Young people as partners in research: experiences from an interactive research circle with adolescent girls

Abstract

This article presents an interactive research methodology for young people’s participation in research. A model of the research circle, based on the Scandinavian study-circle tradition with democratic ideals, was created and is described. The empirical example is from Sweden. Academic researchers invited young people to be research partners in a research circle. The asymmetrical relationship between the researchers and the young research partners made asymmetric responsibility and respect into central parts of the methodology. The interactive process in the research circle concerns research fundamentals: developing methodological knowledge, designing a study, how to formulate the research questions from the viewpoint of young people, how to analyze from a generational insider perspective, and how to handle institutionalized and asymmetric power relations in social knowledge formation.

Keywords

Action research children children’s rights interactive research methodology participation Sweden young people

The aim of this article is to present an interactive research methodology that increases youth participation in research. Processes whereby young people become research partners are described in relation to a research-circle model. The model will be illustrated by an empirical example from the Swedish study Young people’s voices on participation in school. The results of that study, conducted by youth and researchers in the research circle, are presented in a separate publication (Åkerström et al., 2010).

In this article a distinction is made between researchers and research partners. ‘Researcher’ is used when referring to the two academic researchers in the research circle. One of the researchers had the role of ‘circle leader’ and the other of ‘research leader’. The difference between circle leader and research leader will be explained below. ‘Research partners’ refers to the adolescents who participated in and influenced the research process.

The methodology presented in this article is described as interactive research, which is currently an object of growing interest in the Nordic countries. Compared to traditional research and early forms of action research, interactive research stresses close cooperation between researchers and research participants throughout the entire research process (Svensson, 2002).

The interactive research approach focuses less on the researcher’s role in, and responsibility for, the development work, but more on the joint learning process with the participants and the theoretical outcome of this joint learning. (Svensson et al., 2007: 234)

Collaboration in interactive research is based on researchers and participants having different roles, abilities, and expertise, as well as the acknowledgement that they at least partly belong to different systems (Svensson et al., 2007).

Research circles offer an arena for interactive research. The research circle is based on the Scandinavian study-circle tradition and its democratic ideals (Holmstand and Härnsten, 2003; Lundberg and Starrin, 1990). Study circles are described as learning arenas that emphasize equality and respect (Brattset, 1982). Members of a study circle join to seek new knowledge about a commonly agreed topic. There is no teacher in the study circle: however, one member usually acts as a facilitator to promote learning and ensure that everyone has an opportunity to take part. Turn-taking and speaking time are not as regulated in study circles as in talking circles, but nevertheless everyone is expected to contribute by sharing their perspectives. The purpose of research circles reaches beyond the sharing of experiences and expects new knowledge to be formed through the combination of diverse knowledges in an equal setting. Different perspectives are acknowledged, and consensus is not a goal. Just one single study of research circles with young people was found (see Sundberg et al., 2006: 8), despite young people having unique experiences and perspectives that deserve closer attention.

The development of research methods and methodologies that account for a variety of standpoints is important to gain richer understandings of society (Mayall, 2002; Speak up, 2011). Earmarking specific methods as only to be used with young people might serve to exaggerate both the differences between children and adults (Punch, 2002), and the similarities between different groups of children. In terms of power, however, adult–child relations are vertical, and this calls for a sensitive methodology when young people are involved in research (Morrow, 1999).

Children as social agents

Within contemporary understandings of childhood studies, young people are viewed as social beings, capable of contributing to meaning creation within social, cultural, and historical frames (Prout, 2011). This view is informed by the work of, for example, Allison James et al. (1998), as well as of Jens Qvortrup et al. (1994) and William Corsaro (1997). Common to these researchers is their understanding of childhood as a social category that can never ‘be entirely separated from other variables such as class, gender, or ethnicity’ (Prout and James, 1997: 3). It is emphasized that children are competent social agents who contribute to societal processes. Theoretical elaborations of children’s agency describe it as emerging from a matrix of more fundamental relationships of dependency, rather than being an individual possession (see, for example, Gallacher and Gallagher, 2008; Lee, 1998; Prout, 2011).

Behind every actor […] lies a complex, more or less held together network of people and things. (Prout, 2011: 10)

Inspired by feminist standpoint theory, Mayall (2002) understands young people as the ‘valuable other’ since they are in a position to inform researchers about ‘gaps and misfits between their experiences and their positioning in the social order, taken for granted by adults’ (Mayall, 2002: 3). Child standpoint theory calls upon childhood studies to work across generations and listen carefully to those currently inhabiting childhood (Alanen and Mayall, 2001; Mayall, 2002). The status of young people as human rights bearers is confirmed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (United Nations, 1989). Four of the articles in the UNCRC serve to underpin the idea that young people have the right to be the subjects of thorough research (Beazley et al., 2009). The right to be properly researched reflects and combines the following UNCRC rights:

The right to provide opinions (article 12); the right to freedom of expression using a medium of children’s choice (article 13); the right to protection from forms of exploitation not addressed in other articles (article 36); and the highest possible standard being used in work with children (article 3: 3). (Beazley et al., 2009: 370)

When vulnerable groups, such as young people, are included in research, a methodology is needed that balances their rights to protection and provision of care or services with their right to participation (Alderson and Morrow, 2004).

Typologies of participation

Various typologies have been suggested to describe young people’s participation in projects together with adults. The most famous is probably Roger Hart’s (1992) ‘ladder of participation’. Hart borrows the ladder metaphor from Arnstein’s (1969) model of citizen participation, and these two frameworks have been the inspiration for a number of models created to describe and evaluate young people’s participation (see, for example, Rocha, 1997; Treseder, 1997; Westhorp, 1987). An alternative to Hart’s model is the ‘rights-based participatory model’ introduced by Harry Shier (2001). Shier’s model distinguishes five levels of young people’s degree of interaction with adults. Their degree of commitment to the process at each level is determined by ‘openings’, ‘opportunities’, and ‘obligations’. An ‘opening’ occurs when an adult makes a commitment to involve young people. The level of interaction will be conditioned by the nature and number of ‘opportunities’. Intra- and inter-institutional ‘obligations’ (i.e. policies and practices) will regulate the level of interaction possible within the system (Shier, 2001). By placing participation in a context, Shier’s model offers a valuable alternative to the ladder model, since it enables analysis of institutionalized barriers to participation of young research partners. It is also consistent with the idea that research partners can develop knowledge about research methods and analysis.

Interactions between researchers and research partners in the research process are related to fundamental traits described in Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) social development theory. Vygotsky combined theories of cognitive development with social interaction by introducing the idea of a ‘zone of proximal development’. This is the space where social learning processes can precede the development and maturation of cognitive processes. It describes skills that are not yet mastered by the child, but that the child has the potential to achieve in interaction with someone more advanced.

Another important concept in the theory of social development is the ‘More Knowledgeable Other’ (MKO). The more distant a task is in the ‘zone of proximal development’, the more support is needed from the MKO. The term ‘scaffolding’ is used to describe the process by which the MKO changes the level of support as the child appropriates more skills to master the task. The social development theory describes a reciprocal process in which the identity of the MKO is task-specific (Vygotsky, 1978). Empirical observations have shown that young people can also serve as MKOs and challenge adults to understand the world from their perspectives (Arnér, 2006).

Power and asymmetric responsibility

An approach that has been proposed to facilitate young people’s participation in intergenerational activities uses the idea of ‘asymmetric relationships’ built upon reciprocity and respect. By asymmetric relationship is meant that the adult has greater responsibility for the young people’s welfare than they do themselves. Before young people are exposed to decision-making, adults are responsible for initiating processes that enable them to be heard and to develop skills (Trondman, 2003). This approach is especially important when one person is subordinated to a more powerful person, as children are to adults in an institutionalized way (Gallacher and Gallagher, 2008; Jones, 2008; Mayall, 2000). In such circumstances, the participatory processes must begin by improving awareness and the ability to express opinions before the person who is subordinated can be expected to take part in the decision-making (Lukes, 2005).

Interactive research processes with youth: a case illustration

Two academic researchers initiated the research circle and invited young people to undertake research about young people’s everyday experiences of participation in school activities. Secondary and upper-secondary students in both mainstream schools and special schools for the hard of hearing were informed about the research circle. The schools were selected to represent students with various ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. A range of strategies were used to get in contact with potential research partners. At one school the research circle was published as an optional subject in the course directory One research partner was recruited in this way. One research partner was recruited by a friend and one by the the school social worker. Six research partners were enrolled after one of the researchers had visited their school and personally informed them about the research circle. Attempts to reach students via teachers, school canteen staff, and peers enrolled in school councils did not result in any recruitments.

Students were invited to attend a ‘try out’ meeting of the research circle held at the University. Participants were introduced to the broad focus of the research circle and informed that if they became research partners they would be involved in specifying the research topic and the research process.

The publication Research Circles for Dummies (Raninen et al., 2006) was used as an introduction to the working process of research circles. This manual was written by young people while they were themselves participating in a research circle. The researchers illustrated the research process as a road with various research stages portrayed as pit stops with defined activities. The ‘goal’ (i.e. conclusion of the circle) was established as lying six months ahead, in conjunction with the end of spring term. The researcher presented a template with afternoon meetings every third week. The participants agreed to the template and suggested that receiving a cinema ticket for each session could be a suitable compensation for the research partners. It was emphasized that participation in the research circle was voluntary and that meetings would be held outside school hours. The different roles of researchers and research partners were described as being complementary and of equal importance. While the research partners had knowledge about young people’s perspectives, researchers had academic training and would mentor the research process. It was made clear that the research circle would be documented. All the students who attended the ‘try out’ meeting decided to join the research circle.

At the first meeting of the research circle the members jointly drafted and signed a contract of mutually agreed rules of behaviour (Appendix 1). The contract stipulated that participation in the research circle was voluntary and could be terminated at any time. Signatories agreed not to tell others what individual members said or did during meetings. The contract also included a clause affirming that all participants were allowed to change their minds about any issue during the course of the research circle.

Conceptualisation phase

In the initiation phase, researchers used focus groups with creative inputs as a method to facilitate an interactive methodology. In focus groups, the interviewer decides the focus of each session but has little control over the contents of the ensuing discussion. The goal is to explore individuals’ perceptions and experiences of a particular topic (Kitzinger, 1994). The creative elements used in focus groups alternate between individual and collective activities, and between writing and talking (Brunnberg, 2011). Creative methods initiated the joint conceptualization of the topic of the research circle. The topic was youth participation in school. Research partners wrote down keywords that described participation and non-participation in school on 5 x 5 cm yellow (participation) and pink (non-participation) memo notes. The circle leader collected the individually written memo notes and put them in two rows. In this way everyone could see the others’ keywords for the research topic. The author of each memo note then explained to the group what she had written. This method is called the PI-interview, and has been developed together with young people (Brunnberg, 2011). The memo notes served the dual purpose of: (a) clarifying an ambiguous topic by stating what it was and was not; and (b) illustrating the multiple dimensions of the research topic. Research partners also took photos with disposable cameras to portray the research topic. Between meetings, memo notes and photos were sorted and tentatively categorized by the researchers. The categorizations were presented as a suggestion, and research partners made some changes by proposing an additional category. They also named each category according to what dimension of the research topic it illustrated.

Data collection phase

Discussions about specific research questions that would guide the collection of empirical material in the research circle were initiated with a brainstorming session and continued over the course of two meetings. The research questions were based on the categories established in the conceptualization phase, and both research partners and researchers contributed suggestions. Potential research questions were posted on a web platform where the circle members could comment. The final research questions were agreed upon by the research partners. The researchers made some additions in order to nuance the research topic. In connection with this phase, the research partners visited a test run of training material about children’s rights. The material had been developed and was presented by two young people enrolled in a project at the Swedish Academy for the Rights of the Child. The circle leader informed research partners about ethical principles in the humanities and social sciences (Vetenskapsrådet [Swedish Research Council], 2002) and discussed pros and cons of various data collection methods (semi-structured and closed questionnaires and interviews). Also, the PI-interview, as practised in the research circle, was presented as a data collection method. Research partners chose to use questionnaires as the primary data collection method and semi-structured interviews as a complement. Together with the researchers, they created a ‘youth’ survey and an interview guide, and circle members used their informal networks to run pilots of these instruments. The research partners worked in pairs to collect data from students in various other schools. The circle leader was always present at data collection sites. In total, the research circle collected data from one hundred young people.

Data analysis

The analysis phase was initiated by a one-day workshop hosted by both researchers. The circle leader had prepared data by organizing it according to specific survey questions. She informed the research partners about the fundamental ideas of content analysis, after which the research leader and the research partners jointly analyzed one of the survey questions. During this joint analysis various interpretations were discussed in the entire group and research partners were encouraged to say if they disagreed with an interpretation made by the research leader or the other research partners. The analysis was inspired by the content analysis described by Graneheim and Lundman (2004), but its complexity was modified. The research partners worked in pairs to identify and name subcategories of answers to a survey question. At the next meeting, research partners rechecked their subcategories according to the raw data transcript and made some modifications. Thereafter the research partners wrote short summaries of the subcategories of the answers to each survey question. All summaries were compared with the original transcript by another pair of research partners acting as co-analysts. If research partners had different interpretations of an item of data, this was discussed by everyone. If no agreement was reached, both interpretations were accepted. The analysis phase continued over the course of four meetings in the research circle. The researchers served as educators and discussion partners (the difference between these roles will be further explained below) in the process of analysis, while research partners had interpretive precedence.

Early in the research process, research partners decided to disseminate results by writing a short report. The summaries that research partners wrote of their subcategories were used as a blueprint, and both researchers and research partners contributed to different sections of the report. The final editing was done by the researchers and reviewed by all circle members before printing. At the end of the research circle, the students wrote reflections on their experiences as research partners. Together with the researchers, the youth presented their reflections and the results of the research circle at schools, and national and European conferences. The various activities conducted in the research process in the research circle are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The research process in the research circle portrayed as a road with pit stops of defined research activities.

Research partners only girls

The invitation strategies attracted a heterogeneous group in terms of ethnicity, age, school forms, function, and socioeconomic backgrounds. But despite both female and male students being invited as research partners, only girls showed up at the ‘try out’ meeting. Nine girls volunteered as research partners. After two months, one of the girls dropped out due to her workload in school. Of the remaining girls, two were 15, one was 17, four were 18, and one was 19 years old. Two of the girls were enrolled in secondary schools and the other six attended upper-secondary schools. The girls came from three schools in different socioeconomic areas. One of them attended a special school for hard of hearing students. She used a hearing aid and communicated verbally at the meetings. Six of the girls were of Nordic origin and two were born in a country outside Europe. Both researchers were females with Nordic backgrounds.

In total, fifteen circle meetings took place. The circle leader hosted the meetings and the research leader participated in six meetings. The research partners’ attendance varied but on average there were six adolescents present during circle meetings. The research circle met at either a café or the university. Care was taken to choose meeting spaces that facilitated verbal communication for the research partner wearing a hearing aid.

Roles of ‘circle leader’ and ‘research leader’

The researchers were responsible for framing the research area, setting meeting agendas, and initiating activities in various phases of the research process in the research circle. The two researchers had the different roles of ‘circle leader’ and ‘research leader’. The circle leader chaired all circle meetings and was responsible for meeting agendas, administration, and propelling the circle through the various stages of the research process. She provided information about the ongoing research process, research ethics, and various methods for data collection. The circle leader and research leader jointly applied for the vetting of the ethics of the research circle at the Regional Ethical Review Board (Registration number at the Review Board: 2009/262), but the research leader was ultimately responsible for research ethics and quality. She also provided training for the research partners in content data analysis. Initially, only the circle leader was present during circle meetings. However, meeting eight individuals’ needs and enabling a both open and dynamic research process was a challenging task. Halfway through the research process, the research leader started to attend circle meetings with the combined role of observer and facilitator.

Interactive research with young people: critical reflections

Circle meetings were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to allow for analysis of interactions between researchers and research partners in the research circle. In this section a few quotations are used to support critical reflections made on the research process.

Research partners’ contributions

Research partners were repeatedly encouraged to voice their opinions and told that their insider perspectives were of the uttermost importance. Nevertheless, the circle leader used most of the speaking time during the initial meetings of the research circle. In the analysis phase, the researchers initially adopted the role of educators to provide the methodological tools for performing data analysis. As the research partners developed analysis skills of their own the researchers became discussion partners in the process of trying out various forms of interpretations. Research partners also educated the researchers when identifying generationally relevant research questions and finding important variances in the empirical material.

The interactive methodology allowed for an expansion and adaptation of the initial research topic. Research partners identified stakeholders that played a significant role in framing the research topic. They also challenged researchers’ understandings of the research topic. An illustrative example was when research partners wanted to explore the connection between duties and young people’s participation in school. The researchers, on the other hand, had made a connection between rights and young people’s participation in school.

Creative methods allow capacity building

Creative methods were good warm-up exercises for three reasons: (1) they helped research partners become critically aware of their everyday practices without requiring extensive verbal or writing skills; (2) they were based on research partners’ experiences and activities; and (3) they gave direct feedback about the need for further exploration of the research topic.

Various reasons for participating

A major concern for the researchers was to respect the research partners’ time and to make sure that they experienced some immediate benefits from taking part in the research circle. The research partners had diverse reasons for participating in the research circle. They valued gaining access to a greater social network and meeting like-minded people, as well as learning about children’s rights and how to conduct research. They also appreciated having their perspectives listened to in a research arena, which they perceived as having high status in the adult world. Research partners said that the research circle had allowed them to discover their own capacities to conduct research and that their participation in the dissemination phase had contributed to that feeling.

Use of different time scales in organizational strategies

One of the major challenges the research partners faced in their involvement in the research process arose due to their preferred use of the ‘present tense’ when organizing their lives. Compared to adults, young people have more limited possibilities to engage in future-oriented planning. The space in which young people enjoy their time relatively freely is structured by adults and, in that space, research partners frequently planned their day from a here-and-now perspective. This was a necessary strategy, since the research partners seldom knew far in advance if their teachers would plan for social extra-curricular activities, if they would have much homework, or if a test was coming up. Consequently, the research circle’s meeting agenda had to be flexible. At the same time, the research process was inflexible in terms of time delays, since young people’s lives change rapidly. Six of the research partners were graduating from upper secondary school and were unable to say whether they would be able to continue their participation after the planned termination of the research circle.

Structured administration versus dynamic interaction

It was difficult to account for the dynamics of interactive research within the context of ethical vetting procedures oriented towards traditional research methodologies. The research circle was vetted before its initiation and implementation. The ethical vetting procedure demanded a high level of structure and forward planning of what research questions and methods would be used in the research circle. As it turned out, the vetting done by the researchers was insufficient to permit some of the research partners’ suggestions for methods to collect empirical material. The alternatives were then either to submit a renewed application for vetting or to compromise the research partners’ interaction in the choice of data collection methods. When presented with these alternatives, the research partners prioritized completing the research circle on schedule.

Interactive methodology requires time for capacity development

The interactive research process was more time-consuming than expected. To finish on time the circle members agreed to change the meeting template and meet every second week. Although research partners preferred physical meetings, the web-based network enabled discussion anytime and anywhere, and provided an arena for those who were not as outspoken at physical meetings. It also allowed for quick feedback when strategic decisions needed to be taken at short notice. The reduction of social and visual cues in computer-mediated communication may make people feel more secure, which is important for people who are shy or experience other difficulties in face-to-face communication (Strizke et al., 2004). Computer-mediated communication offers young people more time to think about what they want to say and understand what other persons have said (Fukkink and Hermanns, 2009), but more training would have been required to make extensive use of the web-based network in the research circle. Efforts were also needed to challenge common preconceptions about the connections between knowledge and power. A clause in the contract of behaviour rules stating the right to change one’s opinion turned out to be important.

The contract that we signed at the initiation of the circle created a sense of safety to state your opinion and know that you had the right to change your mind. (Research partners’ presentation Child Rights Days, Sweden, 2010)

Knowledge can be used as a tool to justify vertical power structures between generations (Jones, 2008). This is likely to be highlighted in areas where adults are traditionally viewed as experts. When drafting the contract it was explained that if someone changed her view after having listened to another person’s arguments, she did not thereby lose power with respect to that person. The research partners appreciated that the idea of knowledge as being an individual project was challenged in this way.

More effort should have been devoted to informing research partners about various methods to collect empirical material. Innumerable surveys are conducted on Swedish students each year, and the research partners’ decision to use questionnaires as the primary method might have been based on familiarity rather than an informed decision about the pros and cons of various methods.

Discussion

The aim of this article has been to present a methodology that increases youth participation in research about young people’s everyday realities. This has been done by describing the interactive research process, as well as the implications of young people becoming research partners in a research circle. The research circle proved to be a promising arena for interactive research with young people as research partners. The ideological basis of Scandinavian study circles and the comprehensive understanding of knowledge that characterizes interactive research inspired the researchers to adopt an approach building on a logic of asymmetric responsibility based on reciprocity and respect. An important dimension of full participation is each participant having reason to believe that her presence will make a difference (Sinclair, 2004). Throughout the various phases of the research process the research partners had substantial influence on strategic decisions. The young people’s participation resulted in generation-relevant concepts and research questions. The research partners extended and adapted the research topic in unpredictable ways. They also interpreted data differently to researchers. Capacity building, increased social network, and being listened to in a high-status adult arena were identified by research partners as important personal outcomes of their participation in the research circle. Although the researchers used a variety of invitation strategies, no boys volunteered as research partners.

Some researchers have questioned the capacity of adult researchers to create equal relationships with young research subjects (see for example Gallacher and Gallagher, 2008; Jones, 2008). Young people are often not used to being treated as equals in adult-dominated areas. They tend to expect adults to have power over them (Punch, 2002), and it is important to contextualize their participation because structural conditions determine young people’s degree of commitment to a project such as a research circle (see Shier, 2001). Research is surrounded by institutional structures that presume certain kinds of activities. In this study, the research partners’ interaction in the research process and their perspective on time challenged the researchers’ expectations both in terms of participation and the administrative processes when planning research activities. In this study it became evident that adults’ control of time is present also in its physical absence, but there might be additional explanations for young people’s here-and-now planning strategies. Social media has made people available at any time and any place. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the importance of detailed forward planning decreases. The effects of new technology and social media on young people’s time perspective await further exploration. When young people become involved as research partners in a research circle, there is a heightened need for critical reflections about power relations, capacity development, and the process-oriented nature of social learning.

The research circle: a model of participation as process

Taken together, the experiences presented in this article call for a comprehensive model when evaluating young people’s participation in interactive research. The nature of the research partners’ participation in the research circle was process-oriented, related to their developing capacities, and to what skills were required in various phases of the project. The researchers were the driving force and took the initiative in the research circle, but both researchers and research partners served as MKOs for each other in the knowledge formation process taking place. In the research circle, research partners and researchers alike had the potential to extend themselves into their zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) when they were challenged by others’ knowledge. How successfully the researchers apply asymmetric responsibility and respect as part of the methodology, as well as provide appropriate training, serves as the outer limit for research partners’ potential to develop research skills. At the same time, the outer, yet dynamic, limit for the researchers’ possibility to gain insight into young people’s perspectives depends on the young research partners successfully voicing their interests and challenging intergenerational power structures. Factors at both the meso-and macro level further conditioned the nature of the young people’s participation in the research process in the research circle. Examples of such factors are human resources and conventions surrounding academic research, as well as norms informing the way the researchers enacted the research partners’ participation.

Well-known typologies of young people’s participation (Hart, 1992; Rocha, 1997; Shier, 2001; Treseder, 1997; Westhorp, 1987) describe participation as an outcome of young people’s commitment to social endeavours. While this is often very useful, the nature of young people’s participation in interactive research circles is dynamic. A narrow focus on participation as outcome can over- or underemphasize young people’s commitment and invite evaluations of projects based on an understanding of agency as a personal commodity. The model of an interactive research circle presented in this article is empirically based and illustrates a research process where participation was practised as a part of the methodology. Participation was an ongoing process in which the actions of young research partners not only affected the nature of the researchers’ responses but also framed their possible future actions. This also worked in the opposite direction, with researchers’ actions affecting both research partners’ responses and the range of actions made possible by those responses. The interactive methodology in research circles describes an unpredictable flow of actions in response to other actions, which themselves are responses, and so on. When young people’s participation is portrayed as a process it becomes a dynamic space deriving from structure, power, interrelatedness, and social processes. The model described in this article includes social learning processes, capacity building, dynamic roles, and institutional and vertical power relationships that condition the level of young people’s commitment in the research process. Though needing further elaboration, this may provide a useful starting point when analyzing processes in interactive research in line with recent developments within the social studies of childhood (see Gallacher and Gallagher, 2008; Lee, 1998; Prout, 2011).

Ethical considerations in interactive research

Young people’s social status makes research with young subjects potentially different from research with adults (Punch, 2002). Since inherent power imbalances put young people in a vulnerable position, ethics becomes a fundamental part of research methodology (Alderson and Morrow, 2004). This is true both when young people are involved as research partners and in studies where they are research subjects. Some key considerations when young people are involved in interactive research circles will now be discussed (see Morrow, 1999).

On account of the fact that young people might not grasp the full picture of the research process at the initial stages of a research project, informed consent was treated as an ongoing process in the research circle (see Alderson, 2004). The ‘try out’ meeting in the research circle aimed to give research partners a better opportunity to make informed decisions about what it would mean to be involved in the research circle. Research partners were continuously reminded that their participation was voluntary. No circle meeting was mandatory; however, research partners were instructed to inform the circle leader if they would be absent. Circle meetings took place at facilities easily accessible for all research partners, and refreshments were always served during meetings and workshops. The contract of behaviour rules included a clause about confidentiality in order to prevent information about individual circle members’ actions being told outside the circle. Research partners were accompanied by the circle leader during collection of empirical material and presentations. At the behest of some of the research partners, the circle leader also kept in contact with teachers to inform them if a research partner would miss a lesson due to activities in the research circle.

The research partners’ lack of academic training made it important to make the research process transparent and to include scaffolding and capacity building (Vygotsky, 1978) in the research methodology. In the research circle, the methods used in the analysis phase were adapted to facilitate the research partners’ interpretations of data. The researchers also took part in this phase, acting as both educators and discussion partners. A barrier that both young and adult research subjects face when interacting in research processes is their limited access to concepts and theories (Harden et al., 2000). The level of research partners’ interaction in the research circle was framed by researchers’ initiatives, planning, and interpretative capacities. The combination of everyday descriptions with scholarly analysis lies at the very heart of interactive research (Svensson and Nielsen, 2006). Nevertheless, researchers’ ability to analyze young people’s perspectives will be coloured by their adult views of the world (Kellett, 2005; Mayall, 1994). It is, for example, likely that the research partners’ participation became compromised when the circle leader presented a tentative categorization in the conceptualization phase of the research process.

Rights-based research ethics

The ethics of research with young people has been explored from a rights-based perspective (Alderson, 2004). Interactive research in research circles adopts democratic values in terms of ways of participation that are in accordance with the foundation laid in the UNCRC (see Beazley et al., 2009). The UNCRC states that children should be treated in ways that promote their rights to non-discrimination, life and development, and participation (Hammarberg, 2000). In terms of accessibility, the methodology in the research circle did not account for the full complexity of young people’s varied life circumstances (see also Nairn et al., 2007). Strategic actions were however taken to make the research process accessible for hard of hearing students. This group has not been widely acknowledged in research about participation in school (Bagga-Gupta, 2006; Brunnberg et al., 2009). Measures were taken to arrange circle meetings at places with good acoustics, to adopt a meeting discipline where the person talking was not interrupted, and to ensure that conference facilities were supplied with Wireless Loop Systems. Communication between meetings was done via email, mobile text messages, and phone calls to ensure that everyone received the latest information. The interactive methodology initiated processes of capacity building and social learning. This can be related to the right to development. The adoption of scaffolding as a research methodology enabled a dynamic research process. It also allowed the research partners’ agency to emerge in interaction (Lee, 1998). In the research circle both traditional and innovative methods were used to facilitate the participation of the research partners. Creative methods are used to make it easier for both young people and adults to express their perceptions.

Many of the techniques considered to be ‘child-friendly’ have been adapted from PRA [Participatory Rural Appraisal] methods originally used with adults. They are ‘research participant-centred’ rather than ‘child-centred’. (Punch, 2002: 337, words in square brackets added)

It is fundamental to an ethical approach towards young people that their best interest be taken into primary consideration (UNCRC: Article 3). All research that involves young people as research partners should take care to ensure that participation serves the interests of the individual child or adolescent. This article has described how young people’s reasons for taking part in research might differ from what adults interpret as being in their best interest.

Implications

Evaluations of young people’s participation in interactive research processes must view participation as both an outcome and a process. A model has been presented to account for interactive research processes where participation is a part of the methodology. Accounting for social learning processes and capacity building, the model promotes an understanding of young people’s participation in research as relying on more fundamental social relationships of dependency. A methodology built on asymmetric relationships has the potential to build respectful inter- and intra-generational relationships that facilitate young people’s participation in interactive research processes.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Funding

This research received funding from Örebro University and Mälardalen University.

Author biographies

Jeanette Åkerström is a PhD-student in social work at Örebro University, Sweden. Her research focuses on children’s rights and young people’s participation.

Elinor Brunnberg is Professor in social work at Mälardalen University, Sweden and leader of the research group ICU CHILD. She is often working with children in vulnerable situations or with children having special needs like deaf, hard-of-hearing or children with intellectual disabilities. Children’s rights and child participation is central in her research.

References

Åkerström

Bdaoui

Boson

. (2010) Young People’s Voices on Participation in School. Örebro: Örebro University and Mälardalen University.

Alanen

Mayall

(2001) Conceptualizing Child-Adult Relations. London: Routledge Falmer.

Alderson

(2004) Ethics. In: Fraser

Lewis

Ding

. (eds) Doing Research with Children and Young People. London: Sage, The Open University, 97–112.

Alderson

Morrow

(2004) Ethics, Social Research and Consulting with Children and Young People. Essex: Barnardo’s.

Arnér

(2006) Barns inflytande i förskolan – problem eller möjlighet för de vuxna? En studie av ett utvecklingsarbete och dess betydelse för att förändra pedagogers förhållningssätt till barns initiativ [Children’s Influence in Pre-schools – Problems or Opportunities for the Adults? A Study of a Development Project and its Importance in Changing Educationalists’ Attitude to Children’s Initiative]. Örebro: School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University.

Arnstein

(1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35: 216–224.

Author

and others (2010) Details withheld for peer review.

Bagga-Gupta

(2006) Att förstå delaktighet: Utifrån forskning som fokuserar deltagande och interaktion [Understanding Participation: Based on Research Focusing on Participation and Interaction]. Örebro: Department of Education, Örebro University.

Beazley

Bessell

Ennew

. (2009) Editorial: the right to be properly researched: research with children in a messy, real world. Children’s Geographies 7: 365–378.

10.

Brattset

(1982) What Are the Characteristics of the Study Circle? (English summary). Trondheim: Norwegian Institute of Adult Education.

11.

Brunnberg

(2011) Focus Groups with Creative Elements, PI – Interviews. Eskilstuna: Department of Health, Care and Social Work, Mälardalen University.

12.

Brunnberg

Lindén Boström

Persson

(2009) Att höra eller nästan inte höra. Liv & hälsa ung i Örebro län 2005 och 2007 [To Hear or Almost not to Hear. Life & Health Young People in Örebro County in 2005 and 2007]. Örebro: Samhällsmedicinska enheten, Örebro Läns Landsting/ICU, Örebro Universitet.

13.

Corsaro

(1997) The Sociology of Childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Fukkink

Hermanns

(2009) Counseling children at a helpline: chatting or calling? Journal of Community Psychology 37: 939–948.

15.

Gallacher

L-A

Gallagher

(2008) Methodological immaturity in childhood research?: thinking through ‘participatory methods’. Childhood 15: 499–516.

16.

Graneheim

Lundman

(2004) Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today 24: 105–112.

17.

Hammarberg

(2000) Konventionen om barnets rättigheter [The Convention on the Rights of the Child]. Stockholm: Norstedts Tryckeri AB (UD info).

18.

Harden

Scott

Backett-Milburn

. (2000) Can’t talk, won’t talk?: methodological issues in researching children. Sociological Research Online 5. Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/5/2/harden.html

19.

Hart

(1992) Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. Innocenti Essays No. 4. Florence: UNICEF, Innocenti Research Centre.

20.

Holmstand

Härnsten

(2003) Förutsättningar för forskningscirklar i skolan. En kritisk granskning [Conditions for Research Circles in Schools. A Critical Review]. Stockholm: School Development Agency.

21.

James

Jenks

Prout

(1998) Theorizing Childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.

22.

Jones

(2008) ‘True Geography [ ] Quickly Forgotten, Giving Away to an Adult-imagined Universe’. Approaching the otherness of childhood. Children’s Geographies 6: 195–212.

23.

Kellett

(2005) Children as Active Researchers: A New Research Paradigm for the 21st Century? Available at : www.ncrm.ac.uk/publications (accessed 10 March 2011).

24.

Kitzinger

(1994) The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness 16: 103–121.

25.

Lee

(1998) Towards an immature sociology. Sociological Review 46: 458–481.

26.

Lukes

(2005) Power: A Radical View. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

27.

Lundberg

Starrin

(1990) ‘Att gå framåt i cirkel’ – Om forskningscirklar och förändringsarbete [‘To Move Forward in Circles’ – About Research Circles and Work of Change]. Stockholm, Arbetslivscentrum [Centre for Worklife].

28.

Mayall

(1994) Children’s Childhoods: Observed and Experienced. London: Falmer Press.

29.

Mayall

(2000) Conversations with children: working with generational issues. In: Christensen

James

(eds) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices. London: Routledge, 203–215.

30.

Mayall

(2002) Towards a Sociology for Childhood: Thinking from Children’s Lives. Buckingham: Open University Press.

31.

Morrow

(1999) ‘It’s Cool… “Cos You Can’t Give us Detentions and Things, Can You?!” Reflections on researching children’. In: Milner

Carolin

(eds) Time to Listen to Children. London: Routledge, 203–215.

32.

Nairn

Higgins

Sligo

(2007) Youth researching youth: ‘Trading On’ subcultural capital in peer research methodologies. Teachers College Record, 14515. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=14515

33.

Prout

(2011) Taking a step away from modernity: reconsidering the new sociology of childhood. Global Studies of Childhood 1: 4–14.

34.

Prout

James

(1997) Introduction: In: James

Prout

(eds) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood. 2nd ed. London: Falmer Press, 1–7.

35.

Punch

(2002) Research with children: the same or different from research with adults? Childhood 9: 321–341.

36.

Qvortrup

Brady

Sgritta

. (1994) Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics. Aldershot: Avebury.

37.

Raninen

Edström

Olsson

(2006) Forskningscirklar for Dummies [Research circles for dummies]. In: Sundberg

Forsberg

Lundberg

(eds) Projektet ‘Må Bra i Skolan’ – Elever och personal i Karlstad-Hammarö gymnasieskola forskar omkring den egna vardagen [The ‘Feel Good in School’ Project – Students and Staff at Karlstad-Hammarö Upper Secondary School Research into Their Own Everyday Activities]. Karlstad: Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Karlstad University, 53–58.

38.

Rocha

(1997) A ladder of empowerment. Journal of Planning Education and Research 17: 31–44.

39.

Shier

(2001) A new model for enhancing children’s participation in decision-making, in line with Article 12.1 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Children & Society 15: 107–117.

40.

Sinclair

(2004) Participation in practice: making it meaningful, effective and sustainable. Children & Society 18: 106–118.

41.

Speak up (2011) Tool Kit for Consultations with Children on Children’s Rights: ‘Less is More’. Speak Up! Giving a Voice to Europe’s Most Vulnerable Children. Bryssel: Eurochild. Available at: www.eurochild.org

42.

Strizke

WGK

Nguyen

Durkin

(2004) Shyness and computer-mediated communication: a self-presentational theory perspective. Media Psychology 6: 1–22.

43.

Sundberg

Forsberg

Lundberg

(2006) ‘Projektet “Må Bra i Skolan” – Elever och personal i Karlstad-Hammarö gymnasieskola forskar omkring den egna vardagen’ [The ‘Feel Good in School’ Project – Students and Staff at Karlstad-Hammarö Upper Secondary School Research into Their Own Everyday Activities]. Karlstad: Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Karlstad University, 8.

44.

Svensson

(2002) Bakgrund och utgångspunkter [Backgrounds and starting points]. In: Svensson

Brulin

Ellström

P-E

. (eds) Interaktiv forskning – för utveckling av teori och praktik [Interactive Research – For Development of Theory and Practise]. Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstitutet, Work Life in Transition No 7, 1–22.

45.

Svensson

Nielsen

(2006) Introduction and background. In: Svensson

Nielsen

(eds) Action Research and Interactive Research: Beyond Practice and Theory. Maastricht: Shaker Publishing, 1–12.

46.

Svensson

Ellström

Brulin

(2007) Introduction – on interactive research. International Journal of Action Research 3: 233–246.

47.

Treseder

(1997) Empowering Children and Young People, Training Manual. London: Save the Children Fund.

48.

Trondman

(2003) Kloka möten: Om den praktiska konsten att bemöta barn och ungdomar [The Sensible Meeting: About the Practical Art of Receiving Children and Young People]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

49.

United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b38f0.html [accessed 4 July 2012]

50.

Vetenskapsrådet [Swedish Research Council] (2002) Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning [Principles of research ethics in the humanities and social sciences]. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. Available at http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/HSFR.pdf

51.

Vygotsky

(1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

52.

Westhorp

(1987) Planning for Youth Participation: A Resource Kit. Adelaide, SA, Australia: Youth Sector Training Council of South Australia.