Abstract
Research into child poverty and juvenile delinquency shares two features: both involve children and sensitive topics. This article focuses on the critical problem of the quality of children’s participation in research. Some of the ethical and methodological challenges faced in two research projects, a self-report survey on juvenile delinquency and a multi-method study of low-income families, will be discussed. The construct of engagement is proposed as a rationale to address these challenges.
Research with children on issues such as poverty and delinquency shares two features: both involve underage people and sensitive topics. These characteristics may have a direct impact on the quality and validity of collected data in addition to other methodological and ethical repercussions, which justifies careful attention to the interpretation and generalization of the results. This article raises the dilemmas faced by our research team in two different projects with children and youth: a study on delinquency and victimization and another on poverty. In addition to their differences, the studies brought to our attention the importance of the quality of children’s participation in research and the need to ensure and promote their meaningful and effective involvement throughout the process.
Recently, a growing body of research has emerged on children’s involvement in research and participatory methods (Graham et al., 2015; Harcourt and Sargeant, 2011; Kirk, 2007; Lambert and Glacken, 2011). Part of this literature usually recommends the use of different strategies that rely on their contingent nature, in compliance with generic ethical principles. Without intending to cast any doubt on the importance of these pragmatic and ethical approaches, we consider that an integrated and theoretically grounded perspective on the challenges posed by children’s participation in research is needed. In this article, we argue that psychology may offer a useful contribution for this purpose, specifically with the concept of engagement. Used in the fields of educational psychology and organizational psychology, this concept may also have heuristic value in the domain of research with children and young people.
Research with children on sensitive topics
Over the years, research has been constrained by views of children as vulnerable, incompetent and unreliable. Traditionally, children have been regarded as a frail population to study due to their legal status as minors, their diminished social power, and the potential risks of their involvement (Alderson and Morrow, 2011; Graham et al., 2015; Punch, 2002). Furthermore, children would lack both the competence needed for consent and purposeful participation as well as cognitive abilities to understand their world and to communicate their experiences (Bruzzese and Fisher, 2003; Cocks, 2006; Kirk, 2007; Thurman, 2015). For these reasons, data obtained from children tended to be considered less reliable or valid. However, these views have been challenged in recent decades. We do not ignore the conventional and arbitrary nature of the age-based definition of child (under 18 years), which may vary according to law, culture, the historical period of time or even according to economic and political factors (Graham et al., 2013), not taking into account individual differences among children and young people. However, due to the emerging consensus on children’s rights, the growing realization of their competence and the evolving ontological and epistemological assumptions held by scholars about children and childhood, there is an increasing recognition of the importance of including children’s experiences and views in research (Cashmore, 2006; Christensen and Prout, 2002; Powell et al., 2012). Nevertheless, the tension between the dimensions of protection and participation of children’s rights, based on the concepts of vulnerability and agency, is widely recognized and not always easily reconcilable (Graham et al., 2013). In fact, finding the balance between the right to protection and the right to participation is still a contentious issue (Cashmore, 2006; Hiriscau et al., 2014). Concisely, children’s involvement in research ought to be protected, and researchers are expected to fully observe ethical standards and guidelines that safeguard participants from being coerced, exploited, invaded or harmed. These precautions are particularly important when undertaking research on sensitive topics.
The notion of a sensitive topic is not objective (Barnett, 1998), and it has been operationalized in different ways. For Tourangeau and Yan (2007), a sensitive issue is felt as intrusive, uncomfortable to disclose, and socially undesirable. As such, it may affect not only the content of answers but also people’s attitudes and well-being. However, topic sensitivity varies markedly among individuals and is associated with their stage of development and life experiences. Indeed, conducting research about sensitive topics is known to be a complex task as we are delving into a private sphere of a person’s life and with the risk of causing negative emotional reactions or stigmatization. These difficulties are even more pronounced if children are involved. For these reasons, sensitive research with children and young people raises ethical and methodological challenges that are the source of a growing body of procedural knowledge and ethical considerations. In the specific case of studies about delinquent behaviour, victimization or poverty, researchers must carefully assess the heightened risks to which participants are exposed, namely, intrusion, exposure, stigmatization, burdening, distress and further victimization (Alderson and Morrow, 2011; Koller et al., 2012; Laws and Mann, 2004). In any case, respect for individual autonomy and rights, cautious weighting of benefits and expected outputs of research and ensuring the well-being of participants are mandatory (Alderson and Morrow, 2011; Coyne, 2010; Fisher, 2004; Graham et al., 2013).
Nevertheless, as Inderbitzin et al. (2013) discussed, the complexity of sensitive research has hampered its conceptualization. We believe that its theoretical reinterpretation can generate more adequate designs and procedures for addressing the topics of interest while safeguarding children’s rights of expression and protection. The combination of these requirements puts the quality of children’s participation in the investigation process and the conditions of its implementation at the heart of researchers’ concerns.
Brief description of our studies
Our research team recently conducted two research projects; one project was the International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD-3). This study aimed at comparing trends in offending and victimization, exploring theoretical approaches related to juvenile delinquency and informing policy. It involved a stratified random sample (n = 4048) of 7th to 12th graders (hereinafter referred to as young people). Students completed a paper-and-pencil or online version of a questionnaire in classrooms, during school time, and under researchers’ supervision. This questionnaire focused on juvenile delinquency and victimization was designed to collect data on relevant associated factors such as family and school life, leisure and social relations, substance use, behavioural attitudes and demographics (including race, religion, socio-economic status and migrant origin).
The second research project (hereinafter referred to as the child poverty study) focused on the well-being and quality of life of low-income children and their parents and the effectiveness of welfare services provided. It was conducted in cooperation with the National Social Welfare Department. A purposive sample of 8- to 12-year-old children (n = 114) and their parents was selected according to the following inclusion criteria: families were recipients of a conditional cash-transfer programme, and a third of them were involved with Child Protective Services. Both children and parents completed questionnaires and standardized scales and participated in scheduled interviews in NGOs’ facilities. Quantitative and qualitative methods of assessment were combined to yield a comprehensive account on the families and children’s lives and well-being including children’s quality of life, behavioural problems, social competence and views about poverty, as well as parental stress, parental attitudes, social support and problematic life domains.
Critical issues in research
According to our experience, two basic intertwined issues related to children and young people’s involvement in research cut across both studies of juvenile delinquency and child poverty, namely:
The need to ensure that children and young people, as well as their families, fully understand the research process, promoting meaning construction and the perceived relevance of activities.
The need to support children and young people’s effective participation in research, fostering their sense of achievement and contribution to the research project.
Understanding and meaning construction
Making sense of experience provides a sense of safety and control, enhancing motivation and autonomy. Language and communication are key aspects in this process. Nevertheless, according to Kellett (2010), meaningful involvement in research is poorly conceptualized. In our studies, children’s understanding of research as well as that of their parents affected their involvement and raised dilemmas at various stages of the investigation process, namely, in obtaining informed consent and in responding to research tasks. In relation to informed consent, three main challenges emerged: the mediated process of obtaining consent, the written form of consent and language comprehension. In the following, each challenge will be briefly discussed.
Mediated informed consent
Consent is the fundamental act of ethics in research, and its validity derives from being informed, explicit, renegotiable and free of coercion. Investment in the consent process defines high standards of respect between researchers and participants, in addition to being an essential part of the decision-making process and involvement (Alderson and Morrow, 2011; Graham et al., 2013). Consent guarantees the respect for individuals’ rights and autonomy by ensuring that the research process and its implications are fully comprehended. In accordance with national legal and ethical regulations, the informed consent of parents or guardians is mandatory, despite the assumption of children’s natural incapacity for consent being questioned by some research (Abramovitch et al., 1991; Gibson et al., 2011). In addition, challenges have been identified in regard to the assumption of the natural capacity of parents to understand the implications of their children’s involvement in research (Abramovitch et al., 1991) and the recognition of possible conflicts of interest between parents and children. However, children’s assent is merely recommended whenever possible (Ordem dos Psicólogos Portugueses, 2011). To address this issue, some authors suggest the implementation of a triadic consent process based on children’s autonomy to participate, on guardians’ responsibility to ensure their protection and on researcher’s guarantee to balance both (Graham et al., 2013; Harcourt and Sargeant, 2011; Lambert and Glacken, 2011). Well-designed methods of obtaining consent/assent improve children’s understanding of their research rights and promote their meaningful involvement (Bruzzese and Fisher, 2003; Powell et al., 2012). Nevertheless, as Sime (2008) points out, negotiating access with adults remains a primary challenge of research involving children and young people. In some situations, the communication between these parts is mediated by other figures (e.g. caseworkers, teachers). In such cases, communication between parties involves power relations that are critical aspects of the process.
In our studies, due to their proximity to target groups, third parties explained research and consent processes: caseworkers in the study of child poverty and teachers in the study of juvenile delinquency. Caseworkers communicated with parents and obtained informed consent, which was later explained to children. In the case of teachers, they gave information about participation in the juvenile delinquency study to students, providing them with the assent form. In addition, they sent the informed consent letter to parents. At the beginning of data collection sessions, researchers provided additional information about the research project and children’s participation. At this point, both parental consent and children and young people’s assent were confirmed. The fact that consent was obtained through the mediation of third parties may not only have affected communication between the researchers and children/young people about the research projects, their objectives and their role as participants but also constrained it by power relations, possibly influencing refusal rates. In fact, a substantial number of parents in both studies did not permit their children’s participation, which made sampling more difficult. This refusal may be due to the lack of perceived benefits, to avoid children’s exposure to sensitive topics or to prevent referrals for children’s transgressive behaviours and experiences of victimization (Chae et al., 2011; Gorin et al., 2008; Hiriscau et al., 2014; Ott et al., 2010). It could also be explained either by the discomfort generated by the topics of child poverty and delinquency or by the overall disinterest and lack of involvement with the research projects proposed. Otherwise, we can hypothesize that the decision of some children/young people to take part in research and their parental permission may have been in response to the pressure exerted by teachers or caseworkers and to their preponderant role, respectively, in children’s education and in providing different types of support to families.
Written consent
Another challenge was the cautious reception and even distrustful reaction from participants in both studies to signing the consent/assent forms. Apparently, these reactions were not directly related to the strict comprehension of the consent form but rather seemed to reflect the participants’ unease with the procedure and the pressure to sign a formal document. The lack of experience with this type of practice outside the school context, the responsibility of signing and the low literacy of both children and adults may explain the reluctance to provide written consent. In fact, other researchers corroborate this observation, adding that ‘too much emphasis on privacy protection can harm the bond of trust between the respondent and the researcher’ (Lensvelt-Mulders, 2008: 468). Experts diverge on the mandatory nature of written consent. Without prejudice to written consent, the pattern of one-size-fits-all, frequently imposed by ethical committees and guidelines, does not always consider specific characteristics of participants or groups of participants, such as those of hard-to-reach families, children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds or groups with low literacy and learning disabilities. The researcher is responsible for ensuring that participants fully understand the research process and its implications and that their decision to participate or to authorize the participation of their children is respected regardless of the format. If participants feel uncomfortable with written consent, alternative forms should be provided that are more appropriate to their characteristics, abilities and preferences.
Language comprehension
As some authors suggest, comprehending what the research process will imply can be difficult for a child (or an adult), even with adequate provision of information (Sime, 2008). Given the characteristics of our samples – children and low-literate adults – and the sensitive nature of the topics under research, we tried to use plain language that was accessible to the participants without compromising the integrity of information and simultaneously avoided terminology with negative connotations. However, this process of clarification was a very challenging task, which is consistent with the findings of previous studies (Dresden and Levitt, 2001). In fact, although researchers carefully confirmed consent/assent previously obtained by the caseworkers and teachers and provided all the necessary information about research procedures, research outputs, and dissemination, a significant portion of the participants was still struggling to comprehend research objectives, its repercussions and the importance of getting involved in the process.
In this regard, some authors suggest that the comprehensibility of research should involve paying attention not only to the reading level of consent forms but also to the quality of interaction between researcher and participant during the consent process (Foe and Larson, 2016). Maintaining an ongoing process of consent with children and adults requires considering communication between researcher and participants as a critical part of the research process, which should be considered when planning the investigation. This approach implies that information provided about the research purpose, roles and responsibilities of the research team and participants, the assessment process and expected outcomes is carefully prepared and explained in a child-friendly and family-friendly manner prior to study enrolment. This information will provide the basis for negotiating children’s participation with clear, consistent working rules that respect their individuality and their autonomy (Bruzzese and Fisher, 2003; Harcourt and Sargeant, 2011).
Question format
Answering the questions on questionnaires and scales was a complex task for some children and young people, which revealed, also at this stage of the research, the critical nature of meaning as a requirement for the validity of results and as an ethical issue. According to our experience, a major challenge was ensuring a complete and consistent understanding of question content and format, as well as of answer format – especially response scales or options (e.g. Likert-type scales) in which respondents, either parents or children, had to consider alternative answers. Despite the use of validated instruments and the attention given to the language employed to communicate with participants, assistance from researchers was often required, particularly in the child poverty study. This experience highlights the importance of previously validating scales and questionnaires specifically with the target population of research and the need to invest time in pilot studies, including them in research planning. Communication between researchers and participants is absolutely crucial.
Children and young people’s participation and involvement in research
Participation of children and young people in research is a process that is dependent on the design of the research as well as on the material and contingent aspects that influence its development. In this sense, designing child participation purposefully involves not only thinking ahead but continuously negotiating a wide range of issues at different levels: formal and bureaucratic, power and symbolic, planning and material. Next, some examples emerging from our research will be briefly discussed.
Hierarchical authorisations
Conducting research with children and young people on sensitive topics usually requires the cooperation of several gatekeepers at multiple levels (Cree et al., 2002; Sime, 2008). Procedures for obtaining authorisations may introduce a source of complexity and potential bias, restricting researchers’ access to their target group and thereby limiting the participation of children and young people in research. In our investigation, the access to the target groups previously selected depended on a process of successive approvals of different natures, most of them bureaucratic, with rationales that were different from the scientific rationale of our work. In the case of the delinquency study, this process sequentially involved the National Agency for Data Protection, the Ministry of Education, the University Research Ethics Committee, School Councils, principals, parents and young people. In the child poverty study, formal authorisations and informed consents were obtained from the Social Welfare Department, the University Research Ethics Committee, NGO’s caseworkers, parents and children. As such, sometimes obstacles arose from these institutional barriers (Noland, 2012), resulting in serious challenges. Addressing them involved a substantial investment of time and effort to keep up with the planning of the studies and to collect the samples while maintaining the selection criteria. Among the difficulties encountered were the delayed response of some entities (up to 6 months for a few of them), the plethora of requested documents for various institutions (many of which duplicated) and the unavailability of the institutions where the data would be collected, although legal and ethical compliance of the studies had been guaranteed by responsible entities. In addition, we found conflicting assessments on the acceptability of the sampling strategy by these institutions. This issue was encountered in the study of juvenile delinquency: although an opt-out approach seemed to be a more convenient technique of participants’ enrolment, its potential disadvantages, especially for individuals not wishing to participate in sensitive research, led our University Research Ethics Committee to reject that strategy. Even if research suggests that active parental consent is not exempt from bias (Jelsma et al., 2012) and despite having been previously authorized by the Ministry of Education, this choice seriously challenged the sampling process.
Research settings and tasks
Some characteristics of research settings may affect children and young people’s participation and involvement. This issue is particularly relevant when doing research on sensitive topics (Alderson and Morrow, 2011; Graham et al., 2013, 2015). Variables such as the presence and behaviour of researchers during the experiment or research activities and task implementation conditions are significant and differently associated with contexts such as home, school or other community organizations. In this context, privacy and confidentiality issues are paramount as they influence participants’ willingness to engage meaningfully in research activities, their answers to questions and thus the validity of results.
In our studies, guaranteeing an appropriate setting for assessment, considering both research designs and objectives and the comfort of participants, was an ever-present concern. However, it was not always possible to guarantee a quiet, private and undisturbed setting. For example, in the delinquency study, some students made loud remarks about the questionnaire, asked for researchers’ assistance and sometimes commented on what other students responded. Trying to reconcile the management of students’ behaviour in the context of collective administration of the questionnaire, supporting their requests and preserving their privacy, especially regarding the most sensitive issues, were challenging for researchers. The fact that students can perceive group setting and online administration of questionnaires as less private and anonymous cannot be overlooked (Bates and Cox, 2008). In the case of the child poverty study, data collection was carried out in NGO’s facilities. In fact, these sites were chosen because they were well-known and accessible locations for families and children. However, it is undeniable that the characteristics of these organizations – limited space, noisy ambience and many people moving around – did not always favour the privacy that would be needed for our research. In addition, two other factors may have affected the participation of children in research. As participants were previously informed, the research agreement signed by our team with the National Social Welfare Department included sharing the results of the study. Although these results were not individualized but were aggregated data, we do not ignore that this information may have caused some concerns about the confidentiality of information provided, especially for parents. According to the research protocol, participants needed to attend two assessment sessions, preferably in a 2-week span. Nevertheless, scheduling the second session proved particularly difficult in some cases, which led to some attrition. In fact, when working on sensitive topics, problems such as withdrawal and dropout often arise and affect data validity and research ethics.
Most of the issues that emerged in our studies have been discussed in the literature. From our perspective, they reflect the challenges of children building meaning around their experience in research and of enhancing their participation as active subjects of science. We believe that the construct of engagement provides an integrated theoretical perspective that allows us to not only explain child/young people’s involvement in research considering both dimensions but also promote it. Given its demonstrated evidence, it can be a useful analytical tool for generating theoretically grounded and congruent solutions to emergent problems.
The perspective of engagement in research with children and young people
Being engaged means to be deeply, sustainably and meaningfully involved in an activity outside of the self (Fredricks et al., 2004; Pancer et al., 2002; Ramey et al., 2015). It is the translation of motivation into effective action, involving cognitive, affective and behavioural activation (Lawson and Lawson, 2013; Skinner and Pitzer, 2012; Wigfield et al., 2015). Thus, motivation, a private and subjective experience, is the source of engagement, which for its part is an objectively observed phenomenon (Reeve, 2012). The multifaceted nature of engagement comprises several components of a person’s active involvement: (1) cognitive engagement is characterized by the use of sophisticated strategies such as reflection, elaboration, planning, conceptual understanding, investment, self-regulation and volition; (2) emotional engagement is characterized by the presence of task-facilitating emotions such as interest, enthusiasm, curiosity, identification, belonging and the absence of task-withdrawing emotions such as distress and frustration; and (3) behavioural engagement is characterized by task persistence, activity involvement, positive conduct and adherence to norms, as well as the absence of disruptive behaviour (Fredricks et al., 2004; Rose-Krasnor, 2009; Skinner and Pitzer, 2012). Therefore, engagement connects cognitive, emotional and behavioural aspects in a meaningful way, enriching the explanation of individual’s sustainable involvement in an activity. Those elements are expected to qualitatively assume various degrees and dynamically interrelate within individuals.
Engagement depends on individual and contextual factors. At the individual level, it is associated with the satisfaction of psychological needs: relatedness (belonging, inclusion), autonomy (acting for personal reasons, having control) and competence (beliefs about efficacy and capacity; Connell et al., 1995; Connell and Wellborn, 1991; Fredricks et al., 2004). Furthermore, several studies show that children’s control, goal-orientation and self-efficacy-related beliefs predict their performance, persistence and engagement. In addition, the anticipated cost of activity involvement related to expected emotional experiences and loss of time and energy is important, for example, because higher anxiety levels may hinder task performance or higher expected emotional costs may result in early dropout (Miller et al., 1996; Patrick et al., 1993; Skinner et al., 1990; Wigfield et al., 2015). Engagement is also highly influenced by context. Structured environments with consistent goals and clear rules, where quality activities are promoted and socially supported, foster autonomy and thus engagement (Connell and Wellborn, 1991; Fredricks et al., 2004; Lam et al., 2012; Ramey et al., 2015). Engagement is enhanced if tasks/activities provide ownership, are novel, challenging and collaborative. In addition, activities should be congruent with participants’ cultural identity and relevant considering their social background, prior knowledge and the experience of each person; in this way, meaningful involvement is maximized (Lawson and Lawson, 2013). Beyond dispositional differences and biological attributes, social contexts may work as catalysts of motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). When psychological needs of relatedness (connected to others), competence (effective in interactions) and autonomy (self-determined) are met by social contexts and activities, engagement is fostered; when it is thwarted, individuals disengage and withdraw.
Participants’ engagement in research may lead to improvements in the quality of data and validity of results. It improves enrolment rates and individual’s empowerment throughout all research phases – preparation, execution, and communication – even with populations considered difficult to reach (Domecq et al., 2014; Supple et al., 2015). Specifically, children’s involvement in research leads to better research outcomes because their experiences and perspectives, otherwise overlooked by adults, may be effectively considered in all stages of the process. In addition to exercising their right to participate, children may benefit from their involvement in research by being empowered and developing new skills and knowledge (Graham et al., 2013; Graham et al., 2015; Harcourt and Sargeant, 2011).
Based on what has been discussed, one can argue that this theoretical approach builds strong arguments to support the idea that research planning on sensitive topics with children and young people should consider the cognitive, emotional and behavioural processes underlying engagement and the contextual factors that maximize their involvement. As engagement implies being meaningfully involved, it meets the needs previously identified of ensuring the participant’s understanding of the research process and improving the quality of their participation. As such, it is beneficial for both researchers and young participants by serving their mutual interests.
Implications for practice
Consistent with this formulation, we propose an approach to research with children and young people on sensitive topics that promotes participants’ engagement in research, combining specific strategies of involvement at both the process and structural levels, namely, at the level of interpersonal relationships and communication, as well as at the level of the research setting, activities and tasks.
Research projects are conducted in the context of multiple relationships (Graham et al., 2015). Especially important for children and young people are those around them, whether parents or other family members, researchers, caregivers, teachers or gatekeepers. In fact, throughout the two studies and in the challenges encountered – related to informed consents, authorisations, the understanding of tasks or even the research settings – the communication between researchers and the various parties involved, namely, the children and young people, was an absolutely critical dimension. Supportive and trustful relationships lead children to feel comfortable in a research setting, to express their opinions and to share personal information. Accordingly, cultivating a rapport by conveying warmth and genuine respect and enhancing participants’ control upholds meaning construction and involvement. A safe environment with trusting relationships improves the sense of relatedness and connection (Becker et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2014). Communication provides the basis for negotiating children’s participation with clear and consistent working rules that respect their individuality, autonomy and agency (Bruzzese and Fisher, 2003; Harcourt and Sargeant, 2011), encouraging participants to ask questions and give opinions. The identification of needs, strengths and values also helps participants develop personal objectives related to the research, which may prove to be highly engaging.
Research settings, characteristics and resources influence research outcomes, as they impact both researchers and participants and thereby data quality and validity. Research settings ought to be safe, warm and supportive, as well as accessible to participants, regardless of their characteristics. The choice of research methods should consider children’s characteristics, namely, their age, developmental stage, cultural background, experiences and preferences, as well as the research environment and physical setting, going beyond the aims of the investigation (Punch, 2002). Promoting children’s engagement in research requires additional effort and innovation from researchers who have to consider cognitive, emotional and behavioural demands of activities and tasks, designing them to promote children’s sense of ability, control and relevance (Bartko, 2005; Fredricks, 2011). Tasks should be interesting, challenging and connected to the real world. By being congruent to children’s interests and cultural background, with clear goals and simple and concise instructions, research tasks provide opportunities for self-expression and choice-making, strengthening children’s sense of autonomy (Johnson et al., 2014). Finally, the sequence of activities should be planned to ensure the appropriate duration of data collection sessions and smooth transitions between tasks with a clear end point while avoiding overloading the child (Harcourt and Sargeant, 2011).
Future research
The above discussion suggests several directions for further research-based strategies anchored on the engagement perspective. Specifically, it is worth investigating the association between the quality of children and young people’s participation in research and (1) the degree of satisfaction of their psychological needs; (2) the perceived costs-benefits associated with participation; (3) perceived ownership, challenge and novelty of research activities; (4) the degree of congruence between research activities and participants’ cultural identity and the perceived relevance of those activities; and (5) how these variables relate to the meaning attributed to research participation and to data quality. This research can provide empirical data to further the discussion of the engagement approach in research with children/young people and to prove its value particularly in the case of sensitive topics.
Conclusion
In this article, we intended to contribute to the theoretical formulation of children and young people’s involvement in research on sensitive topics, building on our experience in conducting research on child poverty and juvenile delinquency, with various age groups, in various settings, and with diverse methodologies. We sought to add to the literature on this domain by sharing our perspectives on the main dilemmas we met during the research process. By doing so, it was our purpose to further reflexivity as a means of enhancing the understanding of this type of research and its quality.
From our perspective, informed and meaningful participation is a critical aspect of sensitive research with children and young people. As such, engagement is a construct that may offer a useful contribution to the processes underlying children’s involvement in research. We proposed it as a conceptual instrument for planning and designing sensitive research to improve the quality of children’s participation at various points of the research process. In addition, it enables a better understanding of some challenges of research with children and young people and how to re-examine and address them. For these reasons, we firmly believe that the theoretical congruence and empirical utility of this approach make it a positive contribution to sensitive research with children and young people, as it enriches the debate and leads to innovative problem framings.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study had the financial support of CIEC (Research Centre on Child Studies), by the Strategic Project UID/CED/00317/2013, through the National Funds through the FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology) and co-financed by European Regional Development Funds (FEDER) through the Competitiveness and Internationalization Operational Program (POCI) with the reference POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007562.
