Increasingly, ‘voice’, though not an uncontested term, is understood as manifest through, for instance, gesture, gaze, body language, art, and other embodied forms (Murris, 2013; Murray, 2019), and even silence (Spyrou, 2016; Hanna, 2022). However voice is shared, researchers must attend carefully to what is said, and to what is not. In this, we acknowledge that children have something to say, which is fundamentally about how we think of children.

Premising that children are capable, competent and social actors requires that we (adults) acknowledge their voice, while appreciating that they don’t all speak with one voice (Cassidy et al., 2019). In so doing, we take them and their decision-making, their agency, seriously with respect to our research. However, researchers are faced with sticky challenges related to participation, agenda setting and recognition when ensuring children’s voices are heard.

‘Researchers are faced with sticky challenges related to participation, agenda setting and recognition when ensuring children’s voices are heard.’

Challenge one: participation. When inviting children to participate in our projects, we provide information to help them decide whether they wish to take part. We also petition their parent/carer for permission. Ultimately, parent/carer decisions trump the child’s, potentially diminishing the child’s agency. Throughout our rights-based research, we check willingness to participate regularly (Martinez-lejarreta et al., 2024). Willingness, may change, and potentially interesting data are ‘lost’ if children choose to opt out at some point during the project. However, attending to this manifestation of voice and agency offers opportunities to say something interesting about our topic, methods or the ways in which we view children.

Challenge two: the agenda. Rarely, do children set a research agenda. As academics, we undertake research and in education, this often involves children. There is a danger that we – adult researchers – parachute into children’s worlds, take what we need from them, and leave. It can be difficult to demonstrate that children in our research are not a means-to-an-end. When the data are analysed and published, when we have spoken with practitioners and policymakers, there is an anticipated impact. Generally, however, this is for those yet to come rather than the group, class or individual children who gave their time to speak with us, draw for us, share with us.

So, do we only research what children think we ought to research? This isn’t likely. Some researchers find that children’s advisory boards enable some direction from children (Horgan, 2017). This still requires adults to initiate the activity, but it brings children into the agenda-setting conversation so that the research is, in some regards at least, informed by children’s views. How participants benefit meaningfully from their participation in a way that future children might, remains a chewy problem, leaving the researcher with toffee in her teeth.

Challenge three: recognition. Accepting that children (in research) are not a means-to-an-end affords them some recognition. One way in which (adult) researcher agendas are countered is by involving children as co-researchers. Finding time in the school day for involving children in research can be a challenge, but access is only part of the issue. Ethically, those involved in conducting the research should be named on publications. This presents two problems:

1. Sharing children’s names usually contravenes research ethics, even if they wish to be acknowledged in this way, running counter to a rights-based approach.
2. Journals are reluctant to recognise children as co-authors, and their systems don’t accommodate it (Wall et al., 2024).^[1]

The adult/child power dynamic remains, making us reflect again on how we think of children.

I don’t pretend to have the answers to the challenges presented, nor have I space to raise those related to research methods. Perhaps there’s a research project with children in that?

^[1] The BERA Blog post associated with this project may also be of interest.

References

Cassidy, C., Conrad, S. J., & de Figueiroa-Rego, M. J. (2019). Research with children: A philosophical, rights-based approach. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 43(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2018.1563063

Hanna, A. (2022). Silent epistemologies: Theorising children’s participation rights. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 31(1), 40–60. http://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-30040003

Horgan, D. (2017). Child participatory research methods: Attempts to go ‘deeper’. Childhood, 24(2), 245-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568216647787

Martinez-lejarreta, L., Arnott, L., & Wall, K. (2024). Detective mystery play: Play-based research methods for facilitating young children’s critical thinking. International Journal of Early Years Education, 32(4), 871–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2024.2407471

Murray, J. (2019). Hearing young children’s voices. International Journal of Early Years Education, 27(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1563352

Murris, K. (2013). The epistemic challenge of hearing child’s voice. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 32, 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-012-9349-9

Spyrou, S. (2016). Researching children’s silences: Exploring the fullness of voice in childhood research. Childhood, 23(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568215571618

Wall, K., Hanna, A., McCrorie, K., Quirke, W., Lauder-Scott, N., Sims, R., Ross, L., Elizabeth, Maryisia, Brooke, Amy, Freya, & Sophie. (2024). ‘Learning about research was confusing until we started creating our own questions and research’: Enacting student voice through a ‘Students as Enquirers’ project. Curriculum Journal, 35(1), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.237