The widely cited United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes the importance of children’s rights, including their freedom of expression (article 13). Research and policy papers have also advocated for children to be conceptualised, not as future citizens, but as current citizens (Jans 2004). Informed by these stances, this project sought to employ a range of democratic approaches to data generation to enable one purposefully selected class of 9–10-year-old children to be actively involved in generating data. We reflect on the successes and limitations of the methodology of our study which explored what children aged 9–10 and their families think about conflicts over land use.

The potential pitfalls of participatory research with children are well documented. They range from Papadopoulou and Sidorenko’s (2022, p. 357) caution that ‘adults “filter” children’s contribution at every stage of the research process’ to practical advice and reflections in this blog, including Jennings (2022) and Howard and McGimpsey (2022). We seek to build on these discussions by highlighting where our actions were, arguably, less democratic than our theoretical ambitions.

‘The potential pitfalls of participatory research with children are well documented.’

The study

The case-study school was in a national park area, which exemplified some of the current conflicts around land use. Over a 12-week period, the class teacher planned and taught a unit of work about land use, grounded in place-conscious pedagogy, including four visits within the local area. The researcher ran a workshop with the children in school to gain their input to help generate the interview questions. A follow-up workshop focused on teaching interview skills.

Towards the end of the unit of work, children were asked if they would like to take part in a small discussion group. We structured these so that children could take turns to ask questions and use follow-up prompts with minimal adult interference. Of 26 children whose parents had given consent, 24 chose to take part. Children had the option to take home an audio-recording device to interview an adult of their choice. Some children chose to interview multiple adults, resulting in 28 interviews with adults by 17 children. Following initial analysis of the data, the researcher shared emerging findings with the children. To illustrate their own interpretations and reflect on their participation, the children then created a scrapbook of the project.

Successes and limitations

• Child-led group discussions: data analysis shows these resulted in uninhibited discussions between children. They appear to have been successful in flattening the power dynamic sometimes present in focus groups involving an adult facilitator. Children had agency to choose where they held their discussion within school. However, as the class teacher determined group make-up, these groups didn’t necessarily reflect children’s preferences.

• Adult interviews: one success was children having some choice over which family member they interviewed. However, safeguarding and ethical considerations meant parental consent and supervision were essential, meaning children did not have total freedom. The optionality of this activity appears to have been genuinely conveyed because seven children who participated in a group discussion did not choose to interview an adult. Informal discussion suggested this was because these children were less engaged with the topic or thought adults at home might not be interested.

• Data analysis and distribution: although the interview questions resulted from children’s suggestions, children were less involved in the analysis of data. Creating scrapbook pages allowed for some freedom of creative expression. But it was adult researchers who decided on this medium. The scrapbook activity also drew on the researcher’s initial analysis of findings, which may have influenced children’s choices of what to include. Children have not been involved in the dissemination of the research, due partially to considerations of anonymity. But this has, nonetheless, marginalised their opportunities for further involvement.

• Power structures: overall, this project was led and managed by two adults who had aims and hopes for the study which, although acknowledged, have inevitably shaped the structure and content of the research. Significant efforts were made to provide a broad and balanced perspective on contentious issues related to land use. However, there is the possibility that some contributions from children are regurgitated comments and not genuine opinions, owing to the absence of children’s broader contextual understanding. The study also took place within the context of a school, where there were pre-existing power dynamics between adults and children. Children’s participation in the research activities was entirely optional but the influence of power structures on the democratic nature of data cannot be overlooked.

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the BERA Brian Simon Fund.

References

Papadopoulou, M., & Sidorenko, E. (2022). Whose ‘voice’ is it anyway? The paradoxes of the participatory narrative. British Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 354–370.