefore, excluded from participation in research
based on their placement in out-of-home care. The authors call
for a more flexible and creative approach with child-centred
participatory methods of research, which can better recognize
the complex social reality of children living without parents,
acknowledging both their vulnerability and their agency.
Conducting significant participatory research with children
in alternative care (residential or foster placements) or who
have been adopted entails specific challenges. At the individual
level, previous experiences of violence and neglect can affect
the child’s sense of power and freedom to decide and the con-
sideration of the value of their voice and the fear of negative
consequences or retaliation. Adverse early experiences can
hinder their ability to verbalize and process their experiences,
such that some proposed stimuli can trigger automatic reactions
linked to early childhood trauma (Amores-Villalba & Mateos-
Mateos, 2017; Ford, 2005; Heleniak et al., 2016). Additionally,
Healy (1998) highlighted that children in these contexts have
histories of “personal economic and social deprivation” (p.
902) that can hinder their ability to establish mutual personal
relationships and a sense of worth with researchers and profes-
sionals. In this sense, it is especially important in these contexts
to consider these issues and not take participation for granted. It
is crucial to create safe environments when working with chil-
dren (Kennan et al., 2019; Lundy, 2007) and enable diverse
methods (beyond verbal ones) to allow children to express
themselves.
At the contextual level, institutions or programmes impose
certain difficulties, mainly involving the authentic freedom to
decide whether to participate in an investigation. Gatekeepers,
such as managers or social workers—due to case load work, the
need for statutory power in protective systems, the specializa-
tion of services that hinders continuity in the relationship with
children (Seim & Slettebø, 2017), and other factors—can
exclude some children from research or result in participants
being selected without clear criteria. Regarding recruitment,
Berrick et al. (2000) mentioned that “administrative, political,
legal, and pragmatic barriers all conspire to limit researchers’
access to and contact with foster children” (p. 119). Addition-
ally, and for confidentiality reasons, information about foster
parents and children is not usually available to researchers.
This entails an additional challenge of building a close, colla-
borative, and trustful relationship with social services agencies
and courts. In a study by Gilbertson and Barber (2002), non-
response rates as high as 82%were mentioned; however, only
13%of these children actively declined to participate, whereas
all other cases were excluded by gatekeepers for different rea-
sons. From a methodological perspective, this can result in
extremely small samples and sample bias. From an ethical
perspective, children can be excluded or not receive the oppor-
tunity to participate even though they have the right to do so.
From a different perspective, children may be chosen to par-
ticipate by gatekeepers and may feel obligated to assent. There-
fore, beyond authorizations and consent from those who are in
charge or have legal guardianship, special emphasis must be
placed on the process of informing children about the study and
their full freedom without conditions to participate or to leave
the study at any time without negative consequences. These
conditions should not be taken for granted in contexts in which
children may not be accustomed to deciding for themselves.
Considerations for Participatory Research
With Children in Alternative Care and
Adoption
“Starting to Know Each Other”: The Role of the
Researcher and Relationships With Children in
Alternative Care and Adoption Contexts
Researchers in this field should be especially attentive to the
aforementioned elements. They should be politically, ethically,
and methodologically sensitive and coherent regarding the par-
ticipation of children in their studies, avoiding reproducing the
passive position they have historically taken in systems of pro-
tection, care, and adoption. In this sense, Healy (1998) brought
attention to the fact that power will always exist in relational
contexts, especially in child protection services. She high-
lighted the importance of an ongoing assessment of these
power dynamics rather than a negation of their existence. In
particular, the child’s relationship with the researcher is central
to achieving meaningful participation. The research team must
4International Journal of Qualitative Methods

have adequate skills and knowledge. Researchers should have
the attitude of positioning themselves as adults who are inter-
ested in and want to learn from children (Mayall, 2000). The
researchers must commit to respecting their part of the deal and
attend regularly and on time any meetings throughout the pro-
cess (Kennan et al., 2019; Laws & Mann, 2004). Consistency,
perseverance, and continuity are key attitudes and practices in
this relationship. Researchers should have the ability to provide
meaningful information and build dialogues with children to
encourage them to imagine possible ways of participation. The
methods should correspond to their purpose and be sensitive
and flexible enough to include all voices that should be heard
(Laws & Mann, 2004; Matthews, 1998). In these cases, it is
especially relevant to be trained in working with children, have
knowledge of early childhood trauma and adverse experiences
in childhood, and have interdisciplinary knowledge regarding
the alternative care system and adoption. This is true for both
the main researcher and other research team members, espe-
cially interviewers, who also need training in interviewing chil-
dren and other methods and techniques. For example, Berrick
et al. (2000) developed a selection method for interviewers that
includes assessing several important characteristics (i.e., pre-
vious experience working with children, ability and motivation
to work in vulnerable contexts and with problematic families,
among others). The method includes a 2-week training stage
and supervision throughout the data collection process. On the
other hand, for Ponizovsky-Bergelson et al. (2019), “it is
important that researchers interviewing children stress how
interested they are to hear what the children have to say, how
important this information is to them and that the child is
appreciated for his or her original contribution” (p. 7). This is
especially important for children in these contexts, considering
that they have usually experienced neglect, discontinuity, and
separation throughout their lives.
“Freedom to Participate”: Ethical Issues for
Strengthening Significant Participation
Ethical considerations in research with children are crucial
from the beginning to the final steps of the research (Alderson
& Morrow, 2011; Morrow, 2008; Morrow & Richards, 1996;
Raffety, 2014). The process involves much more than formal
procedures and ethical informed consent. In every research
project involving children, especially in contexts of alternative
care and adoption, voluntary participation is critical. This
implies the protection of children’s rights throughout the pro-
cess, with the guarantee of informed assent, confidentiality of
the information, and voluntary participation.
A first consideration is that participation is closely linked to
the right to information (Article 17), which implies providing
information adapted to children to support them in claiming
their rights and participation. Information is the basis for their
free decision to get involved in the research (Laws & Mann,
2004). In other words, without information, there is no partic-
ipation. But researchers need to go beyond just making infor-
mation available. Special attention needs to be paid to both the
timing and how information is presented, considering the
child’s age and development, what they can understand, and
what they may already know (Cashmore, 2001). Accordingly,
it is imperative to provide plenty of time to inform children
about the research team and the research itself.
Foundations for child participation in research start from the
process of recruitment (Berrick et al., 2000). It is crucial to
examine in detail how children will be recruited to participate
and how different methods of selection have different implica-
tions for participatory work (Laws & Mann, 2004). All children
have the right to know why they have been selected, and the
researcher should attempt to answer all of the children’s ques-
tions about the project in terms appropriate to their level of
comprehension (Matthews, 1998). The purpose for the study
can be described in child-friendly terms (Berrick et al., 2000),
and it is very important to explain in detail every activity and
make the process predictable (questions might include: Who
are the researchers? Why are they here? Why are they talking to
the child? What activities are proposed?). In the same direction,
child-friendly ethical consent should be constructed to ensure
every child understands the characteristics of the research and
the implications of their participation. Additionally, research-
ers should ensure that each child understands that the research
will have no direct benefits or harms for them, neither indivi-
dually or as a group (i.e., it will not affect any help they are
receiving from the institution or family home where they are
living). In this sense, it may be useful to have an additional
information sheet explaining participants’ rights (Alderson,
1995). If the children for any reason (age, disabilities, etc.)
cannot understand or express this information, researchers
should offer some ideas regarding possible ways to participate.
Additionally, researchers should strive to ensure that child
participation does not become an intrusive experience of over-
intervention. This is especially important if we consider that
children involved in these contexts often experience several
intervention processes in protective services. Researchers
should understand participation as a dynamic experience, in
which children should calibrate their motivation to participate
and how they want to express such participation. For this rea-
son, children should be empowered to understand their right to
not participate at all, terminate the interview at any time, or
skip any questions they wish (Berrick et al., 2000). Further-
more, it is vital to respect each child’s limits, including the
moment children choose to participate or end their participa-
tion. If a child chooses not to participate, this should always be
respected, because this decision is conceptualized as a type of
participation itself (Laws & Mann, 2004).
Parallel to the informed consent of children, the dilemma
around adults’ informed consent arises. Bogolub and Thomas
(2005) highlighted the complexities of obtaining consent from
adults in protection contexts and described different
approaches in different countries. For example, the United
States has a more family-based approach and tends to ask for
parental or foster caregivers’ consent. In contrast, the United
Kingdom has a more child-centered approach and prioritizes
children’s assent. Accordingly, in the study by Berrick et al.
Garcia-Quiroga and Agoglia 5

(2000) in the United States, the authors proposed that in some
cases, researchers may also need to gain informed consent from
children’s lawyers, biological parents, and caregivers. There-
fore, any consideration of children’s participation in child pro-
tection must bear in mind the difficult context in which
children’s views are sought and children’s participation
enabled or thwarted (Cossar et al., 2016; Healy, 1998).
Another sensitive issue for research with this population is
confidentiality. This is a complex issue due to the different
actors involved in gaining authorization and consent in child
protection contexts. Additionally, regarding ethics committees,
researchers usually must obtain authorization at different levels
to conduct the study (e.g., administrative bodies, professionals
and practitioners, and caregivers). This implies that different
negotiation processes must be considered and confidentially
can be challenged (Turner & Almack, 2016). Children tend
to be very sensitive to ethical issues such as confidentiality and
consent, and discussions with them about these topics can help
clarify the best way to proceed. Children should be assured that
they can express their views and opinions in confidence, with-
out prejudice, and without fear of revelation of their thoughts to
parents, guardians, or significant professionals (Matthews,
1998).
Finally, when considering financial or other incentives for
their participation (such as toys), children can be consulted at
an early stage of the research to consider their views when
deciding the best option (Laws & Mann, 2004). This should
be analyzed carefully to avoid the possibility of children agree-
ing to participate in research without wanting to but being
tempted by the promise of a reward. A study with Australian
children by Taplin et al. (2019) reported that children were
more likely to participate in the study when payment was
offered. A different option was proposed by Berrick et al.
(2000), who offered a “certificate of achievement” as recogni-
tion for children’s participation. Another option would be a
“surprise reward” not previously known by the child or not
established from the beginning.
“From the Beginning to the End”:
Participation in all Stages of Research
According Moore et al. (2008), children should not only be the
“subjects” of research but should also be encouraged to play an
active part throughout the life of the project, from the early
planning stages through to the sharing of findings. We outline
three areas and ways in which we can strengthen children’s
participation in the process of research: design, coproduction
of results, and dissemination of findings.
Participation in the Design of the Research: Participants,
Coresearchers, or Both?
As Kellet (2010) stated, it has been common practice to
exclude children from the design phase and only enlist them
to collect data. This excludes them from receiving training in
research design and methods, which hinders their possibilities
for participation (Pole et al., 1999). However, several research-
ers raised the need to include children from the foundational
moments of research projects. A way to facilitate children’s
participation is to involve them in the formulation of research
questions, objectives, and methodology to visualize them as
subjects of the research. In this way, children can contribute
to the elaboration of questions and researchers can give gui-
dance on how to write nonbiased or inductive questions
(Mason, 2008).
Providing information regarding ways to construct a
research project in a child-friendly way can enable children
to express their views about how the research should be for-
mulated from the early stages of the study. Clarification of
children’s and adult’s roles is essential in this process, with
transparency and honesty regarding which stages and areas
should be directed and conducted exclusively by adults and
which can be shared or conducted by children. In some cases,
a research contract can be signed to clearly establish and
describe each role (Berrick et al., 2000; Laws & Mann,
2004). Also, children who are part of the research team can
provide advice on appropriate ways of accessing and inviting
participants who are difficult to reach.
To maximize children’s involvement in the research project,
it’s possible to invite children to participate in a reference
group or advisory board throughout the project. Lundy et al.
(2011) described the idea of a children´s research advisory
group. This group is formed by children who are considered
experts in their own experiences and engages in activities to
build capacities and familiarize the children with the idea of the
project, helping them develop their own perspectives. The aim
of this group is to provide a better idea of how the children want
to be asked about their experiences, provide feedback on pro-
posed research tools, and assist in the development and under-
standing children’s views (Moore et al., 2008). In this direction,
some studies have emphasized children’s role as coresearchers,
planning the study alongside adults and having an important
research assistant role. In a qualitative study by Cossar et al.
(2016), young people were involved in the research commis-
sioning process and a research advisory group, contributing to
recruitment leaflets, advising on ethical aspects of the research,
contributing to the design of activity-based interviews, cofaci-
litating a workshop held with children and young people, and
helping produce a children and young people’s version of the
final report. However, in many cases, projects are commis-
sioned studies or funded after their design, making it difficult
for children to be involved in the initial planning stage, devel-
opment of the project plan, and internal ethics approval pro-
cesses. Nevertheless, children can play different roles during
the research; therefore, researchers should be open minded in
relation to different participation styles.
To have access to children’s perspectives it is fundamental
to construct nondirective, flexible, participatory, and creative
research styles. These styles should restrict children’s expres-
sions as little as possible and enable the comprehension of
children’s meanings. Regarding participatory methodologies,
it is crucial to have a multiplicity of possible methods and
6International Journal of Qualitative Methods

techniques to offer to children, according to their age and per-
sonal characteristics. Children can be involved in the choice of
methods and as experts, advise researchers regarding the best
ways to gather information (Lundy et al., 2011). Several meth-
ods and techniques should be available, and special attention
should be paid to enabling different ways of expression. As
previously mentioned, children with difficult early experiences
can have difficulty verbalizing but would benefit from other
possibilities based in multiple interactive techniques, such as
puppets, stories, drawings, collages, and photographs, among
others (Elden, 2012; Horgan, 2016; Spyrou, 2011). Even
though every technique has limitations, these methods enable
children to feel more comfortable, express their views, and
explore new meanings beyond their verbal ability (Spyrou,
2011). According to Elden (2012), these techniques invite chil-
dren to “mess around” and reveal ambiguous or contradictory
meanings, considering them to be competent social actors with
agency but also vulnerable and dependent.
In addition, many researchers working with children in dif-
ferent contexts have argued that group interviews are prefer-
able to individual interviews based on the need to balance the
power between an adult and a child (Hunleth, 2011; Kutrov´atz,
2017; Lewis, 1992), because having many children and one
adult can decrease the sense of powerlessness in children. This
can be an adequate view in most contexts; however, when
conducting research with children in residential care, this can
become problematic. These children often live in residential
environments that are very structured and less personalized
than family environments and they may have scarce moments
for a one-to-one conversation. They may benefit from an indi-
vidual interview in which they feel they are listened to, have all
the time they need to feel confident in expressing their feelings
and views, are not restricted to the usual role they have in the
residence, and are the center of their experience at their own
pace. Power issues are still important but may be addressed in
different ways as an alternative to group interviews; for exam-
ple, researchers can sit on the floor or in a little chair with
children, play alongside the child, share some personal infor-
mation and offer the child the chance to ask questions as well,
or highlight the expert role of the child in their own experiences
and the value they bring to the research. Additionally, encour-
agement, open-ended questions, and question requests have
been mentioned as facilitators of child participation
(Ponizovsky-Bergelson et al., 2019) to understand children’s
experiences more thoroughly, because this provides an oppor-
tunity for children to express their concrete and emotional
experiences in their own words.
“I Know What this Means”: Participation in the
Coproduction of Results
Researchers should work with children and rely on them to
reflect idiosyncratic meanings as much as possible to avoid
overinterpretation based on previously established adult-
centric categories (Lundy et al., 2011). To obtain adequate
interpretation of the results, children should be involved in
clarifying meanings embedded in their output (e.g., drawings,
pictures, puppetry dialogues). This is especially true in the case
of children in alternative care who, due to early adverse experi-
ences, may present characteristics or content susceptible to
being visualized from more clinical perspectives as indicators
of emotional problems. In these cases, adults may be tempted,
from an adult-centric perspective, to analyse children’s
responses and actions as having a meaning that can be under-
stood or revealed by the adult researcher alone. However, con-
tent revealed by participants in these contexts should always be
interpreted from their own perspectives and idiosyncratic
meanings, without preestablished categories. For this to be
possible, this aspect should be considered in the design of the
information analysis method. As an example of the importance
of including children in the interpretation and analysis of
results, Manson (2008) investigated the needs of children in
care and found significant differences in the meaning of
“stability” given by children and adults. For both groups, this
was stated as an important need. However, for children, this
meant continuity of connections with significant figures (no
matter the placement), whereas for adults, it meant stability
of placement. To ensure that results reflect children’s perspec-
tives and not adults’ interpretations, it is crucial to involve
children in the process (Dockett et al., 2009; Gomes Pessoa
et al., 2018). Children can begin the analysis process by reflect-
ing together on what they produced and why, then thinking
about what they are learning from the participants. An adult
collaborator can gather key issues emerging from the field data
and lead a child-friendly method of analysis accessible to the
group of children. Lundy et al. (2011) provided a good example
of different techniques that can be used in the process of ana-
lyzing data with children; they provided pictures, cards and
bags to classify answers according to the age and characteris-
tics of children. During the process, researchers can collect
children’scommentsasthebasisforwritingtheresultsof
analyses.
“Let’s Share Our Thoughts”: Participation in the Process
of Dissemination of Findings
Researchers agree that all children who take part in any project
deserve to be informed about the research findings in an appro-
priate and understandable way (Matthews, 1998). At the same
time, their participation in the process of dissemination and
transfer of the results to various audiences can be promoted
through what has been called “deep participation” (Ansell
et al., 2012; Horgan, 2016). For children, choosing to partici-
pate may be related to the hope that certain changes will occur,
so the dissemination of research findings is crucial (Laws &
Mann, 2004). This way, children can be called to coproduce
sections of partial or final research reports; for example, the
chapter on recommendations or implications for practices
(Lundy et al., 2011; Mason, 2008). They can read and comment
on the drafts of these reports, discuss them with others, and
design a child-friendly version of the final study report. Again,
different methods can be used to ensure their participation at
Garcia-Quiroga and Agoglia 7

this stage; for example, they can develop main findings that
could be included in the report. Additionally, participating in
the dissemination of their results to policy makers is a very
interesting option, contributing to their empowerment because
they can raise, with the support of adult researchers, their opi-
nions, positions, and suggestions regarding various subjects
that affect them. However, as Mason (2008) mentioned, some-
times children in care are not willing to participate in forums
with professionals because they perceive themselves as power-
less in front of adults and have no confidence that their views
will be considered. This can be linked to previous experiences
of not being listened to or considered in their relationships with
adults. In fact, many children are reluctant to participate and
mention tokenism as a main reason (Woolfson et al., 2009). If
safe environments are achieved and more horizontal relation-
ships are built, children’s participation in conferences with
diverse audiences has enormous potential to increase aware-
ness, because children can illuminate and reveal key aspects to
consider in political, legislative, sociocultural, or institutional
transformations (Woolfson et al., 2009). Finally, they can
coproduce other materials in addition to reports, such as games,
videos, or posters that express issues explored in the research
and disseminate them to a wider audience.
Conclusions
The signatory states of the UNCRC have committed them-
selves to ensuring child participation in decisions in all matters
that affect them in various fields, especially child protection.
However, great debate and controversy continues around the
world regarding the situation of children temporarily living in
alternative care systems due to measures of temporary or defi-
nitive separation from their birth families. Children living in
alternative care and adoption contexts are part of a specially
marginalized, often stigmatized population and for several rea-
sons under considered in participatory research and decision
making. Research in this area can constitute a valuable tool to
enable the exploration of their feelings, views, wishes and
needs, and the consideration of these in decision making pro-
cess guarantying the consecution of their rights. However, this
involves overcoming the adult-centric perspective which stills
dominates childhood protection field and research about these
issues in many countries and disciplines.
Thinking and implementing careful and respectful ways to
promote child participation in alternative care and adoption
systems involves the fact that researchers will be faced to
dilemmas and challenges which arise from the political, ethi-
cal, theoretical and methodological positioning of their inves-
tigative work. The consideration and promotion of children’s
agency and participation as well as their need of protection can
be achieved by the creation of safe environments which enable
different ways and methods to participate from the very early
stages of the research and throughout the process. Especial
attention needs to be given to the contextual and individual
characteristics in these settings to overcome the idea that
children’s safety and protection can be planned and decided
without consulting their perspectives.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article
is part of the research projects “FONDECYT INICIACION
N11190298: Participation of children and adolescents in decision
making in alternative care protection systems: Incorporating the
voices of different actors in the process” (2019-2022, PI: Manuela
Garc´ıa-Quiroga) and FONDECYT No. 3170338 “Adoptions in Chile:
Construction of narratives about origins and identity” (2017–2020, PI:
Irene Salvo Agoglia) both funded by the Chilean Consejo Nacional de
Innovaci´on, Ciencia y Tecnolog´ıa (CONICYT/ANID).
ORCID iD
Manuela Garcia-Quiroga https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4211-8889
References
Adams, A., Theodore, D., Goldenberg, E., McLaren, C., & McKeever,
P. (2012). Kids in the atrium: Comparing architectural intentions
and children’s experiences in a pediatric hospital lobby. Social
Science & Medicine,70(2010), 658–667.
Aguilar, N., Alfaro, N., Vel´asquez, A. M., & L´opez, V. (2020).
Educaci´on para la ciudadan´ıa mundial: Conectando escuelas de
Chile y Colombia. Educacao & Sociedade,41, e213415. https://
doi.org/10.1590/ES.213415
Alderson, P. (1995). Listening to children: Children, ethics and social
research. Barnardos, ISBN 0902046225, 9780902046221.
Alderson, P. (2012). Rights-respecting research: A commentary on
‘the right to be properly researched: Research with children in a
messy, real world’. Children’s Geographies,10(2), 233–239.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2012.66160
Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2011). The ethics of research with chil-
dren and young people: A practical handbook. Sage.
Aldridge, J. (2015). Participatory research working with vulnerable
groups in research and practice. Policy Press.
Amores-Villalba, A., & Mateos-Mateos, R. (2017). Revisi ´on de la
neuropsicolog´ıa del maltrato infantil: la neurobiolog´ıa y el perfil
neuropsicol´ogico de las v´ıctimas de abusos en la infancia. Psico-
logı
´a Educativa,23(2), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2017.
05.006
Ansell, N., Robson, E., Hajdu, F., & van Blerk, L. (2012). Learning
from young people about their lives: Using participatory methods
to research the impacts of AIDS in southern Africa. Children’s
Geographies,10(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.
2012.667918
Archard, D., & Skivenes, M. (2009). Hearing the child. Child & Fam-
ily Social Work,14(4), 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2206.2008.00606.x
Atwool, N. (2006). Participation in decision-making: The experience
of New Zealand children in care. Child Care in Practice,12(3),
259–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575270600761727
8International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Berrick, J. D., Frasch, K., & Fox, A. (2000). Assessing children’s
experiences of out-of-home care: Methodological challenges and
opportunities. Social Work Research,24(2), 119–127. https://doi.
org/10.1093/swr/24.2.119
Bessell, S. (2011). Participation in decision-making in out-of- home
care in Australia: What do young people say? Children and Youth
Services Review,33(4), 496-501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.child
youth.2010.05.006
Bogolub, E. B., & Thomas, N. (2005). Parental consent and the ethics
of research with foster children beginning a cross-cultural dialo-
gue. Qualitative Social Work,4(3), 271–292.
Bouma, H., L´opez, M., Knorth, E., & Grietens, H. (2018). Meaningful
participation for children in the Dutch child protection system: A
critical analysis of relevant provisions in policy documents. Child
Abuse & Neglect,79, 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.
2018.02.016
Bradbury-Jones, C. (2014). Children as co-researchers. The need for
protection. Dunedin Academic Press.
Cashmore, J. (2001). Promoting the participation of children and
young people in care. Child Abuse and Neglect,26, 837–847.
Castillo-Gallardo, P., Pen
˜a, N., Rojas Becker, C., & Briones, G.
(2018). El pasado de los nin
˜os: Recuerdos de infancia y familia
en dictadura (Chile, 1973-1989). Psicoperspectivas,17(2). https://
doi.org/10.5027/psicoperspectivas-Vol17-Issue2-fulltext-1180
Christensen, P., & James, A. (Eds.) (2000). Research with children.
Perspectives and practices. Falmer Press.
Clark, A. (2005). Listening to young children: Experts in their own
lives. Adoption & Fostering,29(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/
030857590502900106
Collins, T. M. (2017). A child’s right to participate: Implications for
international child protection. The International Journal of Human
Rights,21(1), 14–46.
Cossar, J., Brandon, M., & Jordan, P. (2016). ‘You’ve got to trust her
and she’s got to trust you’: Children’s views on participation in the
child protection system. Child & Family Social Work,21,
103–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12115
Dockett, S., Einarsodottir, J., & Perry, B. (2009). Researching with
children: Ethical tensions. Journal of Early Childhood Research,
7(3), 283–298.
Elden, S. (2012). Inviting the messy: Drawing methods and ‘children’s
voices’. Childhood,20(1), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0907568212447243
Esser, F., Baader, M. S., Betz, T., & Hungerland, B. (Eds.). (2016).
Reconceptualising agency and childhood: New perspectives in
childhood studies. Routledge.
Ford, J. (2005). Treatment implications of altered affect regulation and
information processing following child maltreatment. Psychiatric
Annals,35(5), 410–419. https://doi.org/10.3928/00485713-
20050501-07
Gallagher, M. (2019). Rethinking children’s agency: Power, assem-
blages, freedom and materiality. Global Studies of Childhood,
9(3), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043610619860993
Gallagher, M., Smith, M., Hardy, M., & Wilkinson, H. (2012). Chil-
dren and families’ involvement in social work decision making.
Children & Society,26, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-
0860.2011.00409.x
Garc´ıa-Quiroga, M., L´opez, V., Calqu´ın, C., & Salvo Agoglia, I.
(2018). Editorial Secci´on Tem ´atica: Infancia, poderes, subjetivi-
dades. Psicoperspectivas,17(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5027/psico
perspectivasvol17-issue2-fulltext-1408
Gilbertson, R., & Barber, J. G. (2002). Obstacles to involving children
and young people in foster care research. Child and Family Social
Work,7(4), 253–258.
Giorgi, V. (2010). La participacio
´n de nin˜os, nin˜as y adolescentes en
las Am ´
ericas. A 20 an˜os de la Declaracio
´n de Derechos del Nin˜o.
Instituto Interamericano del Nin
˜o.
Gomes Pessoa, A., Liebenberg, L., Beliz´ario da Fonseca, D., & Knupp
Medeiros, J. (2018). Resilience and vulnerability for children
residing in foster care: A qualitative study conducted in Brazil.
Early Child Development and Care. https://doi.org/10.1080/03
004430.2018.1479696
Healy, K. (1998). Participation and child protection: The importance
of context. British Journal of Social Work,28(6), 897–914.
Heleniak, C., Jenness, J., Vander Stoep, A., McCauley, E., &
McLaughlin, K. (2016). Childhood maltreatment exposure and
disruptions in emotion regulation: A transdiagnostic pathway to
adolescent internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Cog-
nitive Therapy and Research,40(3), 394–415. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10608-015-9735-z
Horgan, D. (2016). Child participatory research methods: Attempts to
go ‘deeper.’ Childhood,24(2), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0907568216647787
Hunleth, J. (2011). Beyond on or with: Questioning power dynamics
and knowledge production in ‘child-oriented’ research methodol-
ogy. Childhood,18(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0907568210371234
James, A., & James, A. (2008). Key concepts in childhood studies.
Sage.
James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorising Childhood. Polity
Press.
Kellet, M. (2010). Empowering children and young people as
researchers: Overcoming barriers and building capacity. Child
Indicators Research,4(2), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12187-010-9103-1
Kelley, M., Braz, T., Wilfond, B. J., Lengua, L. J., Rivin, B. E.,
Martin-Herz, S. P., & Diekema, D. S. (2016). Ethical challenges
in research with orphans and vulnerable children: a qualitative
study of researcher experiences. International Health,8,
187–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihw020
Kennan, D., Brady, B., & Forkan, C. (2019). Space, voice, audience
and influence: The Lundy model of participation (2007) in child
welfare practice. Practice, Social Work in Action,31(3), 205–218.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2018.1483494
Kriˇ
z, K., & Roundtree-Swain, D. (2017). “We are merchandise on a
conveyer belt”: How young adults in the public child protection
system perceive their participation in decisions about their care.
Children and Youth Services Review,78, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.childyouth.2017.05.001
Kohli, R. (2007). Social Work with unaccompanied asylum seeking
children. Palgrave MacMillan.
Kutrov´atz, K. (2017). Conducting qualitative interviews with
children-methodological and ethical challenges. Corvinus Journal
Garcia-Quiroga and Agoglia 9

of Sociology and Social Policy,8(2), 65–88. https://doi.org/10
.14267/CJSSP.2017.2.04
Laws, S., & Mann, G. (2004). ¿Ası
´que quiere hacer participar a los
nin˜os y nin˜as en la investigacio
´n? Paquete de herramientas para
apoyar la participacio
´n significativa y ´
etica de los nin˜os y nin˜a s en
la investigacio
´n relativa a la violencia contra los nin˜os y nin˜as.
Save the Children.
Lewis, A. (1992). Group child interviews as a research tool. British
Educational Research Journal,18(4), 413–421.
Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice is not enough: Conceptualising article 12 of
the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. British
Educational Research Journal,33(6), 927–942. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01411920701657033
Lundy, L., McEvoy, L., & Byrne, B. (2011). Working with young
children as co-researchers: An approach informed by the United
Nations convention on the rights of the child. Early Education and
Development,22(5), 714–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.
2011.596463
Mason, J. (2008). A Children’s standpoint: Needs in out-of-home care.
Children and Society,22(5), 358–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1099-0860.2007.00115.x
Matthews, H. (1998). The geography of children: Some ethical and
methodological considerations for project and dissertation work.
Journal of Geography in Higher Education,22(3), 311–324.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03098269885723
Mayall, B. (2000). Conversations with children: Working with gen-
erational issues. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research
with children: Perspectives and practices (pp. 120–135). London:
Routledge Falmer.
Mayall, B. (2001). The sociology of childhood in relation to children’s
rights. The International Journal of Children’s Rights,8, 243–259.
Mayall, B. (2002). Towards a sociology for childhood: Thinking from
children’s lives. Open University Press.
Merkel-Holguin, L., Schwab-Reese, L., Drury, I., Allan, H., & Hol-
linshead, D. (2019). Nothing about me without me: Children and
young people’s experiences with family group conferences. Child
& Family Social Work,25, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.
12648
Moore, T., McArthur, M., & Noble-Carr, D. (2008). Little voices and
big ideas: Lessons learned from children about research. Interna-
tional Journal of Qualitative Methods,7, 77–91. https://doi.org/10.
1177/160940690800700205
Morrison, F., Cree, V., Ruch, G., Winter, K. M., Hadfield, M., &
Hallett, S. (2019). Containment: Exploring the concept of agency
in children’s statutory encounters with social workers. Childhood,
26(1), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568218810101
Morrow, V. (2008). Ethical dilemmas in research with children and
young people about their social environments. Children’s Geogra-
phies,6(1), 49–61.
Morrow, V., & Richards, M. (1996). The ethics of social research with
children: An overview. Children and Society,10, 90–105.
Mudaly, N., & Goddard, C. R. (2006). The Truth is longer than a lie:
Children’s experiences of abuse and professional interventions
(1st ed.). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Neil, E. (2012). Making sense of adoption: Integration and differen-
tiation from the perspective of adopted children in middle
childhood. Children and Youth Services Review,34(2), 409–416.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.11.011
N´
un
˜ez, C. G., Pen
˜a, M., Cubillos, F., & Solorza, H. (2016). Estamos
todos juntos: el cierre de la Escuela Rural desde la perspectiva de
los nin
˜os. Educac¸a˜o e Pesquisa,42(4).
Ospina-Alvarado, M., Alvarado-Salgado, S., & Fajardo-Mayo, M.
(2018). Subjetividades pol´ıticas de la primera infancia en contextos
de conflicto armado: Narrativas colectivas de agencia. Psicoper-
spectivas,17(2). https://doi.org/10.5027/psicoperspectivas-Vol17-
Issue2-fulltext-1186
Oswell, D. (2012). The agency of children: From family to global
human rights. Cambridge University Press.
Pen
˜a Ochoa, M., & Bonhomme, A. (2018). Territorios de aprendizaje
en nin
˜os vulnerables: Un acercamiento desde el aprendizaje
Situado. Psicoperspectivas,17(2). https://doi.org/10.5027/psico
perspectivas-Vol17-Issue2-fulltext-1170
Pole, C., Minzen, P., & Bolton, A. (1999). Realising children’s agency
in research: partners and participants? International Journal of
Social Research Methodology,2, 39–54.
Po¨ lki, P., Vornanen, R., Pursianen, M., & Riikonen, M. (2012). Chil-
dren’s participation in child-protection processes as experienced
by foster children and social workers. Child Care in Practice,
18(2), 107–125.
Ponizovsky-Bergelson, Y., Dayan, Y., Wahle, N., & Roer-Strier, D.
(2019). A qualitative interview with young children: What
encourages or inhibits young children’s participation? Interna-
tional Journal of Qualitative Methods,18, 1–9. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1609406919840516
Powell,M.,McArthur,M.,Chalmers,J.,Graham,A.,Moore,T.,
Spriggs, M., & Taplin, S. (2018). Sensitive topics in social research
involving children. International Journal of Social Research Meth-
odology,21, 647–660. https://doi.org/13645579.2018.1462882
Prout, A. (2011). Taking a step away from modernity: Reconsidering
the new sociology of childhood. Global Studies of Childhood,1(1),
4–14. https://doi.org/10.2304/gsch.2011.1.1.4
Raffety, E. (2014). Minimizing social distance: Participatory research
with children. Childhood, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0907568214548283
Ram´ırez-Casas del Valle, L., & Alfaro-Inzunza, J. (2018). Aproxima-
ciones discursivas del bienestar en la escuela desde la voz de nin
˜os
y nin
˜as. Psicoperspectivas,17(2). https://doi.org/10.5027/psicoper
spectivas-Vol17-Issue2-fulltext-1164
Raynaert, D., Boverne-De Bie, M., & Vandevelde, S. (2009). A
review of children’s rights literature since the adoption of the
United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Childhood,
16, 518–534.
Saracostti, M., Caro, P., Grau, M. O., Kinkead, A. P., & Vatter, N.
(2015). The right of children to participate: Scopes and challenges
for social research. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia,62,
211–244.
Seim, S., & Slettebø, T. (2017). Challenges of participation in child
welfare. European Journal of Social Work,20, 882–893. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2017.1320531
Sheahan, L., Da Silva, M., Czoli, C., & Shaul, R. Z. (2012). A Cana-
dian perspective on a child’s consent to research within a context
of family centered care: From incompatibility to synergy. Journal
10 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

of Clinical Research & Bioethics,3, 132. https://doi.org/10.4172/
2155-9627.1000132
Soares, J., Ralha, S., Barbosa-Ducharne, M., & Palacios, J. (2019).
Adoption-related gains, losses and difficulties: The adopted child’s
perspective. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal,36(3),
259–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10560-018-0582-0
Spyrou, S. (2011). The limits of children’s voices: From authenticity
to critical, reflexive representation. Childhood,18(2), 151–165.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568210387834
Spyrou, S. (2016). Researching children’s silences: Exploring the full-
ness of voice in childhood. Childhood,23(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0907568215571618
Spyrou, S. (2020). Children as future-makers. Childhood,27(1), 3–7.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568219884142
Sutterlu
¨ty, F., & Tisdall, E. K. M. (2019). Agency, autonomy and self-
determination: Questioning key concepts of childhood studies.
Global Studies of Childhood,9(3), 183–187. https://doi.org/10
.1177/2043610619860992
Taplin, S., Chalmers, J., Hoban, B., McArthur, M., Moore, T., &
Graham, A. (2019). Children in social research: Do higher pay-
ments encourage participation in riskier studies? Journal of
Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics,14(2), 126–140.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619826796
TenBrummelaar,M.D.C.,Harder,A.T.,Kalverboer,M.E.,Post,
W. J., & Knorth, E. J. (2017). Participation of youth in decision-
making procedures during residential care: A narrative review.
Child & Family Social Work,22, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cfs12381
Turner, N., & Almack, K. (2016). Recruiting young people to sensitive
research: turning the ‘wheels within wheels’. International Journal
of Social Research Methodology,20(5), 1–13
Van Bijleveld, G. G., Dedding, C. W., & Bunders-Aelen, J. F. (2013).
Children’s and young people’s participation within child welfare
and child protection services: A state-of-the-art review. Child &
Family Social Work,20(2), 129–138.
Vergara, A., Pen
˜a, M., Ch´avez, P., & Vergara, E. (2015). Los nin
˜os como
sujetos sociales: El aporte de los Nuevos Estudios Sociales de la infan-
cia y el An´alisis Cr´ıtico del Discurso. Psicoperspectivas,14, 55–65.
Vis, S. A., Holtan, A., & Thomas, N. (2012). Obstacles for child
participation in care and protection cases—Why Norwegian social
workers find it difficult. Child Abuse Review,21(1), 7–23. https://
doi.org/10.1002/car.1155
Vis, S. A., & Thomas, N. (2009). Beyond talking–children’s partici-
pation in Norwegian care and protection cases: Ikke bare snakk–
barns deltakelse i Norske barnevernssaker. European Journal of
Social Work,12(2), 155–168.
Watson, D. L., Meineck, C., & Lancaster, B. (2018). Adopted chil-
dren’s co-production and use of “trove” (a digitally enhanced
memory box) to better understand their care histories through pre-
cious objects. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry,23(4),
614–628.
Woodman, E., Roche, S., McArthur, M., & Moore, T. (2018). Child
protection practitioners: Including children in decision making.
Child & Family Social Work,23, 475–484. https://doi.org/10.
1111/cfs12439
Woolfson, R. C., Heffernan, E., Paul, M., & Brown, M. (2009). Young
people’s views of the child protection system in Scotland. British
Journal of Social Work,40(7), 2069–2085.
Yorke, L., & Swords, L. (2012). Advances and challenges in partici-
patory research with vulnerable children in Ireland. Irish Journal
of Psychology,33(2-3), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/03033910
.2012.706796
Zeijlmans, K., L´opez, M., Grietens, H., & Knorth, E. J. (2019). Par-
ticipation of children, birth parents and foster carers in the match-
ing decision. Paternalism or Partnership? Child Abuse Review,28,
139–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2544
Garcia-Quiroga and Agoglia 11