Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20436106211034179
Global Studies of Childhood
1 –15
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20436106211034179
journals.sagepub.com/home/gsc
A living journals approach for the
remote study of young children’s
digital practices in Azerbaijan
Sabina Savadova
University of Edinburgh, UK
Abstract
This article proposes the living journals method for remotely studying participants, elevating
participant agency in the data generation process and minimising or completely removing the
need for a researcher to be physically present in the field. Employing this method, the paper
describes how the method was used to explore 5-year-old children’s digital practices in five
families in Azerbaijan. Mothers were assigned as ‘proxy’ researchers to generate the data
following prompts sent through a smartphone application. Mothers’ answers were used to
create journals, and subsequently, fathers separately, and mothers and children together were
requested to interpret their own journals and those of other participant children. Allowing other
families to comment on one another’s journals further revealed their attitudes towards using
digital technologies and enriched the data, emphasising its multivocality and metatextuality. The
article describes the living journals method in detail, highlighting its affordances for researchers
to generate data from a distance in other contexts. The article also discusses the methodological
and empirical contribution of the method to this study about young children’s engagements with
digital media at home. By decentring the researcher in the data generation process, the method
allows researchers to generate both visually and textually complex and rich data. The visual and
personal nature of the method goes beyond text-based research accounts to bring the data to life,
allowing the researcher to generate multimodal, multivocal, metatextual and multifunctional data.
Keywords
Azerbaijan, living journals method, visual method, young children, digital media
Introduction
This article proposes the living journals method for the remote study of participants, elevating
participant agency in the data generation process and minimising or completely removing the need
for a researcher to be physically present in the field. Using this method, participants are assigned
Corresponding author:
Sabina Savadova, University of Edinburgh, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AQ, UK.
Email: Sabina.Savadova@ed.ac.uk
1034179GSC0010.1177/20436106211034179Global Studies of ChildhoodSavadova
research-article2021
Empirical Article
2 Global Studies of Childhood 00(0)
as ‘proxy’ researchers in situ, thereby delegating the data generation undertakings in the field
(Plowman, 2017) and simultaneously as interpreters of the data. I initially developed this method
to address the challenges of researching young children’s everyday encounters with digital tech-
nologies such as computers, laptops, smartphones or tablets at home and beyond to answer the
research question: ‘How can we study young children’s digital practices in a home setting?’
Through the living journals method, I asked mothers to send me their 5-year-old children’s pictures
or 30-second videos with commentary through a widely used application – WhatsApp. I created
actual journals from the generated data and used them as prompts to discuss them with family
members. The discussions built around the living journals enriched the data with multivocality –
listening to all research participants, and metatextuality – generating an additional layer of insights
through commentary on the existing text gathered in the previous phases from them and other
participant families. This article aims to introduce the living journals method and demonstrate its
utility for researchers in social sciences, illustrating its implementation details and affordances
rather than focusing on the study findings.
The method draws on contextualist ecocultural theory, emphasising the importance of the envi-
ronment in which children live and the interlocutors with whom they communicate in their daily
lives. The theory provides insights into young children’s everyday lives by exploring their every-
day activities (Tudge, 2008; Tudge et al., 2009; Weisner, 2002). The theory, therefore, enabled me
to examine children’s everyday lives, focusing on their environment and other actors in their lives.
The research setting and focal children
The participant families in the study live in the Republic of Azerbaijan – a transcontinental post-
Soviet country situated at the crossroads of Western Asia and Eastern Europe. Azerbaijan is on the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2020) list of eligible coun-
tries to receive Official Development Assistance. Purposeful sampling was employed to recruit
participants for the study, expecting that the approach would lead to ‘information-rich cases’ to
find out more about ‘. . . issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry’ (Patton, 2015:
53). Through my personal and professional networks in Baku, I managed to recruit five families
with 5-year-old children, with age being the only compulsory requirement to participate in the
study. The following table describes demographic information about the participant children,
whose names are pseudonymised (Table 1). The Socio-Economic Status (SES) is derived from my
observations of the participant families, compared against the general condition of the population
rather than the definition of statistical agencies, as I had not collected data on income and other
pertinent criteria. A low SES equates to near or below the poverty line, while a middle refers to
people who can afford to live comfortably, have their own flat, a car and at least one stable job. In
my research project, high SES referred to a family which was comparatively well-off and could
afford to send children to prestigious private preschool as well as providing digital devices to all
their children.
Background
Studying young children’s everyday digital practices presents methodological challenges for
researchers, who are often inclined towards home visits. To investigate children’s daily lives at
home and beyond, researchers tend to conduct extensive observations using digital cameras them-
selves (Gillen and Cameron, 2010; Gillen et al., 2007), researchers and parents taking turns in
video-recordings (Aarsand, 2012), trusting cameras to parents and instructing them to record their
children (Given et al., 2016) or trusting children with digital tools to video-record or take pictures
Savadova 3
of their daily lives (Clark and Moss, 2011; Poveda et al., 2012). Irrespective of the variety of exist-
ing approaches, home and formal education settings where young children spend their time around
their family members, friends and relatives remain largely inaccessible (Aarsand, 2012; Plowman
and Stevenson, 2012; Poveda, 2019). Researchers’ presence for an extended period of time in such
contexts can cause discomfort for children, especially at a young age (Poveda, 2019). Hence,
researchers turn to digital tools to ‘observe’ children’s daily lives within hard-to-reach contexts at
home or beyond.
In addition to digital cameras, smartphones have been used in various studies to generate data
(Clark, 2005; García et al., 2016; Poveda et al., 2012; Rönkä et al., 2017; Teichert 2020; Yamada-
Rice, 2017). For example, Mobile Phone Visual Ethnography (MpVE) has been used to study
research participants’ everyday lives and mobility within marketplaces (DeBerry-Spence et al.,
2019), or the Mobile Instant Messaging Interview (MIMI) to study research participants’ everyday
use of media (Kaufmann and Peil, 2020).
One of the most notable methods in a home setting is the mobile phone diaries method devel-
oped by Plowman and colleagues in their study of Toys and Technology (Plowman and Stevenson,
2012). Focusing primarily on parents’ viewpoints, the researchers developed a mobile phone dia-
ries approach to study young children’s daily activities within and beyond home. The researchers
sent text messages to remind mothers to take pictures of children at certain times. The authors
labelled the pictures ‘experience snapshots’ of young children’s daily lives (Plowman and
Table 1. Demographic information on the participant children.
Name
of child
Gender Age in years:
months
Socio-
economic
status
Household
composition
Languages
prevalent at
home
Digital inventory at
home
Bilal Male 5:9 Middle Parents, paternal
uncle
Azerbaijani,
Turkish,
English
TV, a laptop, 2
smartphones
Bilal owned: no
device
Elcan Male 5:2 Higher Parents, younger
brother, older
sister
Azerbaijani,
English,
Russian
2 TVs, 2 Macbooks,
4 iPads, a kindle, 2
smartphones
Elcan owned: an iPad
Kamala Female 5:4 Middle Parents, paternal
grandparents,
younger brother
Azerbaijani,
Russian
2 TVs, a laptop, a
desktop computer
Kamala owned: no
device
Khumar Female 5:4 Middle Parents, younger
brother
Azerbaijani,
Russian,
English
TV, a tablet, 2
smartphones
Khumar owned: no
device
Yasin Male 5:0 Middle Parents, paternal
grandmother,
younger sister
Azerbaijani,
Russian,
Turkish
TV, a tablet, a laptop,
2 smartphones
Yasin owned: an
Android tablet
4 Global Studies of Childhood 00(0)
Stevenson, 2012: 543). Once they collated the data, the authors turned them into storyboards and
asked mothers and children to comment on their activities.
The living journals method draws on the mobile phone diaries method, but a key difference is
that participants were invited to provide commentary on others’ journals as well as their own, high-
lighting similarities and differences within the presented daily lives. Furthermore, the living jour-
nals unified a mixture of multimodal data: pictures, videos, audio and text messages, and alongside
the rest of the data, they were also coded and analysed.
The main focus was on young children’s daily digital practices and their interactions with digital
technologies within their natural settings. In this vein, Experience-Sampling Method (ESM) was
attractive to be applied to and integrated with digital technology use. ESM allows researchers to
document individuals’ lives in situ and specific contexts (Hektner et al., 2007). The method pre-
ceded the current technological boom and used to be administered by collecting participants’ self-
reports within the repeated timeframes using texts, pagers, digital tools or applications
(Csikszentmihalyi and Larson, 2014). ESM has not been used in education research broadly (e.g.
Plowman and Stevenson, 2012; Rönkä et al., 2017). However, utilising modern digital tools and
involving participants as proxy researchers can offer educational researchers opportunities to adapt
the method to study participants’ lives in situ, minimising their presence in the field. In this research
project, the method helped study young children’s individual lives because they were ‘. . . “behind
closed doors” (literally and figuratively) and because participants are not always aware of patterns
in the way contexts shape their own behaviour’ (Zirkel et al., 2015: 9). The following section pro-
vides details of the living journals method by describing its phases.
Details of the living journals method
The living journals method was the second step of the research design in the study that explored
young children’s interactions with digital technologies in a home setting in Azerbaijan. The data
generation commenced with almost 3 months of fieldwork in Baku, Azerbaijan, where three visits
were conducted to each of the five participant families from October till December 2018. After the
3 months of completing fieldwork in Azerbaijan, I continued the data generation process through
the living journals method in the UK, starting in March 2019. The living journals method includes
three phases, and each phase is described in detail in the narrative below. Overall, in this study,
implementing the living journals method required almost 10 months.
Phase 1
In the first phase, I asked mothers to send me pictures or 30-second videos of their children,
prompted by my messages at certain times of the day through WhatsApp application. I further
requested that commentary be added based on the questions: Where is your child? Who is your
child with? What is your child doing? Why is your child doing that? In the second round of the data
generation, I added one more question as I grew more interested in the affective engagements of
the children: How is your child feeling? In most cases, I immediately confirmed to mothers the
receipt of responses. The data generation process in the first phase continued for a week, running
twice throughout the year, once during term time, in April, and another time during school holi-
days, in August.
The living journals method is situated within the ecocultural theory (Tudge, 2008) that is often
associated with cross-cultural research and visual methods for gathering data on everyday life. I
was interested in children’s ecologies, and posing the above-mentioned questions were beneficial
in further examining their daily lives. I intentionally avoided focusing on any particular activity
Savadova 5
and explained to mothers that I was interested in their children’s daily lives. As a result, I gained
insights into children’s ecology of daily activities, revealing digital practices naturally occurring in
situ.
Phase 2
In the second phase, I combined pictures, texts, still images from video clips and voice responses
and created a living journal for each child in digital and paper formats. While compiling each
child’s journal, I paid particular attention to translating and transcribing mothers’ commentaries
accurately. I used almost all the photos and videos, as well as a wide range of stills from videos in
the journals. Often, there were several pictures in the same setting with a slight variation. In such
cases, I used two of the most divergent versions, excluding the rest.
In the mothers’ commentaries, every piece of text and transcription of mothers’ audio messages
were used. I used the children’s favourite colours and particular interests as themes to personalise
respective journals (Figure 1, children’s journal covers and sample journal pages). The videos were
playable in the digital versions, but the paper format used stills from the videos.
The journals were multifunctional on their own; they were analysed as data alongside other data
in the research study, and they were themselves research output, which was also shared with par-
ticipants as memorabilia. I sent each child’s journal to their families in a paper format but used the
digital format for screen-sharing during online discussions of other families’ journals with names
pseudonymised, thus avoiding unnecessary circulation of sensitive information. I requested moth-
ers’ and children’s consent prior to sharing their journals with fathers. The absence of fathers from
the data generation process necessitated such renewal of consent to avoid unwittingly disclosing
information that could have been implicitly shared with me by mothers, be it about themselves or
the children. Moreover, I acquired families’ consent prior to showing their journals in a digital
format to other families.
The response rate to the prompts differed across families: two families engaged at 50% and
below – the rest at 88% and above (Table 2). The overall engagement rate across all families was
73%. Having the freedom to respond according to their preferences and opportunities potentially
contributed to the high engagement rate. The lower engagement rate is characteristic for mothers
who were in full-time employment during the data generation process, affording them fewer oppor-
tunities to respond to prompts. Mothers sent their commentaries mostly in the form of voice mes-
sages. This was a common practice of using WhatsApp in Azerbaijan and was likely seen as a more
efficient way to convey information than typing text. Furthermore, as it is seen in the figure on
response rates, I have also added the quantity of the mothers’ multimodal responses. Multimodality
of responses in this study was related to the variety of the data, such as visual (pictures and short
video clips), audial (audio messages) and textual (text messages).
Phase 3
The third phase of the data generation process comprised online discussions around the created
living journals with mothers and children together and fathers separately. Since mothers and chil-
dren had been present in the initial process of data generation, their further joint involvement in the
research did not present any conflict. Involving fathers separately was motivated predominantly by
ethical concerns as described earlier, as well as by methodological imperative – their initial absence
provided me with a fresh perspective on the children’s activities. This phase was a further and vital
stage in the living journals method and added multivocality and metatextuality to the method.
6 Global Studies of Childhood 00(0)
Figure 1. Children’s journal covers and several sample pages from the journals.
Savadova 7
During the initial steps of the data generation for the study, I had observed that each family had
its own unique set of digital practices, so I sought to further my understanding of their perspectives.
To avoid the discussions being limited to their own practices, I shared the journals of other families
to gauge the attitudes towards mediation of digital technology use. Sharing the journals across
families also helped me discuss practical examples of digital technology use that were uncommon
to individual families’ digital culture. The tangibility of the living journals further contributed to
recalling and discussing daily activities described in the journals. The living journals were inform-
ative to all participants: in addition to their own, they had a chance to study practices of four other
families’ everyday lives within the same cultural context. This approach was further motivated by
the observation that parents find it more practical to reflect on their children’s daily routines rather
than respond to questions on abstract principles of childrearing (Harkness and Super, 2006).
Overall, the living journals discussions differed from standard interviews and sharing the journals
across families strengthened multivocality and metatextuality of the living journals method.
Data analysis
The variety in the types of data the living journals required a flexible tool for analysis. In my study,
I used inductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Nowell et al., 2017) to explore the
various types of data of each case. Each family was treated as a case whose data was initially ana-
lysed separately, based on the research foci of the study, and then across cases (Stake, 2006). The
inductive thematic analysis allowed me to reveal and analyse opinions of various research partici-
pants, highlighting respective changes and similarities in their perspectives within each case as
well as across cases (Braun and Clarke, 2006). As in the case of the analysis of the visual and
textual data gathered during the family visits through observations and interviews, I employed an
iterative approach for the analysis of the created living journals, adapted from the work of Miles
et al. (2019) (Figure 2). During the analysis process, I revisited each step multiple times.
In the Familiarisation stage, I became acquainted with the raw data before analysing it exhaus-
tively. Additionally, living journals were created in digital and paper formats. The familiarisation
stage was instrumental for making an initial sense of the data and taking note of initial emerging
themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Subsequently, based on this stage and guided by my research
question, I constructed initial themes related to young children’s daily activities with digital media,
such as ‘using a tablet to learn a language’, ‘entertainment with iPad’ and ‘reward screen time’.
Table 2. Responses of mothers to prompts, organised by the name of the participant child.
Responses
to prompts
(max. 24)
Response
rate (%)
Number
of photos
Number of
videos (total
duration)
Number
of text
messages
Number of
voice messages
(total duration)
Bilal 12 50 21 0 60 1 (23 seconds)
Kamala 9 38 8 1 (30 seconds) 27 3 (41 seconds)
Khumar 21 88 23 21 (11 minutes
40 seconds)
69 2 (18 seconds)
Elcan 23 96 53 15 (7 minutes
40 seconds)
79 18 (8 minutes
22 seconds)
Yasin 22 92 52 1 (1 minute
50 seconds)
98 8 (1 minute
08 seconds)
Total 87 73 157 38 333 32 minutes
8 Global Studies of Childhood 00(0)
In the Deconstruction stage, the primary analysis was carried out, where I conducted initial and
detailed coding of the journal data. I developed codes inductively as they emerged from the data,
following the research aim and question. In this stage, I was able to identify codes and code clusters
that were omnipresent in all cases. Examples of this would be: ‘expectations from digital devices’,
‘parent influence on the device use’ and ‘child agency’. Furthermore, memo-writing helped me
keep track of the ideas emerging from the coding used in developing themes.
In the Construction stage, the developed codes and code clusters were further enhanced across
cases and transformed into themes. The application of rigorous thematic analysis revealed the dif-
ferences and similarities across cases, and this urged me to stay alert to similarities and differences
observed in all other cases in order to try and establish whether themes observed in one family were
repeated or refuted across others.
Ethical considerations
The employment of visual methods, the involvement of young children and using homes as a
research site (Plowman, 2015), as well as the use of social media (WhatsApp) for generating data,
all contributed to the ethical complexities of developing the living journals method. All ethical
procedures were in line with the guidelines of the research association relevant to the field of study
(BERA, 2018). All names were pseudonymised. All parents and children agreed to use children’s
unaltered visuals in academic work disseminated publicly, such as conference presentations and
publications.
Parents’ and children’s consent and assent to participate in this study were regarded as a con-
tinuous process (Arnott et al., 2020; Einarsdóttir, 2007; Flewitt, 2005; Russell and Barley, 2020;
Wall, 2017). Firstly, during family visits, I acquired children’s and parents’ consents for conducting
the living journals method. In each family visit in Baku in the autumn of 2018, I allotted some time
to explain the specifics of the living journals to parents and children. Upon my return to the UK,
Figure 2. Data analysis process (sequence adapted from Miles etal., 2019).
Savadova 9
starting from March 2019, I first reached out to mothers through the WhatsApp messaging applica-
tion for their consent. After receiving their permission, I recorded a short video about the living
journals approach for the children, where I reminded them of the method and what they and their
mothers were invited to do. I sent video messages to mothers through WhatsApp and asked them
to invite their children to watch the video recording together. In the video recording, I explained
everything about the living journals method in practical terms and with examples to make it easier
for children to understand. The children were also invited to send me pictures or videos of them-
selves, provided that they were willing and parents allowed them to do so. I was aware of the pos-
sible power relations at home and mothers’ decisions on allowing their children to send me pictures
or videos using their phones (Gallacher and Gallagher, 2008). Children responded to renew their
consent to participate in the living journals method through their mothers. Unfortunately, I did not
have a chance to engage in direct communication with children. However, given their consent on
the method during the family visits, I accepted their assent conveyed through their mothers, after
which I started the data generation process – the first phase of the method.
Due to mothers’ involvement as proxy researchers and my physical absence from the field, I
was unable to observe children’s nonverbal responses to the research process (Einarsdóttir, 2007).
Still, I stayed alert to the videos and pictures I was receiving after each prompt. Additionally, I
regularly asked mothers whether their children ever objected to being recorded. I was prepared to
ask parents to stop the data generation if I felt any discomfort in the visuals or heard anything to
this effect from mothers. It was more important that children were satisfied and happy to have their
mothers take their pictures or record videos than to generate useful data for the method (Flewitt,
2005). The pictures and videos that followed also indicated that the children were aware of what
was happening, and this, in its own right, warrants the assumption that children did not view this
method as a kind of ‘surveillance’ of their daily lives or an imposition. On the contrary, sharing
activities with someone they had previously met at home seemed enjoyable for children, and estab-
lishing trusting relationships with them during family visits helped me ensure this (Flewitt, 2005;
Wall, 2017). Also, parents were not doing anything out of the ordinary, as they constantly carried
their phones. Additionally, the prompts asked for nothing that deviated from what was already an
established practice in their everyday life (Plowman and Stevenson, 2012).
Throughout the living journals method, I have been mindful of the mothers’ involvement in the
selection of the pictures. I was aware of the fact that the mothers had sole authority to decide what
to ‘show’ to the researcher and what to disclose about their children’s lives (Barker and Smith,
2001). Like any other parent in the world, participant parents wanted to show a good side of their
children’s daily activities. The notion of ‘good representation of Azerbaijani children in the west-
ern world’ also added to this desire. Mothers had full control and ownership of the data they were
sending after each prompt or later that day, and they were also vocal in their messages about their
children’s daily activities, emphasizing what they thought was good or bad for their children. For
example, there were three instances where mothers sounded frustrated with some of their chil-
dren’s activities. The mother who took a picture of her child playing outside 2 days in a row
expressed her frustration in the commentary, saying: ‘no reading books, no studying’. I took note
of those instances for analysis of the data. In line with other similar studies (Flewitt, 2005; Plowman,
2017; Plowman and Stevenson, 2012), my stance towards this issue has always been rooted in its
recognition. Rather than discarding the data based on this reason, I have instead embraced it as
mothers’ aspirations of what they would have wanted to see their children doing instead, which in
itself constituted informative data.
In the second phase, before creating the actual journals, children’s renewed consents were
sought through their parents. I asked children and mothers if there were particular visuals they did
not want me to include in their journal. All parents agreed with the use of all the visuals and
10 Global Studies of Childhood 00(0)
messages. They also explicitly expressed no objection from their children. Children’s consent was
sought for all activities due to several reasons: not only were their pictures and videos taken by
mothers, but I was also using their visuals to create journals, which would be available in a physical
form for themselves, parents and perhaps their guests. This was particularly emphasised as their
lives and individual activities were the main focus of discussions with fathers (separately) and with
mothers and children (together).
In the third phase of the living journals method, prior to showing journals to fathers and other
families, I returned to parents and children for renewing their consent. As noted earlier, this was a
cautious approach on my part, pre-empting potential conflict that might have arisen by sharing this
information with the fathers. After acquiring proper consent from each family, I decided to show
the journals of other families with pseudonymised names through screen-sharing only, which in
turn was necessitated by the sensitivity of the living journals data.
Fathers were invited to discuss the living journals separately from their spouses and children.
This decision was motivated by the fact that fathers had not participated in the generation of the
data for the journals. They first saw the visual and verbal data after the journals had been com-
pleted and printed. When invited to comment on the pictures and videos, they had a fresh perspec-
tive on their children’s activities. As intended, discussing the journals separately helped them speak
freely, as opposed to feeling constricted by spouses or children’s subjective interpretation of the
journals. During discussions, they interpreted their own children’s activities and commented on
others with great interest and attention. The richness of the activities in the five families’ lives
allowed research participants, in particular fathers, to have a glimpse of other children’s lives and
recognise or even sometimes discover their own children’s day-to-day activities by analysing them
in light of other families’ daily practices.
Discussion
Digital technologies are rapidly being embedded in young children’s everyday lives (Arnott et al.,
2019; Marsh et al., 2005; Rideout, 2013). Consequently, researchers face new challenges in trying
to capture young children’s encounters with new digital technologies in their own setting. In this
vein, researchers are encouraged to develop new approaches, mixing visual with verbal in their
methodologies (Yamada-Rice, 2017). Considering the importance of studying young children’s
daily digital practices within their natural settings and realising challenges and resource-intensive-
ness of ethnographic fieldwork, the living journals method offers researchers the possibility to use
smartphones to generate data remotely by assigning participants as proxy researchers.
As mentioned above, the living journals approach extensively draws on the mobile phone dia-
ries method (Plowman and Stevenson, 2012). In this section, I further elaborate on other similar
methods while trying to situate the living journals method among them together with its strengths
and caveats. Another well-known method to study how digital technologies influence young chil-
dren’s (0–3) and their families’ lives was called ‘A Day in the Life’ approach, developed by Gillen
and Cameron (2010). In the study, the authors video-recorded one full day or at least 6 hours of
seven 2.5-year-old girls’ lives in different countries: United States, Canada, Peru, UK, Italy, Turkey
and Thailand. The authors also combined the recordings with interviews and discussions with
families, and other methods to describe young children’s daily lives.
Earlier than that, Tobin et al. (1989) developed Video-Cued-Ethnography (VCE) in their study
of ‘Preschool in Three Cultures’ to examine children’s daily lives in a preschool setting in three
different countries – Japan, China and the United States. The authors identified a school setting in
each country, spent time there and video-recorded a full day in each school. They then edited those
videos into short clips and showed them to participants in respective schools as well as across
Savadova 11
schools. The authors thus were able to identify patterns within and across schools in three different
cultures. A decade later, in 2009, Tobin and a new team of colleagues conducted a follow-up of
their study, where the authors returned to the same preschools to study the changes in the settings
and practices (Tobin et al., 2009).
Researching young children’s daily lives is considered challenging, even though the importance
of including young children’s voices in research studies related to their lives has always been the
subject of researchers’ interest (Clark, 2011; Gallacher and Gallagher, 2008). The above-cited
research studies have mainly relied on parents’ or caregivers’ opinions on the children’s lives while
providing a rationale for their deliberate decision to select this approach. An alternative approach
is to see children as ‘experts in their own lives’ (Langsted, 1994). Through participation in research,
children can communicate and make meaning out of the matters concerning their daily lives.
Basing their reasoning on this thesis, Clark and her colleagues developed a ‘strength-based’ frame-
work called the Mosaic approach to listen to and include young children’s voices in the data gen-
eration about their lives through multiple methods such as tours, map-making and photography,
with the variety of it all making the approach Mosaic (Clark, 2005; Clark and Moss, 2011). The
Mosaic approach amplifies children’s voices by giving them digital tools to record themselves;
however, this approach was not suitable in my research context. During family visits in Azerbaijan,
I observed that most families had adopted a restrictive mediation style towards their children’s
digital technology use. Therefore, it was not appropriate for me to provide children with a digital
device and ask them to record their daily activities themselves, leading me to seek alternative
solutions.
With the living journals method, I took another approach to include children’s voices in the data
generation process by offering them an opportunity to send me pictures or videos of themselves
through their mothers in the video message I sent to them. I emphasised to children the importance
of gaining their mother’s permission before doing so. My motivation was to remain cautious and
not interfere with any power balance between children and their mothers at home in terms of digital
technology use. Three of the participant children sometimes asked their mothers to record videos
and take a picture of certain activities or events to send to me, although these occurrences were not
frequent enough to state that children’s voices were prominent in the first phase of the data genera-
tion for the living journals. To address this issue, I further revised my approach and invited children
and their mothers to check the journals and comment on them in the third phase of data generation.
Speaking to them together was also driven by my interest in the anticipated discussion that would
emerge from the generated data, in which mothers and children had participated together. Children
seemed quite interested in the journals, and together with their mothers, they joined the discus-
sions. In turn, this contributed to enriching metatextuality and multivocality of the living journals
method through children’s active participation.
Overall, the inclusion of family members’ voices in the data interpretation process accentuates
the multivocal aspect of the living journals method. This enabled the parents to reveal and interpret
insights into their family lives and allowed me to explore my main focus – children’s interactions
with technologies – through the voices of fathers, mothers and children, shifting ‘the anthropologi-
cal gaze from the researcher observing and interpreting informants to informants observing and
explaining themselves’ (Tobin, 2019:13). In contrast with the Video-Cued Ethnography and the ‘A
Day in the Life’ methods, the living journals method is distinct in that it avoids the constant pres-
ence of video cameras in the families’ everyday lives, which in turn contributes to minimising the
researchers’ visibility and their potential influence on the research setting.
As explained earlier in the article, the living journals method is primarily inspired by the mobile
diaries method by Plowman and Stevenson (2012). Additionally, other methods described in this
section have influenced its development at different stages. In the following section I further elabo-
12 Global Studies of Childhood 00(0)
rate on the significance of the method focusing on the four Ms: multimodality, multivocality, meta-
textuality and multifunctionality of the living journals.
Significance and caveats of the method
First and foremost, researchers do not need to be in the field when using the living journals method.
I was able to generate data twice at different periods of children’s lives from afar. I remained a
researcher throughout the process; however, my role was minimised as mothers were asked to be
proxy researchers in the field. Mothers’ assuming this responsibility also enriched the data,
although the content they decided to share with me needed further interpretation. These decisions
were carrying meta-information on their views of children’s engagements with digital technologies
as well as their daily lives. Therefore, neither the researcher nor the researched needed to change
their context, and studying the children’s daily lives in their own settings contributed to the authen-
ticity of the generated data. The data presented to the research participants for commentary was
collated but not altered, and the journals were tangible research data generated from, by and about
participants. In general, the method’s visual and personal nature goes beyond text-based research
accounts to bring the data to life. The method allowed me to generate multimodal, multivocal,
metatextual and multifunctional data.
To elaborate, the participants have the freedom of deciding how to communicate the messages
back to the researcher. Therefore, the data generated through the living journals method can be
multimodal. In my study, this included textual (text messages), visual (pictures and short video
clips) and spoken (voice messages) information, making the data both informative and visually
telling. The method allowed me to gather reflections of fathers, mothers and children, which con-
tributed to increasing the multivocality of the research project. The multitude of voices enriched the
gathered data, as well as the interpretation process. The method incorporates already gathered data
into the next phase of data generation. In the case of my research project, the participants were
offered to reflect on the commentary they had provided, as well as on the text generated by other
families through similar means. Such an additional layer of interrogating participants’ attitudes
turns the final dataset into a metatextual product. Furthermore, in this particular study, participants
across all families found other children’s daily activities interesting. All of the participant mothers
noted that the journals were also a great keepsake to be shared with extended family members and
friends. Thus, the created living journals are multifunctional: they contain data to analyse, serve as
prompts for further data generation and represent research outputs that can be produced as part of
the research.
Based on the discussion above, I summarise the potential benefits of the method for
researchers:
(i) Generate data remotely without having to be in the field;
(ii) Decentre and deprivilege the role of the researcher by inviting participants to act as proxy
researchers in the field to generate the data;
(iii) Better capture research participants’ daily activities or other phenomena of interest in
their natural settings;
(iv) Enrich the data description by eliciting the participants’ interpretations of the raw data;
(v) Present the generated data in a material form that serves as a prompt for participants to
engage in discussion;
(vi) The generated data is truly rich and diverse: producing multivocality, metatextuality, mul-
timodality and multifunctionality.
Savadova 13
Above all, the first point in the list is particularly significant in the current circumstances when
the world is facing the COVID-19 pandemic. The living journals method enables researchers to
generate data remotely, minimising or completely removing the need to be physically present in the
field. I conducted the study and developed the living journals method well before the pandemic,
but the current context makes it even more suitable for conducting research remotely. Having had
the opportunity to meet face-to-face before commencing the data collection aided in establishing
trusting relationships with the participants; however, the method could be replicated with consider-
able success without the initial meetings in person.
Acknowledgements
‘I am forever grateful to my supervisor, Professor Lydia Plowman for her valuable comments and insights on
the draft of the article. I would also like to thank the journal editor, Professor Nicola Yelland and the anony-
mous reviewers for their constructive and helpful feedback’.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Sabina Savadova https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5254-5921
References
Aarsand P (2012) The ordinary player: Teenagers talk about digital games. Journal of Youth Studies 15(8):
961–977.
Arnott L, Martinez-Lejarreta L, Wall K, et al. (2020) Reflecting on three creative approaches to informed
consent with children under six. British Educational Research Journal 46(4): 786–810.
Arnott L, Palaiologou I and Gray C (2019) An ecological exploration of the internet of toys in early childhood
everyday life. In: Mascheroni G and Holloway D (eds) The Internet of Toys: Practices, Affordances and
the Political Economy of Children’s Play. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.135–157.
Barker J and Smith F (2001) Power, positionality and practicality: Carrying out fieldwork with children.
Ethics Place & Environment 4: 142–147.
Braun V and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology
3(2): 77–101.
BERA (British Educational Research Association) (2018) Ethical guidelines for educational research. 4th
edn. Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethical-guidelines-for-
educational-research-2018 (accessed 30 August 2020).
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 (2011) Multi-modal map making with young children: Exploring ethnographic and participatory
methods. Qualitative Research 11(3): 311–330.
Clark A and Moss P (2011) Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic Approach. London: National Children’s
Bureau.
Csikszentmihalyi M and Larson R (2014) Validity and reliability of the experience sampling method. In:
Csikszentmihalyi M (ed.) Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology: The Collected Works of
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Dordrecht: Springer, pp.35–54.
DeBerry-Spence B, Ekpo AE and Hogan D (2019) Mobile phone visual ethnography (MpVE): Bridging
transformative photography and mobile phone ethnography. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
38(1): 81–95.
Einarsdóttir J (2007) Research with children: Methodological and ethical challenges. European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal 15(2): 197–211.
14 Global Studies of Childhood 00(0)
Flewitt RS (2005) Conducting research with young children: Some ethical considerations. Early Child
Development and Care 175(6): 553–565.
Gallacher LA and Gallagher M (2008) Methodological immaturity in childhood research? Thinking through
‘participatory methods’. Childhood 15(4): 499–516.
García B, Welford J and Smith B (2016) Using a smartphone app in qualitative research: The good, the bad
and the ugly. Qualitative Research 16(5): 508–525.
Gillen J and Cameron CA (2010) International Perspectives on Early Childhood Research: A Day in the Life.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gillen J, Cameron CA, Tapanya S, et al. (2007) A day in the life’: Advancing a methodology for the cul-
tural study of development and learning in early childhood. Early Child Development and Care 177(2):
207–218.
Given LM, Cantrell Winkler D, Willson R, et al. (2016) Parents as coresearchers at home: Using an obser-
vational method to document young Children’s use of technology. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods 15(1): 1–9.
Harkness S and Super CM (2006) Themes and variations: Parental ethnotheories in western cultures. In:
Rubin KH and Chung OB (eds) Parenting Beliefs, Behaviors, and Parent-Child Relations: A Cross-
Cultural Perspective. New York: Psychology Press, pp.61–79.
Hektner JM, Schmidt J and Csikszentmihalyi M (2007) Experience Sampling Method: Measuring the Quality
of Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kaufmann K and Peil C (2020) The mobile instant messaging interview (MIMI): Using WhatsApp to enhance
self-reporting and explore media usage in situ. Mobile Media & Communication 8(2): 229–246.
Langsted O (1994) Looking at quality from the child’s perspective. In: Moss P and Pence A (eds) Valuing
Quality in Early Childhood Services: New Approaches to Defining Quality. London: Paul Chapman
Publishing, pp.28–42.
Marsh J, Brooks G, Hughes J, et al. (2005) Digital Beginnings: Young Children’s Use of Popular Culture,
Media and New Technologies. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Available at: https://web.archive.org/
web/20180219002507/www.digitalbeginnings.shef.ac.uk/DigitalBeginningsReport.pdf
Miles MB, Huberman AM and Saldaña J (2019) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, et al. (2017) Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness crite-
ria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16: 1–13.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2020) DAC list of ODA recipients.
Available at: https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-stand-
ards/DAC-List-of-ODA-Recipients-for-reporting-2020-flows.pdf (accessed 24 August 2020).
Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Plowman L (2015) Researching young children’s everyday uses of technology in the family home. Interacting
with Computers 1: 26–46.
Plowman L (2017) Revisiting ethnography by proxy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology
20(5): 443–454.
Plowman L and Stevenson O (2012) Using mobile phone diaries to explore children’s everyday lives.
Childhood 19(4): 539–553.
Poveda D (2019) Researching digital literacy practices in early childhood: Challenges, complexities and
imperatives. In: Erstad O, Flewitt R, Kümmerling-Meibauer B, et al. (eds) The Routledge Handbook of
Digital Literacies in Early Childhood. London: Routledge, pp.45–63.
Poveda D, Morgade M and González Patino J (2012) Children at home in Madrid. ETNIA-E: Cuadernos de
Investigacion Etnográfica sobre Infancia, Adolescencia y Educacion del IMA/FMEE 4: 1–15.
Rideout VJ (2013) Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Use in America 2013. San Francisco, CA: Common
Sense Media.
Rönkä A, Sevón E, Räikkönen E, et al. (2017) Manuscript: You have a message from Illi! The mobile diary
in researching children’s daily experiences. Child Indicators Research 10: 505–523.
Russell L and Barley R (2020) Ethnography, ethics and ownership of data. Ethnography 21(1): 5–25.
Stake RE (2006) Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Savadova 15
Teichert L (2020) iPhone for data collection: Distraction in low-technology home. Qualitative Research
Journal 21: 148–165.
Tobin J (2019) The origins of the video-cued multivocal ethnographic method. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly 50(3): 255–269.
Tobin J, Hsueh Y and Karasawa M (2009) Preschool in Three Cultures Revisited: China, Japan and the
United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tobin J, Wu DYH and Davidson DH (1989) Preschool in Three Cultures: Japan, China, and the United
States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tudge J (2008) The Everyday Lives of Young Children: Culture, Class, and Childrearing in Diverse Societies.
Cambridge: New York University Press.
Tudge J, Freitas LBL and Doucet F (2009) The transition to school: Reflections from a contextualist perspec-
tive. In: Daniels H, Lauder H and Porter J (eds) Educational Theories, Cultures and Learning: A Critical
Perspective. London: Routledge, pp.117–133.
Wall K (2017) Exploring the ethical issues related to visual methodology when including young children’s
voice in wider research samples. International Journal of Inclusive Education 21(3): 316–331.
Weisner TS (2002) Ecocultural understanding of children’s developmental pathways. Human Development
45(4): 275–281.
Yamada-Rice D (2017) Using visual research methods with young children. In: Christensen P and James A
(eds) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices. London: Routledge, pp.71–86.
Zirkel S, Garcia JA and Murphy MC (2015) Experience-sampling research methods and their potential for
education research. Educational Researcher 44: 7–16.
Author biography
Sabina Savadova was born and raised in Azerbaijan. She is a final year PhD candidate. Her research interests
include children’s digital practices, family relationships and digital media, and visual methods. She has
worked as a research assistant and is currently a co-principal investigator for another research study.
