Content uploaded by Samantha Punch
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Samantha Punch on Feb 03, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Paper published in:
Punch, S. (2002) ‘Research with Children: The Same or Different from Research with
Adults?’ Childhood, 9 (3): 321-341.
Research with children: the same or different from
research with adults?
Samantha Punch
Department of Applied Social Science,
University of Stirling,
Stirling
FK9 4LA
UK
Tel: 00.44.1786.467985
Fax: 00.44.1786.467689
Email: s.v.punch@stir.ac.uk
1
Research with children: the same or different from research with adults?
Abstract
This paper explores seven methodological issues in some detail to illustrate the ways in
which aspects of the research process usually considered to be the same for both adults
and children can pose particular dilemmas for adult researchers working with children.
It argues that research with children is potentially different from research with adults
mainly because of adult perceptions of children and children's marginalised position in
adult society but least often because children are inherently different. Drawing on
classroom-based research carried out in rural Bolivia, the advantages and disadvantages
of using five task-based methods (drawings, photographs, PRA techniques, diaries and
worksheets) are highlighted in order to illustrate how such research techniques often
thought to be suitable for use with children can be problematic as well as beneficial.
Key words
Children, Methodology, Task-based Methods, Visual Techniques, Written Methods
The way in which researchers perceive childhood and the status of children in society
influences how children and childhood will be understood. This article explores the
ways in which research with children is similar to or different from research with adults.
Recently there has been much debate about this (for example Christensen and James
2000; Lewis and Lindsay 2000; Shaw 1996), and it has implications for the whole of the
research process with children: design, methods, ethics, participation and analysis. It is
somewhat paradoxical that within the new sociology of childhood many of those who
call for the use of innovative or adapted research techniques with children, are also
those who emphasise the competence of children. If children are competent social
actors, why are special 'child-friendly' methods needed to communicate with them?
The paper begins with a discussion of why research with children is potentially
different from research with adults. Seven methodological issues are explored in some
2
detail to illustrate the ways in which aspects of the research process usually considered
to be the same for both adults and children can pose particular dilemmas for adult
researchers working with children1. The paper suggests that one way of researching a
diversity of childhoods and taking into account children’s varied social competencies
and life experiences is to use a range of different methods and techniques.
Subsequently, the discussion draws on examples of techniques used in classroom-based
research carried out in rural Bolivia which explored children’s everyday lives at home,
at school, at work and at play (Punch 1998). The advantages and disadvantages of
using five task-based methods (drawings, photographs, PRA techniques, diaries and
worksheets) are highlighted in order to illustrate how such research techniques often
thought to be suitable for use with children can be problematic as well as beneficial.
Ways of seeing children affects ways of listening to children
There has been a tendency to perceive research with children as one of two extremes:
just the same or entirely different from adults. The way in which a researcher perceives
the status of children influences the choice of methods. Those who consider children to
be 'essentially indistinguishable from adults' (James et al. 1998: 31) employ the same
methods as those used with adults, since children are seen as basically the same. It is
then the responsibility of the adult researcher not to draw attention to any adult-child
distinctions by treating them in any way other than as mature, competent people
(Alderson 1995). However, such an approach may mean that the power imbalance
between adult researchers and child subjects is not always adequately addressed
(Morrow 1999).
3
Those who perceive children as being very different from adults use ethnography as
the most appropriate way to get close to understanding the child's world and the child's
views are taken at face value (James et al. 1998). However, ethnography is not only
suitable for those who perceive children as different. It is necessary to spend prolonged,
or repeated, periods with anyone in order to get to know them beyond a one-off
interview and to gain a greater understanding of their views and experiences (Fetterman
1989). The difficulty with using this approach is that it relies on participant observation
as a research strategy often without recognising that adults are unable to be full
participants in children's social worlds because they can never truly be children again
(Fine and Sandstrom 1988; Hill 1997).
Recently James et al. have suggested that there is another perspective of those who
perceive children to be similar to adults but to possess different competencies (1998:
189). Such researchers tend to use methods which are based on children's skills and this
has led to a plethora of innovative or adapted techniques being developed, such as
pictures and diaries (Nesbitt 2000), sentence completion and writing (Morrow 1999),
drawings (Ennew and Morrow 1994; Swart 1990), the draw and write technique
(Backett-Milburn and McKie 1999; France et al. 2000; Pridmore and Bendelow 1995)
and radio workshops (Hecht 1998). However, such techniques should not
unquestionably be assumed to be more appropriate for conducting research with
children. Apart from being more suitable for children’s competencies, other reasons for
using them such as children’s social location need to be considered (see also Harden et
al. 2000). Furthermore, researchers should engage in a critical reflection of the use of
such ‘child-centred’ methods in order to explore the advantages and disadvantages of
how they work in practice and the implications for analysis of the different kinds of data
4
that are generated. Reflexivity should be a central part of the research process with
children where researchers critically reflect not only on their role and their assumptions
(Davis 1998), but also on the choice of methods and their application.
Discussions about research with children have tended to focus on ethics especially the
issues of informed consent and confidentiality (for example Alderson 1995; France et
al. 2000; Lewis and Lindsay 2000; Morrow and Richards 1996; Stanley and Sieber
1992; Thomas and O’Kane 1998). Ethical issues are often thought to be the central
difference between research with children and research with adults. For example, it is
widely recognised that in order to gain children's consent and involvement in research,
one has to go via adult gatekeepers who are able to limit researchers' access to the
children. Whilst it is vital to recognise that children are potentially more vulnerable to
unequal power relationships between adult researcher and child participant, ethics can
dominate debates about methodological concerns. Many other research issues are often
disregarded and not given further attention since they are considered to be the same as
those with adults. These include developing rapport; not imposing the researcher’s own
views and interpretations; validity and reliability; bearing in mind the research context;
and clarity of questions. Such dilemmas need to be considered when doing research
either with adults or children, but are they exactly the same? Is there anything about
research with children which makes it necessary to address these issues differently than
with adults? Before examining what the potential differences are, the reasons why these
issues are said to be different with children will be highlighted.
There are three broad areas of explanation: the position of childhood in adult society,
adults' attitudes towards children and the children themselves. I shall consider each of
these in turn.
5
(a) Childhood as a social institution is constrained by adult society: Children are
marginalised in adult-centred society. They experience unequal power relations with
adults and much in their lives is controlled and limited by adults: “The main
complications do not arise from children's inabilities or misperceptions, but from the
positions ascribed to children” (Alderson and Goodey 1996: 106). Children are used to
having much of their lives dominated by adults, they tend to expect adults' power over
them and they are not used to being treated as equals by adults. As Mayall points out:
“the concept of generation is key to understanding childhood. This means that the adult
researcher who wishes to research with children must confront generational issues”
(2000: 121).
(b) Adults perceive children to be different: Adults' fears, assumptions and attitudes
affect their behaviour towards children. The researcher's own assumptions about the
position of children in society affects the methods chosen as well as the interpretation of
the data generated:
... while children as research subjects may be envisioned as sharing the status of
adults, they are none the less thought to possess somewhat different competencies and
abilities. It is up to researchers to engage with these more effectively. (James et al.
1998: 188)
Several researchers suggest that if children are not providing valid and reliable data, it is
not the fault of the children but of the researcher for his/her 'adultist' attitudes towards
them (Alderson 1995). Connolly suggests that 'the problem becomes one of being
critically reflexive and forever questioning your role as a researcher and your
relationships with those you have researched' (1998: 189).
6
(c) Children are different from adults: There are some inherent differences about
children which make them different from adults: they may have a limited and different
use of vocabulary and understanding of words, relatively less experience of the world
and may have a shorter attention span (Boyden and Ennew 1997). It is difficult to argue
that research with a five year old is not at all different from research with a sixteen year
old. Although developmental arguments may account for some of the distinctions
between younger and older children, such arguments need to be used critically. In
particular, it must be recognised that child development models are not universal but
socially and culturally specific (Woodhead 1998).
Is research with children different from adults?
A variety of research issues will now be examined to see what makes them potentially
different for research with children and which of the above three reasons provide the
most appropriate explanations (see Table 1 for a summary).
Not imposing the researcher's own perceptions: A common concern for qualitative
research with adults or children is not to impose the researcher's own views and to
enable the research subjects to express their perceptions freely. The difference for
research with children is that it is difficult for an adult researcher ever to totally
understand the world from a child's point of view:
Assumptions that might seem valid because we believe that we know and understand
children, both because we were children once and because we see them so often,
present a methodological problem. (Fine and Sandstrom 1988: 35)
7
As adults we were once children but we soon forget, unlearn and abandon elements of
our childhood culture. Adults may have difficulty in 'obtaining the necessary distance to
reflect on adult ways of conceptualizing children and childhood' (Solberg 1996: 53).
This difference arises from adults' assumptions concerning what children are and what
childhood is like (James et al. 1998; Thorne 1993: 12). Adults must strive to abandon
the commonly held assumption that adults' knowledge is superior to that of children
(Alderson and Goodey 1996).
Children are not used to expressing their views freely or being taken seriously by
adults because of their position in adult dominated society. The challenge is how best to
enable children to express their views to an adult researcher and how to 'maximise
children's ability to express themselves at the point of data-gathering; enhancing their
willingness to communicate and the richness of the findings' (Hill 1997: 180). In recent
years, participatory methods, such as PAR (Participatory Action Research) and PRA
(Participatory Rural Appraisal) techniques have been increasingly used for facilitating
children's capacity to participate in research (for example Johnson et al. 1998; O’Kane
2000). These research methods not only provide opportunities for children to express
themselves, but are also a potential source for empowering them for a fuller
participation in society and for decision-making in matters which affect them (Boyden
and Ennew 1997; Hart 1997; INTRAC 1997; PLA Notes 1996).
Validity and reliability: When eliciting children's views, another difficulty which
child researchers must confront is that they are often asked if they can 'really believe'
children's accounts of their experiences (Morrow 1999). A common assumption is that
8
children lie or that they cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy. Children, like
adults, may lie to researchers for several reasons: to avoid talking about a painful
subject; to say what they think the researcher wants to hear; or through fear, shame or a
desire to create favourable impressions (Ennew 1994; Gersch 1996; Richman 1993). It
is recognised that: 'Lies and evasions are less likely when a researcher has built up a
relationship of trust with children' (Ennew 1994: 57), but, as Ennew points out, the
same can also be said for research with adults. Similarly, children's accounts have their
own validity in terms of being their own perspectives and the way the world seems to
them, even though, like any respondent, some of the 'facts' of their accounts may be
wrong. The difference is that children are potentially more vulnerable to the unequal
power relationship between child subjects and adult researchers (Alderson and Goodey
1996; Boyden and Ennew 1997; Hood et al. 1996; Mauthner 1997). The nature of
childhood in adult society means that children are used to having to try to please adults,
and they may fear adults' reactions to what they say. Time needs to be invested to form
a relationship and gain their trust.
Clarity of language: In any research with adults or children, when forming research
tools and questions, clarity of language is vital. However, adult researchers tend to be
more conscious of their use of language in research with children. This stems from adult
perceptions of children as non-competent (Mahon et al. 1996), or as having 'limitations
of language and lack of articulateness' (Ireland and Holloway 1996: 156). Younger
children may have a more limited vocabulary, but equally they may use different
language which adults do not understand. Thus the language dilemma is mutual.
Methods can be broadly adapted for older or younger age groups. For example, in my
Bolivian study complex worksheets were more suitable for older children who had a
9
higher level of literacy. Younger children tended to prefer drawing and were less
inhibited by a lack of artistic competence.
Research context and setting: It is assumed to be as important to bear in mind the
context and setting of the research for children as it is for adults. However, it needs to
be recognised that many research environments are adult spaces where children have
less control. Adult spaces dominate in society, thus it can be difficult to find child
spaces in which to conduct research. For example, the school environment is a place for
children to learn but is organised and controlled by adult teachers. Research conducted
at school should take into account that children may feel pressure to give 'correct'
answers to research questions. Adult researchers need to reassure children that there are
no right and wrong answers. Participant observation with children in their own spaces
can enable them to feel more comfortable. Yet adults should not assume that children
necessarily prefer their own environment, they may actually prefer an adult researcher
not to invade their child space. An awareness and sensitivity of the implications of the
research setting needs to be considered with particular care in research with children.
Building rapport: It is commonly assumed that the need to build rapport with
research subjects is the same for adults and children, but adults themselves may lack
experience of building rapport with children. The underlying reason why it is
potentially different with child research stems from adult fears of being patronising, not
behaving appropriately and not finding common ground where rapport can be
developed (see also Harden et al. 2000). An effective strategy is to react to the children
and follow their guidelines (Cosaro 1997; Punch Forthcoming 2001). However,
ultimately it depends on the skills of the adult researcher to develop rapport and build
10
up a relationship of trust (see also Butler and Williamson 1994). It is also worth
remembering that the researcher needs to be able to build rapport not only with children
but also with the adult gatekeepers, such as parents or teachers (see also Morrow 1999).
Analysis: An additional issue of research with children is that the choice of which
data to include and the interpretation of the data is in the power of the adult researcher.
Particular care must be taken when interpreting children's views, because as Mayall
points out, ultimately adult researchers analyse children's perspectives:
However much one may involve children in considering data, the presentation of it is
likely to require analyses and interpretations, at least for some purposes, which do
demand different knowledge than that generally available to children, in order to
explicate children's social status and structural positioning. (Mayall 1994: 11)
Yet this can also apply to research with adults because “If academic research is to
produce anything more than lay understandings it must involve access to concepts,
theories and scholarly knowledge unavailable to most research subjects” (Harden et al.
2000: 6). However, the difference with children is the added danger that: 'As "grown-
ups," we are limited by our tendency to process their talk through our own view of the
world' (Fine and Sandstrom 1988: 9).
Using appropriate research methods: The issue of using appropriate methods is a
central concern in any research but with children there seems to be a greater desire to
develop fun, 'child-friendly' methods, drawing on familiar sources or children's
particular interests. There are several reasons for this. First, adults assume that children
prefer fun methods, and are more competent at them, and that children have a shorter
11
attention span. Secondly, the nature of childhood in adult society means that children
tend to lack experience of adults treating them as equals. They may also lack confidence
at communicating directly with unfamiliar adults especially in a one-to-one situation.
Thirdly, it may be that younger children do have a more limited concentration span.
Also, since many children spend at least some time at school, they may be more used to
visual and written techniques and may have different competencies (James et al. 1998:
188). However, adults should not assume that this is necessarily the case for all
children.
Using methods which are more sensitive to children's particular competencies or
interests can enable children to feel more at ease with an adult researcher. This does not
mean that children are incapable of engaging with the methods used in research with
adults:
The 'problem' of adult authority in relation to children may be more acute when the
child and the researcher are together on a one-to-one basis. The adoption of more
varied and imaginative research methods may make it possible to overcome these
problems to some extent; for example ... interactive research methods such as video
and drawings. (Mahon et al. 1996: 149)
The methodological issues which have been discussed are all relevant to research with
adults and children. However, these issues are potentially different or particularly
pertinent to the way research is conducted with children for a combination of reasons.
Children, particularly younger children, may have different characteristics from adults.
For example, their use of language and their understanding of the world may differ from
adults. However, most often the reasons are a result of adults' perceptions and treatment
12
of children in adult society and because of children’s structural positioning and least
often because children are inherently different (see Table 1).
Reflections on using task-based methods with children
From my experience, an effective way of carrying out research with children is to
combine traditional research methods used with adults, and techniques considered to be
more suitable for use with children (see also Punch Forthcoming 2001). By using
traditional 'adult' research methods, such as participant observation and interviews,
children can be treated in the same way as adults and display their competencies. Thus,
they are not being patronised by using only special 'child-friendly' techniques. However,
since children tend to lack experience of communicating directly with unfamiliar adults
in a one-to-one situation, a more innovative approach such as using task-based methods
can enable children to feel more comfortable with an adult researcher.
The problem with using innovative techniques is that the benefits and drawbacks of
using them are not always scrutinised. A reflexive and critical approach is needed in
order to recognise their disadvantages and limits, as well as the reasons for using them.
For example, are certain methods being used with children purely because they are fun
or because they also generate useful and relevant data? The implications of using
different methods with children have begun to be examined only recently (Backett-
Milburn and McKie 1999; Christensen and James 2000; Hill 1997; Morrow 1999).
Therefore, the aim of the final section of this paper is to contribute to the growing
sociological literature on research methods with children by exploring some of the
13
advantages and disadvantages of using a variety of different task-based methods to
involve children in research.
The discussion draws on a recent experience of using drawings, photographs, diaries,
PRA techniques (spider diagrams and activity tables) and worksheets with children in a
rural community in Bolivia. This school-based research was carried out with 37 rural
children, girls and boys aged 8-14. The aim of the study was to consider how children
negotiate their independence as they grow up in rural Bolivia. The ethnographic
methods of semi-participant observation and informal interviews were also used but are
examined elsewhere along with a discussion of negotiating access and building
relationships in the field (Punch 2001). The task-based methods were all conducted in
the community school except for the photographs and diaries which were discussed at
school but largely carried out by the children at home.
Drawings2
I began the classroom-based research by asking the children to draw pictures which
included spontaneous drawings on topics of the children's own choice, and two thematic
drawings: My life in the community and My house and family. The advantage of using
drawing with children is that it can be creative, fun and can encourage children to be
more actively involved in the research. The use of drawing gives children time to think
about what they wish to portray. The image can be changed and added to, which gives
children more control over their form of expression, unlike an interview situation where
responses tend to be quicker and more immediate (see Shaver et al. 1993). In this
research, drawings were used in an exploratory manner to discover what children
consider as important aspects in their lives, in order to avoid imposing adult-centred
14
concerns (Sapkota and Sharma 1996). In addition, drawings were an appropriate warm-
up to more difficult activities, as well as being effective as an initial task to enable the
children to become more familiar with the adult researcher (Boyden and Ennew 1997).
They were also used as a useful fill-in activity, while waiting for other children to finish
tasks. Finally, the drawings themselves are rich visual illustrations which directly show
how children see their world.
However, it should not be assumed that drawings are a simple, ‘natural’ method to use
with children as it depends on children's actual and perceived ability to draw. Some
children, particularly older children, are more inhibited by a lack of artistic competence,
and may not consider drawing to be a fun method. In Bolivia, children's perceived lack
of ability is closely related to their lack of drawing practice. Also, since they live in a
relatively isolated, rural community with no electricity, most of the children have had
no contact with television, comics, magazines and other common visual images
associated with the mass media. Such lack of contact with visual imagery influences the
type and limited range of visual images that children produce (Bradley 1995). They
tended to reproduce set images, learnt from the blackboard or their text books, and they
were not used to forming very imaginative, exploratory images. The stylised images
which they tended to draw included houses, flowers, trees, the school flag, animals
(especially ducks), the river and crops which are: ‘... stereotyped images that relate to
what they have learned to draw, which in turn is often an expression of a limited range
of objects emphasized by the particular culture’ (Hart 1997: 162).
Another issue to be born in mind particularly during the analysis stage was whether
the children had copied from friends or from text books (see also Swart 1990). The
15
proximity of the desks meant that peer work could easily be seen and copied. I felt that
this was not necessarily problematic as the drawings still represented children’s ideas as
a group, but it was important not to over-interpret the significance of certain recurring
images. Consequently it was useful to look at the text books and exercise books which
the children used at school to see what type of images they were familiar with and to
what extent these were reproduced in their own drawings.
A difficulty which had not been anticipated was conflict over who used the felt-tip
pens rather than the coloured pencils which I had bought for the research tasks. Pens
were considered as 'superior' by the children since they are more expensive and usually
only older children are 'allowed' to use them. With hindsight I should have provided
pens for all the children to try and equalise access to them and to all the colours
available (see also Shaver et al. 1993). Most of the children reacted enthusiastically to
having blank paper to draw on, largely because the only medium available was faintly
printed squared pages in their exercise books.
Using drawings as a class-based activity meant that it proved difficult to obtain all the
children's interpretations of their individual drawings. Also, since their drawings were
self-explanatory and representative, it was even felt to be insulting to ask the children
what they had drawn, when it was quite clear that they had drawn a tree, a flower, or a
house. The children may have felt that such questions only reinforced their self-
perception that they could not draw. Care had to be taken not to misinterpret the
children's drawings and impose adult interpretations in analysis. It proved difficult to
distinguish cows from horses, sheep from dogs, and a house could be home or the
school. Fortunately, most of the confusion was about the detail of the type of image,
16
such as which kind of animal had been portrayed, and in the analysis all types of
animals were categorised together under the heading 'animal', so the risk of
misinterpretation was minimal. However, if I used the technique again I would
systematically try to ask all the children in an open way to explain what their drawing
meant to them and why they decided to draw those images (rather than ask them “what
have you drawn”).
Photographs
I used photography as a visual method with seventeen of the school children who were
from the class where I was given most opportunities to conduct the research activities
(see Punch 2001). I showed them how to use a camera, including the basics of how it
works and a selection of different photographic styles such as portraits, landscapes,
close-ups and long-distance shots. They each took six photographs showing important
aspects of their lives. Once the photos had been developed, the children wrote a brief
paragraph about each of their photos describing what it showed and why they decided to
capture that image.
The main benefit of using the photographic method was that the children enjoyed
taking the photographs and learning how to use a camera; most of them had never held
one before. It was something novel and different for them to do, so was a fun way for
them to express themselves. The photographic technique did not depend on the
children's ability, or their perceived ability, to depict an image. Most of the children
quickly learnt how to take a picture, and an average of four out of their six photographs
came out how they intended. Since action was more difficult to draw than things,
photographs offered a reasonable alternative to drawings as children were freer to
17
choose images to depict. By taking photographs children were less likely to copy their
friends or text book images directly, but they may have copied the kind of things they
have seen adults taking photos of, or may have taken the same sorts of pictures as their
friends. A solution was to allow each child to take the camera home overnight and
encourage them to take photographs of their own choice. An additional benefit of this
was that the children took photographs of daily scenes at home which I had not
observed directly.
One disadvantage of using such a visual technique is that the chosen image is
influenced by the season when the photograph is taken. For example, several children
took pictures of potato fields since it happened to be the time of year when the crop was
in flower and looked its prettiest. Spontaneous images of an event occurring at that
moment were more likely to be captured than depicted in a drawing. This may have led
to an over-emphasis of importance for that event. For example, a photograph taken of
boys fighting in the village square shows a particular moment in time, but does not
necessarily mean that fighting is a very important aspect of their lives. Also, the
children might have been more tempted to take pictures of what they wanted to keep as
a photograph afterwards. Alternatively they may have taken pictures of what they
considered makes a 'good' photograph. Such issues were important to bear in mind
during the analysis stage, and highlight the importance of children describing their own
reasons for taking the photographs.
There was a particular ethical problem of employing the visual photographic
technique with children who usually do not have an opportunity to take photographs,
since it briefly introduced them to a modern technology which they will be unlikely to
18
experience again because of the financial cost involved. It may have left some children
feeling disappointed afterwards at being unable to practise their newly learnt skill. It
also caused some resentment from other community members for encouraging children
to use such an expensive technique, and instilling unrealistic ideas into their heads
about wanting to be photographers.
PRA Techniques
Two different kinds of techniques used in the research were adapted from PRA
(Participatory Rural Appraisal): spider diagrams and activity tables. The spider diagram
was titled 'Places that I know', and on each of the spider's legs the children wrote a place
that they had been to, either outside or within their community. At the end of the
spider's leg they indicated how many times they had been to that particular place and if
they had been more than ten times they put a star to indicate many occasions. The aim
of this exercise was to discover the extent of children's mobility and physical movement
within and outside their community. The aim of the activity tables was to discover the
range of activities and work that children do (see Punch Forthcoming 2002). They filled
in a list of all the agricultural, animal-related and domestic tasks that they knew how to
do, indicating whether they enjoyed doing that particular activity or not, and whether
the activity was seasonal or year-round.
The advantage of using PRA techniques was that they were ideal for allowing children
to define the relevant elements of the issue which was very useful for an initial research
stage. Broad questions or themes were presented to them and they identified the key
aspects. Subsequently, this was used to refine further questions to explore the issue in
more detail on the worksheets. These tools started simply, and further information was
19
added in stages to the diagram or table, increasing the depth of the data obtained. Such
techniques actively involved children in a creative fun way, maintaining their interest as
well as producing a wealth of information relatively rapidly. The disadvantage of using
PRA techniques was that further methods needed to be used to discuss the issues raised
in more detail. In this study, I do not claim that by using PRA techniques children were
participating fully in the research process but that they were encouraged to express their
views freely. The aim of using more participatory techniques was to listen to children's
voices, enabling them to communicate their opinions. However, it is recognised that
their participation was limited to active involvement in data generation rather than
empowerment. French and Swain (1997) drew a useful distinction between
'emancipatory' research in which participants have control throughout the research
process, and 'participatory' research in which they are actively involved in data
generation, as in this study.
Diaries
One of the classroom-based activities consisted of showing the children how to write a
diary of their lives, recording what they had done on the previous day, from when they
got up to when they went to bed. Some children also chose to illustrate their account. I
did not expect the children to want to continue writing these diaries as many of them
wrote slowly and were not familiar with such a task. I was therefore surprised when all
the children said that they would like to continue writing diaries at home. As time went
on some children wrote less and less, but over half continued for more than two months.
20
The diaries provided information about the everyday, routine aspects of children's
lives. They showed a range of different activities which went beyond stereotypical
notions that girls merely help their mothers while boys only help their fathers. The
diaries allowed for a relatively easy comparison of the different sorts of activities that
different children did on a daily basis. I could compare the accounts of girls' and boys',
older and younger children, and children from different household compositions. The
diaries were also useful in reflecting how children's activities varied greatly according
to whether it was a school day or a weekend. Most of the children seemed to enjoy
creating a document of their daily lives which they would be able to keep.
One of the difficulties with using the diary method was that it depended on the
children's level of literacy. Initially the children spent a long time writing their first
day's account, but several commented later that they had become much quicker at
writing their diaries. They were children's personal accounts of what they had done,
which tended to be summarised and omitted much detail. They tended to write only
about the main activities, not mentioning when they did several activities
simultaneously, or when they combined work with play. The season also affected the
activities they described. The children's teacher encouraged them to continue writing
their diaries by not setting them any other homework. This caused tensions with some
parents who resented that the children spent time every evening writing their diary,
often using it as an excuse not to help prepare dinner or bring the animals in.
Worksheets
I devised eight different worksheets for the children to complete during classtime
which covered a variety of different aspects of their lives:
21
(1) Their lives in the community: what they like and dislike doing
(2) Places where they go in the community, what and where they play
(3) Places they know and their mobility outside the community
(4) School: why they like/dislike school, what they learn, why they are absent
(5) Future: their aspirations and plans
(6) Argentina and migration: what they know and think about it
(7) Family relationships
(8) Work and the household division of labour
Some of these issues were closely related to issues explored in the other task-based
methods. For example, questions in worksheet (1) on aspects of children's lives in the
community, complemented the drawings and photographs they had done. Worksheets
(2) and (3) were drawn up based on the spider diagrams. All the places that children had
mentioned were put into a table to obtain more detailed information about why children
went to those places and with whom they went. Worksheet (8) was drawn up as a result
of the activity table which children had completed. All the activities that they had
mentioned were listed and further columns were included so that children could state
who usually did that activity in their household, who helped, who never did it and at
what age they learnt or could learn to do it.
The worksheets allowed for more detailed information to be obtained on the issues
identified by children as important in their lives. The first worksheets were simple, open
questions of just one sheet. As children became more accustomed to working with me,
and more used to my style of open questioning, they were able to fill in longer
worksheets which explored more complex issues, using both open and closed questions.
Parents and teachers were asked the same questions in semi-structured interviews as the
22
children had answered on their worksheets. Thus children's responses could be
compared to adults' responses, as well as comparing the differences between children.
I was fortunate that teachers were willing to allow me the time to work with their
pupils because it was important that I was present while they filled in the worksheets to
give the children an opportunity to ask questions. Sometimes, when there were up to
twenty children completing them, it was difficult to be able to answer all their questions
individually. This technique also depended on a reasonable level of literacy, so simpler,
shorter versions of some of the worksheets were given to the younger children (8-10
years).
Combining visual, written and traditional methods
One of the main advantages of using visual and written methods is that it may lessen
the problems of an unequal power relationship between the adult researcher and the
child participant, where the child may feel under pressure to respond relatively quickly
in the 'correct' manner. With the task-based methods, the interaction is between the
children and the paper, or the children and the camera, which allows for familiarity with
the researcher to be built up over time. Another benefit of using task-based research
activities is that many children can complete them simultaneously, obtaining
information more quickly and for a greater number of children than by using individual
interviews or observation techniques (Boyden and Ennew 1997: 107). The visual and
written methods were received favourably by most of the children, especially because
they offered them a different and interesting alternative to their usual school-work.
They became actively involved in the different tasks, rather than passively responding.
23
They did not find themselves to be in an uncomfortable interview setting but used
methods that could easily be accommodated in their familiar school surroundings.
The difficulties of using visual and written methods, especially in a class group with
many children, is that much data is generated at the same time, meaning that it is
difficult to discuss all the issues raised in further detail. Where possible children's
descriptions and interpretations were sought for each drawing, photograph, and
diagram, whether in written or verbal form, but this was not always feasible. Also, there
are likely to be some differences between what children say they do and what they
actually do in practice which is why it was necessary to include observation methods,
rather than relying solely on task-based activities (see Punch 2001).
Innovative methods can be more interesting and fun (for the children and the
researcher). However, they should be referred to as 'research-friendly' or 'person-
friendly' techniques, rather than the patronising term 'child-friendly'. Many adults might
also benefit from them and find them more appealing than traditional methods. Many of
the techniques considered to be 'child-friendly' have been adapted from PRA methods
originally used with adults. They are 'research participant-centred' rather than 'child-
centred'. The challenge is to strike a balance between not patronising children and
recognising their competencies, whilst maintaining their enjoyment of being involved
with the research and facilitating their ability to communicate their view of the world.
A combination of techniques can enable the data-generation process to be fun and
interesting for the participants as well as effective in generating useful and relevant
data. For example, in the Bolivian study the children did not like filling in the
24
worksheets quite as much as they enjoyed taking their own photographs. However, the
data from the worksheets was more in-depth than that from the photographs, which was
interesting but limited. Whilst children’s preferences for different methods were taken
into account, it was also recognised that there were limits to fulfilling all of their
preferences as different children prefer different techniques. Some children prefer to
draw, others to write or talk. As preferences and competencies vary from child to child
in the same way as they do from adult to adult, it is impossible to find the ideal methods
for research with children.
Using a range of methods, both traditional and innovative, can help strike a balance
and address some of the ethical and methodological issues of research with children.
Like other child researchers I found that using a variety of techniques was valuable: to
prevent boredom and sustain interest (Hill 1997); to prevent biases arising from over-
reliance on one method (Ennew and Morrow 1994: 70; Morrow and Richards 1996:
101); to triangulate and cross-check data (INTRAC 1997; Lucchini 1996; Morrow
1999); to evaluate the usefulness of different methods (Hazel 1996; Morrow 1999) and
to strike a balance between traditional and innovative methods.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that by comparing research with children to that with
adults, there is a danger of bracketing all children together as a group in opposition to
adults, and overlooking diversity amongst children. It should be recognised that not all
the research issues mentioned in this paper will be problematic with all children as a
plurality of childhoods exist (Qvortrup 1994). It should also be acknowledged that it is
misleading to talk about 'child' and 'adult' research methods, since the suitability of
particular methods depends as much on the research context as on the research subjects'
25
stage in the life course. The choice of methods not only depends on the age,
competence, experience, preference and social status of the research subjects but also on
the cultural environment and the physical setting, as well as the research questions and
the competencies of the researcher. A fundamental aspect of human-centred research is
to respect individuality and take account of major group differences whether they be
class, age, gender, disability, ethnicity or culture.
Therefore, I would argue that it is too simplistic to consider research with children as
one of two extremes: either the same or different from adults. Instead it should be seen
as on a continuum where the way that research with children is perceived moves back
and forth along the continuum according to a variety of factors: individual children, the
questions asked, the research context, whether they are younger or older children and
the researcher's own attitudes and behaviour. Researchers need to be reflexive
throughout the research process and critically aware of the range of reasons why
research with children may be potentially different from research with adults.
Perceiving children as competent social actors does not necessarily mean that research
should be conducted in the same way as with adults. This is because many of the
reasons underlying potential differences stem from children's marginalised position in
adult society or from our own adult perceptions of children rather than being a
reflection of children's competencies.
26
References
Alderson, P. (1995) Listening to Children: Children, Ethics and Social Research. Ilford:
Barnardo's.
Alderson, P. (2000) ‘Children as Researchers: The Effects of Participation Rights on
Research Methodology’ in P. Christensen and A. James (eds) Research with Children:
Perspectives and Practices, pp.241-75. London: Falmer Press.
Alderson, P. and C. Goodey (1996) ‘Research with Disabled Children: How Useful is
Child-centred Ethics?’ Children & Society 10: 106-116.
Backett-Milburn, K. and L. McKie (1999) ‘A Critical Appraisal of the Draw and Write
Technique’, Health Education Research 14: 387-98.
Boyden, J. and J. Ennew (1997) (eds) Children in Focus: A Manual for Experiential
Learning in Participatory Research with Children. Stockholm: Rädda Barnen.
Bradley, S. (1995) How People Use Pictures: An Annotated Bibliography. London:
International Institute for Environment and Development.
Butler, I. and H. Williamson (1994) Children Speak: Children, Trauma and Social
Work. London: Longman.
Christensen, P. and A. James (eds) (2000) Research with Children: Perspectives and
Practices. London: Falmer Press.
Connolly, P. (1998) Racism, Gender Identities and Young Children: Social Relations in
a Multi-ethnic, Inner-city Primary School. London: Routledge.
Cosaro, W. (1997) The Sociology of Childhood. London: Pine Forge Press.
Davis, J. (1998) 'Understanding the meanings of children: A reflexive process',
Children & Society 12 (5): 336-348.
27
Ennew, J. (1994) Street and Working Children: A Guide to Planning. Development
Manual 4, London: Save the Children.
Ennew, J. and V. Morrow (1994) ‘Out of the Mouths of Babes’, in E. Verhellen and F.
Spiesschaert (eds) Children's Rights: Monitoring Issues, pp. 61-84. Gent: Mys &
Breesch.
Fetterman, D. (1989) Ethnography: Step by Step. Applied Social Research Methods
Series Volume 17, London: Sage.
Fine, G.A. and K.L. Sandstrom (1988) Knowing Children: Participant Observation with
Minors. Qualitative Research Methods. Series 15. London: Sage.
France, A., G. Bendelow and S. Williams (2000) ‘A ‘Risky’ Business: Researching the
Health Beliefs of Children and Young People’ in A. Lewis and G. Lindsay (eds)
Researching Children’s Perspectives, pp. 150-62. Buckingham: Open University Press.
French, S. and J. Swain (1997) ‘Changing Disability Research: Participating and
Emancipatory Research with Disabled People’, Physiotheraphy 83 (1): 26-32.
Gersch, I. (1996) ‘Listening to Children in Educational Contexts’, in R. Davie, G.
Upton and V. Varma (eds) The Voice of the Child: A Handbook for Professionals, pp.
27-48. London: Falmer Press.
Hammersley, M. and P. Atkinson (1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London:
Routledge.
Harden, J., S. Scott, K. Backett-Milburn and S. Jackson (2000) ‘Can’t Talk, Won’t
Talk?: Methodological Issues in Researching Children’ Sociological Research Online, 5
(2) <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/5/2/harden.html>
Hart, R. (1997) Children's Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young
Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care. Earthscan Publications
Ltd: London.
28
Hazel, N. (1996) ‘Elicitation Techniques with Young People’, Social Research Update
12, Guildford: University of Surrey.
Hecht, T. (1998) At Home in the Street: Street Children of Northeast Brazil. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hill, M. (1997) ‘Participatory research with children’. Research Review. Child and
Family Social Work, 2: 171-183.
Hood, S., P. Kelley and B. Mayall (1996) ‘Children as Research Subjects: a Risky
Enterprise’, Children & Society 10: 117-128.
INTRAC (1997) Involving Children in Research For Planning, Programming and
Monitoring: A Pilot INTRAC Training Course. Oxford: INTRAC.
Ireland, L. and I. Holloway (1996) ‘Qualitative Health Research with Children’,
Children & Society 10: 155-164.
James, A., C. Jenks and A. Prout (1998) Theorizing Childhood. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Johnson, V., E. Ivan-Smith, G. Gordon, P. Pridmore and P. Scott (eds) (1998)
Stepping Forward: Children and Young People’s Participation in the Development
Process. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Kirby, P. (1999) Involving Young Researchers: How to Enable Young People to Design
and Conduct Research. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Lewis, A. and G. Lindsay (eds) (2000) Researching Children’s Perspectives.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lucchini, R. (1996) ‘Theory, Method and Triangulation in the Study of Street
Children’, Childhood 3: 167-170.
29
Mahon, A., C. Glendinning, K. Clarke and G. Craig (1996) ‘Researching Children:
Methods and Ethics, Children & Society 10 (2): 145-154.
Mandell, N (1991) ‘The Least Adult Role in Studying Children’ in F. Waksler (ed.)
Studying the Social Worlds of Children: Sociological Readings. London: The Falmer
Press.
Mauthner, M. (1997) ‘Methodological Aspects of Collecting Data from Children:
Lessons from three Research Projects’, Children & Society 11: 16-28.
Mayall, B. (1994) ‘Introduction’, in B. Mayall (ed.), Children's Childhoods: Observed
and Experienced. London: The Falmer Press.
Mayall, B. (2000) ‘Conversations with Children: Working with Generational Issues’ in
P. Christensen and A. James (eds) Research with Children: Perspectives and
Practices, pp. 120-35. London: Falmer Press.
Morrow, V. (1999) ‘"It's cool, ... 'cos you can't give us detentions and things, can
you?!": Reflections on Researching Children’, in P. Milner and B. Carolin (eds) Time to
Listen to Children, pp. 203-15. Routledge: London.
Morrow, V. and M. Richards (1996) ‘The Ethics of Social Research with Children: An
Overview’, Children & Society 10: 90-105.
Nesbitt, E. (2000) ‘Researching 8 to 13 year-olds’ perspectives on their experience of
religion’ in A. Lewis and G. Lindsay (eds) Researching Children’s Perspectives, pp.
135-49. Buckingham: Open University Press.
O’Kane, C. (2000) ‘The Development of Participatory Techniques: Facilitating
Children’s Views about Decisions which Affect Them’, in P. Christensen and A. James
(eds) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices, pp. 136-159. London:
Falmer Press.
30
PLA Notes (1996) ‘Special Issue: Children's Participation’, PLA Notes Number 25.
London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
Pridmore, P. and G. Bendelow (1995) ‘Images of Health: Exploring Beliefs of Children
using the “Draw-and-write Technique”’, Health Education Journal 54: 473-88.
Punch, S. (1998) Negotiating Independence: Children and Young People Growing Up
in Rural Bolivia. University of Leeds: Ph.D Thesis.
Punch, S. (2001) ‘Multiple Methods and Research Relations with Children in Rural
Bolivia’, in M. Limb and C. Dwyer (eds) Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers,
London: Arnold.
Punch, S. (Forthcoming 2001) ‘Interviewing Strategies with Young People: The ‘Secret
Box’, Stimulus Material and Task-based Activities’, Children & Society.
Punch, S. (Forthcoming 2002) ‘Household Division of Labour: Generation, Gender,
Age, Birth Order and Sibling Composition’, Work, Employment & Society.
Punch, S. and R. Baker (1997) Visual Representation: Using Drawings and
Photographs as Research Methods with Children in Nepal and Bolivia, Paper presented
at Urban Childhood conference in Trondheim, June 1997.
Qvortrup, J. (1994) ‘Childhood Matters: An Introduction’, in J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy, G.
Sgritta and H. Wintersberger (eds) Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and
Politics, pp. 1-23. Aldershot: Avebury.
Richman, N. (1993) Communicating with Children: Helping Children in Distress.
Development Manual 2, London: Save the Children.
Sapkota, P. and J. Sharma (1996) ‘Participatory Interactions with Children in Nepal’,
PLA Notes Number 25, London: International Institute for Environment and
Development
31
Shaver, T., V. Francis and L. Barnett (1993) Drawing as Dialogue: A qualitative
approach to needs assessment for health education planning, ERG Technical Notes
series No.2, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine: Liverpool.
Shaw, I. (1996) ‘Unbroken Voices: Children, Young People and Qualitative Methods’
in I. Butler and I. Shaw (eds) A Case of Neglect? Children’s Experiences and the
Sociology of Childhood, pp. 19-36. Aldershot: Avebury.
Sinclair, R. (1996) ‘Editorial’, Children & Society, 10 (2):87-89.
Solberg, A. (1996) ‘The Challenge in Child Research from 'being' to 'doing',’ in J.
Brannen and M. O'Brien (eds) Children in Families: Research and Policy, London:
Falmer Press.
Stanley, B. and J. Sieber (1992) Social Research on Children and Adolescents:
Ethical Issues. London: Sage.
Swart, J. (1990) Malunde: The Street Children of Hillbrow. Witwatersrand University
Press: Johannesburg
Thomas, N. and C. O’Kane (1998) ‘The Ethics of Participatory Research with
Children’, Children and Society 12: 336-348.
Thorne, B. (1993) Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Woodhead, M. (1998) Children's Perspectives on their Working Lives: A Participatory
Study in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, The Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador and
Nicaragua. Stockholm: Rädda Barnen.
1 It has been suggested that a solution to the power imbalance between adult researcher and child
participant is to involve children more directly as researchers themselves (Alderson 2000; Kirby 1999).
Whilst this can resolve some issues, it can also create new dilemmas (Harden et al. 2000) and the aim of
this paper is to focus on adults who conduct research with children.
2 For this section on drawings grateful acknowledgment goes to Rachel Baker for her comments and
contribution to a joint paper which we presented at the Urban Childhood conference in Trondheim, June
32
1997: Visual Representation: Using Drawings and Photographs as Research Methods with Children in
Nepal and Bolivia, (see Punch and Baker 1997).