As I have discussed in Chapter One, in this study I adopted a participatory approach, which implies that children should be given ‘a voice’ to participate in the research process (Alderson, 2005; Dahlberg et al., 2007; Morrow, 2005; James and Prout, 1997). In the following sections, I explain the rationale for the approaches and methods I used to support this position, where I discuss the way I perceive children’s voices and explain the process of doing research with them.
4.3.1 Perceiving children’s voices
My view of children’s ‘voice’ is based on Gallacher and Gallagher’s (2008), definition that voice is “the most authentic source of knowledge about themselves [the children’s] and their lives” (p. 502). Throughout the study, I followed the children’s cues, where I listened to what they had to say and tried to understand their ways of thinking and making sense of their drawings. Following Coppock’s (2010) advice, I frequently let the children’s multiple voices dominate the discussion and the process, where I gave them the space to decide what to say and what to leave unsaid, while they fluidly unfolded their everyday experiences and understandings.
____________________________________________________________________ 93 Simultaneously, I prompted and questioned the children to extend their views, make connections between their thoughts and their drawings and allow their ideas to emerge. As a result of this co-constructive process of shared meaning-making, the children emerged as “powerful contributors with unique expertise” (Tay-Lim and Lim, 2013, p. 70). This was not an easy process especially as neither the children nor myself were used to such power sharing, due to the traditional approach that is so strong in local schools. At times I had to take a step back, silence myself and restrain from intervening with what they were doing, saying or thinking. On other occasions, I took a more active role and through my questioning and prompting I helped them articulate their ideas and construct their meanings. There were occasions when I doubted the children, questioned their abilities and suspected I was encumbering them with too much responsibility. By time the children gained confidence in what they
were doing and saying and became more articulate in their interpretations.
4.3.2 Adopting a participatory approach
My interpretation of a participatory framework draws on O’Kane’s (2000) notion which goes beyond the implementation of participatory tools to also involve a process of dialogue, reflection and change. As advised by Clough and Nutbrown (2012) and Veale (2005), I involved both the participants and myself, as the researcher, at different levels of the study. This included the sharing of information, the production of knowledge and evaluations of everyday events, and in being responsible for the data collection process. My commitment to involve children as much as possible came from my genuine belief and “personal value” (Clough and Nutbrown, 2012, p. 64), that children have the right to be considered, especially when, as was the case in my study, they were essential contributors to the research process.
A factor which I considered was, that the research methodology not only had to fit the aims of the study but, as Jones and Somekh (2005) propose, it also had to suit the needs, ability and interests of children. This, as is recommended by different scholars (Kjørholt, Moss and Clark, 2005; Moss, Clark and Kjørholt, 2005; Nyland, 2009; Stamatoglou, 2004), included adopting a suitable methodology that provided children with ways to be involved in the data collection process and with a space to voice their unique understandings and interpretations. This challenged me to find
____________________________________________________________________ 94 what Clough and Nutbrown (2012) define as “new ways of listening, and new interpretations of what counts as ‘voice’” (p. 69), where I had to revalue, relearn and understand the languages children use to create and communicate meaning. Recognising and trusting children as important collaborators and partners (Nyland, 2009), I offered them “participation as a choice” (Bucknall, 2014, p. 72), which also provided them with the opportunity to “be part of recording their own data” (MacNaughton and Smith, 2005, p. 116). In line with this, I opted to use child- centred, visual tools such as video-cameras and the children’s drawings, which transformed the research methodology into a tangible and meaningful process for them.
Clough and Nutbrown’s (2012) concept of “radical listening – as opposed to merely hearing” (p. 26), that is, to consider “all the voices which may be heard within and around any given topic” (Clough and Nutbrown, 2012, p. 26) is relevant here as it informed my positionality and my way of doing research with children. Throughout the study, I was careful not to lose the children’s voice but to truly listen to their choices, interpretations and narrations, without tainting or thwarting their messages. I did this in an aura of respect towards their feelings, moods and wishes, where I allowed them the possibility to decide the form, content and duration of the drawings. I also encouraged them to act as data collectors by collating the drawings, video- record themselves, even if with the help of adults, to analyse their drawings and to take decisions about ethical issues, consent and ownership. This meant that, for example, sometimes children decided to depict a number of drawings at one go while at other times, they simply refused to draw at all. Likewise, their interpretations were sometimes very detailed and long while on other occasions they were dry and short. Such tools and spaces for participation and decision-making not only facilitated the data collection process through methods that suited the children’s ways of doing things, but also helped them with articulating their perspectives and representing their voices in genuine, truthful and unfiltered ways (Clark and Moss, 2001; Mukherji and Albon, 2010). As is suggested by Smith (2011), this transformed my relationship with them into a joint partnership, where I respected them as key contributors who provided authentic data about themselves, their meanings and their lives.
____________________________________________________________________ 95