Researching with children in Vietnam: cultural,methodological and ethical considerations

Abstract

The involvement of children in research has gathered significant momentum following the almost universal ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the emergence of new theoretical interests that challenge conceptions of children as irrational, incompetent, vulnerable and unable to know and articulate what is in their own best interests. However, seeking the views of children and responding to what they have to say are heavily circumscribed by social and cultural norms and values that must be known and respected in order to ensure that the research is ethically and methodologically sound. This article reports on the experiences of a team of researchers undertaking a project that sought the views and perspectives of children in relation to learning and education in a rural province of Vietnam. It discusses the reflexive nature of such an endeavour that required a deep recognition of the influence of Confucian culture, particularly in relation to issues of who has authority to speak and on what matters, as well as detailed attention to children’s existing experience of being consulted.

Keywords

child-centred research education ethics learning Vietnam

Introduction

Involving children as participants in qualitative research requires close attention to a number of important methodological and ethical issues that cannot be underestimated or taken for granted (Kellett, 2005, 2010; Morrow and Richards, 1996). Of central concern is how best to navigate the inherent tensions between the participation of children and their protection within the research process, as well as identifying appropriate and respectful methods, attending to complex issues of interpretation, ‘voice’ and representation and, ultimately, ensuring the research has status within an increasingly regulated research assessment environment (Graham and Fitzgerald, 2010). Such issues are potentially amplified when researching with children in a cross-cultural context.

This article reflects critically on some of the issues encountered in a recent qualitative study involving children in rural Vietnam. The research investigated (a) Vietnamese children’s experiences of, and views on, learning and primary schooling in rural and remote communities (within the district of Na Ri, Bac Kan province); (b) how their views about learning and education might inform the development of quality, basic education provided in a safe and stimulating environment; and (c) the ethical and methodological issues involved in undertaking culturally appropriate research in Vietnam that incorporates children’s views and voices. The study involved in-depth interviews, utilising photo- and drawing-elicitation methods, with 46 children aged 9–10 years (upper primary age). Children were drawn from four different schools, and the interviews took place over two field visits.

The focus of this article is on the third of the research objectives signalled earlier, that is, a discussion of the ways in which ethical and methodological issues need to be reflected upon and, to some extent, recast in light of important social and cultural norms and values. In our discussion, we will consider the critical importance of a credible, experienced in-country research partner; culturally appropriate research training with a focus on capacity building; adapting the research design to take account of prevailing social and cultural norms and conditions (particularly in relation to power and authority in adult–child relations); the strengths and limitations of photo-elicitation interviewing used in a developing world context; how notions of consent, curiosity and confidentiality are understood and approached; and how the nuances in children’s responses can best be represented when their voices are mediated through the translators.

Involving children in research

The idea of involving children and young people as active participants in research reflects broader debates about the status we should afford them in social and political life (Davis and Hill, 2006; Fitzgerald and Graham, 2009; Moss et al., 2005). The movement towards legitimising children’s participation was given substantial impetus by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), especially through Articles 12 and 13, which assure children the right to express their views freely in matters affecting them. In positioning children’s participation as a basic human right, the Convention opened up the possibility of transforming children and young people from invisible objects of research into subjects with legitimate voices of their own (Christensen and James, 2000; Neale and Flowerdew, 2007; Smart et al., 2001). More recently, however, researchers are critically examining how these rights can be translated into practical ethics in different contexts (Bell, 2008; Robson et al., 2009; Shier, 2010) and whether giving ‘voice’ to children can be unproblematically appropriated as an indication of affording them their participation rights (Lundy, 2007).

Underlying this movement is a shift in mindset from traditional understandings of children as irrational, incompetent, vulnerable and unable to know their own best interests (James and Prout, 1997) to children as ‘beings and becomings’ (Neale and Flowerdew, 2007: 26) and as having ‘evolving capacities’ (UNCRC Article 5), signalling an important balance between protecting children while respecting and fostering their agency through opportunities for participation:

The concept of evolving capacities is central to the balance embodied in the Convention between recognising children as active agents in their own lives, entitled to be listened to, respected and granted increasing autonomy in the exercise of rights, while also being entitled to protection in accordance with their relative immaturity and youth. It provides the framework for ensuring an appropriate respect for children’s agency without exposing them prematurely to the full responsibilities normally associated with adulthood. (Lansdown, 2005: 3)

Prompted by a number of new theoretical developments, most notably within the interdisciplinary field of Childhood Studies, there has been increasing acknowledgement that children’s lives, identities and experiences cannot be known or responded to without hearing what they have to tell us about these; that matters concerning them are likely to be nuanced and hence not readily generalised or universalised; that children are active in the construction and determination of their lives; and that their relationships are important and worthy of our close attention (Morrow, 2009; Woodhead, 2009). Furthermore, Prout (2005) points to the ongoing need within Childhood Studies for a more critical engagement around the complexity embedded within take-for-granted binaries such as adult–child, agency–structure and being–becoming.

Commensurate with the kind of developments and debates described earlier, a number of scholars have focused our attention on developing more child-centred modes of inquiry, based on the position that ‘children’s voices should be integral to research and interpretations about children’ (Clark, 2011: 11). Indeed, including children’s views in research is now considered a ‘necessary element of inclusive, empowering, and socially just research designs’ (Freeman and Mathison, 2009: 166). The epistemological, methodological and ethical advantages of participatory approaches have been well argued as being able to ‘access and valorise previously neglected knowledge and provide more nuanced understandings of complex social phenomena’ (Kesby, 2000: 423), as well as improve the reliability, validity and ethical acceptability of research using research processes and methods that are in tune with children’s ways of seeing and relating to their world (Thomas and O’Kane, 1998). In essence, it is now widely accepted that involving children and young people in research holds potential for challenging adult assumptions about children and childhood, leading to better information about their lives and helping ensure any action is more responsive and effective (Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) and the NSW Commission for Children and Young People, 2009).

Researchers (particularly those influenced by the interdisciplinary understandings of Childhood Studies) now routinely make a distinction between research on, with and by children (Kellett, 2010). Research that is done with children is critically important in elevating children’s voices into the spheres of public policy and practice, where planning and decisions concerning their lives are largely determined. Nowhere is this more evident than in the domain of education where most children spend the majority of their childhood. Yet studies focused on eliciting young people’s views on their schools, educational systems and ways of learning are not widely reported, particularly in developing countries. Conducting such research, particularly in non-Western countries, requires a deep commitment to respecting cultural norms and values, as well as an openness to reflecting critically on the methodological implications of ensuring research is ‘ethical’ within a different social, cultural, religious and/or political locale.

Consulting with children in relation to community development issues such as education

A number of recent studies concerning poverty reduction in developing countries reflect the kind of developments discussed earlier regarding the changing status of children. These studies have highlighted that children are not passive recipients but active contributors to their own well-being and that it is important to build the agency of children and young people by recognising their perspectives and providing forms of assistance that focus on their abilities and potential as change agents (Boyden et al., 2003; Feeny and Boyden, 2003a, 2003b; Lyytikainen et al., 2006; Schwartzman, 2005). The DEV framework (Wordsworth et al., 2005), which relates to the issues of deprivation, exclusion and vulnerability, informs the work of a number of international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and highlights that the circumstances, experiences and vulnerabilities of children are highly variable, and that children may not share the same priorities as adults in their communities (Feeny and Boyden, 2003b). For these reasons, it is now increasingly recognised that children’s perspectives on economic and social disadvantages need to be heard at the local level (Redmond, 2008).

Such developments are consistent with the UNCRC, underlining the importance of children’s views and perspectives in the creation of social institutions that are responsive to them. At its most basic, children’s participation is viewed as a right through which children are able to lay claim to the status of citizen (Cairns, 2006; Hart, 1992; Li, 2005). For countries to meet their protection, provision and participation obligations under the UNCRC, including in relation to education provision and poverty alleviation, children’s experiences and perspectives need to be heard and taken into account.

Being treated with dignity and respect means being recognised as a person rather than a ‘problem’, and being listened to without being judged … Being listened to because what you have to say is considered valuable is a sign of respect and an acknowledgement of competency … Thus agency – the ability to take control of your life – is linked clearly to dignity and respect, and being treated with dignity and respect can increase feelings of self-respect and a sense of agency. (Nevile et al., 2007: 1)

In the 1980s and 1990s, there were ‘almost no examples of non-government organisations (NGOs) coming together on education and almost no examples of coherent engagement by NGOs with government around education policy’ (Archer, 2005: 22). Now, however, education is a major priority in community development with many international NGOs increasingly linking with other organisations such as teacher unions, parent associations, child rights activists and social movements to focus on improving the participation in, and quality of, education (Archer, 2005).

Cultural influences on consultation with children in Vietnam

With 41 percent of its population under the age of 18 years, Vietnam faces considerable challenges in providing services such as education to its young citizens. School attendance in the early years is now quite high, and it is officially claimed that all provinces and cities have attained national standards of literacy and universal primary education (considered to be 98.3%) (Ministry of Education and Training (MOET), 2009). However, many children do not progress to secondary school (Liu, 2003), and children in remote and disadvantaged areas of Vietnam, particularly those from minority groups, have high levels of non-participation and face considerable social and economic inequities.

Vietnam was the second country in the world and the first country in the South East Asia region to ratify the UNCRC in the early 1990s (Pham and Jones, 2005; Rydstrom, 2006). Television programmes, children’s rights clubs, annual meetings between children and government officials, advocacy activities of the Youth Union and the incorporation of UNCRC into the school curriculum have all been aimed at raising awareness of children’s rights. Yet despite strong political will, some argue that the implementation of the UNCRC has not followed a coherent and holistic approach, and child participation has not been accorded equal emphasis with provision and protection rights (Pham and Jones, 2005). Others (Burr, 2006; Dawes and Donald, 2005a, 2005b; Dung, 2008; Feeny and Boyden, 2003a; Volkmann, 2005) have critiqued the introduction of UNCRC in Vietnam, arguing that human rights can only be realised when applied by countries within their own traditions, history and legal systems.

This is critically important since cultural values inform the meanings members of any social group, including children themselves, bring to the experience of childhood (Dawes and Donald, 2005a) and have a major influence on aspirations and expectations (Feeny and Boyden, 2003b). All communities have different understandings of what is ‘good’ for children, which may or may not reflect mainstream Western models. Understanding the cultural perspectives on children and childhood is critical to the success of any major educational reform and the evidence that underpins it.

Traditionally, Vietnamese perspectives on children and childhood have been influenced by Confucianism, the core value of which, filial piety, means that children must respect and obey their parents and parents have absolute power over children (Dung, 2008). Family life is thus traditionally hierarchical, with wives obeying their husbands, children obeying their parents and younger siblings obeying older ones (Burr, 2006).

Culturally, parents in Vietnam decide almost every aspect of their children’s life and have a significant influence on them, indicated through the Vietnamese saying ‘Cha me dat dau con ngoi do’ or ‘Children must sit wherever their parents put them’ (Liu, 2003). Respect thus occupies a key role in the value systems of Vietnamese people and is deeply embedded in cultural practices. According to Confucianism, a Vietnamese child does not participate in adult’s talk and must be obedient. Volkmann (2005) explains that traditionally neither parents nor children were accustomed to discussing issues of relevance with each other nor would parents consider that listening to the opinions of children was part of everyday life:

Even today, families tend to over-protect their children rather than to encourage them to make up their own minds, reach their own decisions, and broaden their experience – although the latter is something practised among highly educated families in which parents tend to listen more to their children. (Volkmann, 2005: 40)

While there is a deep-rooted tradition of framing child-related policies based on adults’ experiences (Pham and Jones, 2005), it would be misguided to assume that Confucian values have an overriding influence over all Vietnamese children’s lives since such assumptions can lead to misunderstandings by outsiders (Burr, 2006). Rapidly changing values and practices in society, such as the move to a market economy, individual interests, citizen’s rights, freedom, democracy, tolerance and acceptance of differences, are having a significant impact on shaping youth culture (United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2007), and there is increasing recognition of the importance of consulting with, and encouraging the participation of, children, in both service delivery and policy formation.

Structural and financial disadvantages affecting Vietnam’s higher education institutions have meant that few resources and little inclination have been directed towards research activities generally (Harman et al., 2010). The Academy of Social Sciences might be considered the key relevant research institution informing government planning, sustainable development and social policy reform (Harman and Ngoc, 2010), and while some of their initiatives relate to children, few have involved consulting with children themselves and none have directly related to schooling and education (personal communication, various staff, Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, 2011). That said, reports of research within Vietnam are notoriously difficult to locate, with no easily accessible indexing systems and many studies remaining unpublished, including those undertaken by postgraduate students studying abroad. Within Vietnam, then, there is not a strong culture of research with, for, or even on children and young people.

The number of publications reporting on research or consultation processes involving children and young people in Vietnam, or at least those published in English, is thus still very limited but gradually increasing in number (e.g. Burr, 2002, 2006; Harpham et al., 2004; Le, 2004; Luu, 2008; Nguyen and Fahey, 2001). Those that provide general guidance to other researchers on cultural, ethical or methodological issues related to conducting such research are particularly few and far between. An early study by Truong and Fisher (1997) focused on mathematics education and highlighted the cultural sensitivities involved in consulting with children when conducting research in Vietnam. These authors provide examples emphasising the care needed in phrasing questions such that children are not seen as criticising teachers, the importance of anonymity and suggesting also that researchers ask teachers to encourage students to give their honest opinions.

Rydstrom’s (2003) anthropological study focuses on morality and childhood in the rural northern Vietnamese commune of Thinh Tri. As she explains, in 1994, when she began her research, it was both unusual and controversial for foreigners to gain permission to conduct field research and, she claims, it remains difficult to do so. Focusing on cultural issues concerning children, family and gender was seen to compound suspicion around her work as did what she terms the ‘Marxist quantitative sociology which pervades northern Vietnamese social science’ leading to a perception that anthropological ways of collecting data were a ‘waste of time’ (p. xiv). Rydstrom’s work provides key insights into the practical and methodological issues for Westerners seeking to conduct research in more remote, rural areas of Vietnam.

Giacchino-Baker’s (2007) study of educational issues facing ethnic minorities in Vietnam involved interviews with children and young people and documented critical shortages of ethnic minority teachers and an urgent need for teachers who understand children’s language and culture. Methodologically, this study was interesting in that interviews were conducted through an interpreter. Responses were recorded in both Vietnamese (by the researcher/interpreter) and English (by the US researcher) with notes being reviewed for accuracy and analysed by both researchers after the interview.

One of the most significant contemporary studies seeking to include children and young people’s perspectives on schooling in Vietnam is that currently being conducted by Young Lives (www.younglives.org.uk). This 15-year, longitudinal study focuses on four developing countries and involves some 2000 Vietnamese children (aged 1–14 years) being surveyed at 3- to 4-year intervals and a further 1000 Vietnamese children being followed from the age of 8 years (Lyytikainen et al., 2006; Young Lives, 2009). The study has a key focus on poverty alleviation. A sub-study from the Young Lives project, conducted by Pham and Jones (2005), developed and implemented two innovative methods for empowering children to articulate their own perspectives on poverty and solutions to tackle its multiple dimensions. The first, Children’s Fora, provided an opportunity for young people aged 10–15 years from diverse family circumstances to develop creative presentations to convey their views to policy makers. The second method, the Young Journalist Clubs, enabled children to develop writing and photography skills and present their work on national and regional radios and in print media. These initiatives were jointly implemented by Voice of Vietnam and the Youth Union. Another Young Lives sub-study in Vietnam (Chi, 2009a, 2009b) supplemented the main survey data with qualitative research with 23 Vietnamese children. This project involved a team of five Vietnamese anthropologists staying with each child’s family for a week, providing the opportunity to more closely explore children’s experiences and views.

Most recently, there has been increasing evidence of the Vietnamese government also seeking the views of children and young people to inform policy and service provision. For example, a National Children’s Forum (Ministry of Labor – Invalids and Social Affairs, 2010) was recently hosted as a joint initiative between the Ministry of Labor and a number of international NGOs including UNICEF, Plan, Save the Children, ChildFund and World Vision. This large-scale participatory initiative was held to promote children’s right to participate in the policy-making process and the development of legal frameworks and a National Plan of Action for Children 2011–2020. Its methodology allowed leaders of the Communist Party and the Government to meet and interact with children and to listen to their concerns and expectations relating to the themes of health and sanitation, education and recreation and child protection. The process involved a series of provincial children’s forums held in 21 cities and provinces where young people, facilitated by trained adults, exchanged ideas, identified methods to reveal and explain problems and issues (such as drawings, role plays, posters and displays) and developed messages and recommendations. These were then used as the basis for a National Children’s Forum, which took the form of a summer camp and involved 126 children and 42 facilitators.

The literature cited earlier represents the limited number of qualitative studies (published in English) involving consultation with Vietnamese children and young people, and which provide specific guidance on practical, methodological and/or ethical issues. It was against this backdrop that a small team of researchers from a regionally based University in Australia collaborated with a mid-size NGO, ChildFund Australia, to conduct a study into children’s experiences of, and views on, learning and primary schooling in rural and remote communities (within the district of Na Ri, Bac Kan province). As signalled previously, the research involved in-depth interviews, utilising photo- and drawing-elicitation methods, with 46 children aged 9–10 years from four different schools. The study was also interested in documenting the ethical and methodological issues involved in undertaking culturally appropriate research in Vietnam that incorporates children’s views and voices.

We now turn our attention to a number of key methodological insights and attendant ethical issues emerging from the study that continues to shape our thinking in relation to researching with children in this particular cross-cultural context.

Importance of an in-country partner

A critical factor in undertaking sound, respectful research in countries such as Vietnam is the existence of local knowledge and networks and opportunities for deep cultural exchange. In this project, the nature and strength of the collaboration between the Australian-based research centre and the in-country partner were critical to the operation and outcomes of the project. The in-country partner, ChildFund Australia, is an independent and non-religious international development organisation respected for its efforts in reducing the effects of poverty for children in developing countries (ChildFund in Vietnam, 2007, 2008).

The Na Ri district in Bac Kan province was identified as a suitable location for the research since it is a district ChildFund Australia was already working in, with existing initiatives, links and networks in place, therefore increasing the likelihood that the research findings could inform current and future service delivery. Na Ri is located 170 km north of Hanoi and to reach it takes 4–5 hours drive on very winding roads. Na Ri has a population of 83,641 persons, with more than 80 percent thought to be of ethnic minority background,¹ particularly Tay, Nung, Dao and San Chay (ChildFund Australia, 2008). Around 25 percent of households are considered poor. A major focus of ChildFund Australia’s work in the Na Ri district is on enhancing the quality of teaching and learning.

Having an in-country partner was critical in terms of staff recruitment, particularly given constraints with a short project time frame. The project facilitator and lead researcher in Vietnam was a senior member of staff with ChildFund Australia and responsible for coordinating education programmes. Her deep understanding of the issues of teaching and learning and her professionalism and capacity to engage in critical conversation around both Western and Vietnamese educational practices provided an important opportunity for the Australian researchers to understand more about local and national educational issues in Vietnam. This project facilitator had gained research skills through postgraduate study overseas.

The local networks of the in-country partner were also critical in identifying three additional Vietnamese researchers to conduct interviews (all of whom were proficient with English), together with a team of local transcribers and translators. Of the three additional researchers, one was from a research institution and had experience with ethnographic research, although not specifically with children. Another was employed by another NGO, working in the field with women and families. The third was from the ethnic minority department of the MOET. The ability to employ these researchers through the office of the in-country partner was important in order to meet local employment requirements. The local networks of ChildFund Australia were also integral in establishing credibility within the community and were instrumental in developing the communications with community leaders, education officials, teachers, children and families.

A range of approval procedures is required for non-Vietnamese organisations or individuals to conduct research in northern, rural Vietnam. Travelling to rural areas requires approval from the local provincial police who then inspect all personal documents such as passports and visas by calling in at motels each evening. Having a research partner to facilitate this process and to ‘guarantee’ the bona fide status of the international researchers was essential. In addition, any research with children in schools requires approval from the Provincial Education Department, which then communicates with the district education departments and schools to help secure cooperation and approvals. This process can take considerable time.

The strong respect and trust of both the education department and the local community for our in-country partner organisation greatly assisted in gaining their support and collaboration in this study. Given the distances and travel times between Hanoi (where the central office was located) and Na Ri, where the research took place, the involvement of the local ChildFund Australia Education Project Officer was instrumental in identifying schools, providing information about the research to teachers, getting discussions under way with selected schools, helping facilitate the selection of participants from class lists and having an initial conversation with children about whether they would like to be involved. This person also took care of providing the letters to parents and negotiated the location and timing of the briefing sessions and interviews with schools and parents. These important tasks would have required considerable time, travel and cost if not managed at a local level.

While the various Vietnamese authorities’ approval for the research and the local community’s support for the project was inevitably influenced by the involvement of the in-country partner, close attention was given to ensuring ChildFund Australia’s role did not unduly influence consent, nor constitute any coercion. This required detailed discussion with the children about research and the role of the different people involved.

Research training and capacity building

Our impetus to involve children in this research reflected a deep commitment from both organisations to better understanding Vietnamese children’s experiences of learning and education in their immediate context. However, in seeking children’s participation in the research, and respecting and promoting their entitlement to ‘have a say’, we recognised that such participation is deeply implicated within broader social and cultural considerations. As Australian researchers, the first two authors (Graham and Phelps) were very conscious of the significant limitations in our understanding and experience of Vietnamese culture, having had little to no direct previous experience working in this context. We were also aware of how little qualitative research had previously been conducted in Vietnam that directly involved children. The fourth author (Geeves) was Australian but had considerable experience working in the South East Asian region, including Vietnam, specifically in the field of community development and education, although his research experience was more limited. The third author (Ha Thi Tuyet Nhung), as a Vietnamese herself, had both worked and researched in the context and, as part of the broader team working on the project, provided critical cultural and practical perspectives.

Following close consideration of such capacity-related issues, we approached the project as an opportunity for mutual learning and research capacity building for both the Australian and Vietnamese researchers. Once the broad focus and context of the study were established, two researchers from the Australian University (including the second author) visited the Bac Kan province in Vietnam with the in-country partners, meeting with education officials, principals, teachers, parents and children to discuss (through interpreters) the proposed research and to gauge levels of support. This initial visit also provided an opportunity to undertake observations in schools and classrooms to better understand the cultural context and nature of pedagogy in the district.

The Vietnamese project facilitator and lead in-country researcher, together with one of the other appointed Vietnamese researchers, then visited Australia for 5 days to engage in collaborative planning and research training, including the opportunity to develop the interview questions and letters (which were then translated). Talking with children in the context of research was somewhat new for the researchers, so the training and planning activities aimed at building confidence as well as research skills. The discussions focused on a number of deeper ethical issues in working with children and young people, including notions of children’s voice, agency and competency, and whether and how these apply in the Vietnamese context. We also considered the issues of power and authority within this particular cultural milieu, particularly the importance of building relationships, so the children understood, at least to some extent, that the interest of the research was on their views and experiences. Other key issues covered during the planning meeting in Australia were issues of confidentiality and anonymity, interviewing processes and strategies and ways to document key learning throughout the process.

During their visit, the Vietnamese researchers had the opportunity to meet with the Centre for Children and Young People’s youth consultative group, Young People Big Voice (YPBV) – a group of around 15 young people aged 13–21 years (Fitzgerald and Graham, 2009). After discussing what life was like for children in rural Vietnam, YPBV members provided feedback on the project methodology and specifically the research questions. A number of important refinements to the interview schedule were made on the basis of these interactions. The additional value of this process is discussed later in this article.

Importantly, the training in the Australian context allowed the research team to collaboratively trial and model interviewing approaches with five Australian (English speaking) children who agreed to be involved. This process prompted several refinements to questions and to interviewing strategies as the Vietnamese researchers reflected critically on the strengths and limitations for their own context. The collaborative planning was not only intended to scaffold the two Vietnamese researchers but also to enable them to train two research colleagues on their return to Vietnam, particularly through modelling and observation during the first data collection period. The dialogue that emerged between the members of the research team revealed significant variations in the way in which values, principles and strategies could be applied in the different research contexts. The mutual benefits from this process were significant and acknowledged by every member of the planning team, including the Australian children involved in trialling the interviews.

It should be acknowledged that the research design was no doubt influenced by the cultural and theoretical backgrounds of the university researchers (first and second authors) in that we brought to the study a particular interest in hearing the voices of the children themselves, as well as experiences of schools and classrooms in Western context. Together with the young Australians who we consulted in developing the research questions, we undoubtedly held particular beliefs about children’s learning, which were not based in direct experience in the Vietnamese context. Yet this added to the richness of the study, and throughout the planning and fieldwork phases, both Australian and Vietnamese researchers learnt a great deal from each other through informal conversations that mutually challenged our assumptions and deepened our cultural awareness.

The need for a flexible research design

Decisions regarding the research design, including how many students would be interviewed and which schools they would be drawn from, were influenced by a range of pragmatic as well as cultural concerns, and these needed to be constantly balanced with the kind of methodological rigour expected of sound qualitative research. Issues such as travel time and distance, length of time it was feasible for the researchers to spend in the field, the presence of a supportive Head Teacher and the availability of sufficient children in the targeted age group in particular schools all shaped design decisions, particularly in relation to sampling. Since most non-government development organisations are predominantly concerned with improving the participation and quality of education provision in the primary school years, a decision was made to focus on older primary children (aged 9–10 years).

The decision to utilise photo-elicitation interviewing techniques (discussed further below) meant that researchers required time to brief the children and provide them with a camera, allow the children to take photographs at home and school (limited to 24 hours), collect the cameras, develop the photos and return to the schools for interviews. The intended research design, involving two field visits, is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Intended research design.

Unanticipated difficulties with the cameras (described later) meant that the 10 children from School B were not interviewed on the first field trip, but incorporated into the second field trip, and only one group of children from School C were included (hence reducing our sample from 60 to 50). Furthermore, four children who had participated in the briefing session at School C had to attend a district sport competition on the day of the interviews, and hence, the total number of children interviewed was 46. The importance of flexibility in research design had become very evident, including the need to defer finalisation of arrangements for the second field visit until the first field visit had been completed.

Individual versus paired interviews

In the initial planning meetings, there had been considerable discussion about whether it was optimum to interview children individually or in pairs. The decision was made to allow the children to decide which option they preferred, reflecting the underlying commitment of the research to supporting agency and voice. All children chose to be interviewed in pairs.

Having a partner meant that most children seemed at ease in the interview context, with the children’s feedback indicating that all but one preferred the paired experience. There were, however, implications of this choice in terms of the quality of the data. Some children would dominate the interviews, and while the researchers attempted to address this, some less vocal children would simply agree with statements made by their partner (‘Yes, me too’). It is difficult to assess the extent to which individual children were unduly influenced by the responses of partners, and it is notable that at no time did children openly disagree or argue with a point made by their interview partner. An overriding benefit of the paired interview approach was that it helped address some of the resource constraints of the project without compromising on the number of children who could be interviewed.

Involving children in research design

An early priority in the planning of the research was to involve children in shaping the research design. Initially, it had been intended that the project would establish both a children’s advisory group (consisting of approximately 10 children aged 8–18 years) and an adult advisory group (including stakeholders from community and educational bodies such as MOET, school administrators/principals and/or a representative from a university or teacher training institute, as well as a language specialist). These advisory groups were intended to play a role in helping to shape the research design and provide feedback and guidance at key points throughout the project. However, in early discussions between the Australian and Vietnamese researchers, it became clear that the concept of an ‘advisory group’ was not well understood in Vietnam, so it was decided to defer the convening of these until further investigation could take place as to their value, relevance and feasibility within the Vietnamese context for a project of this kind. Instead, an opportunity was provided for the Vietnamese researchers to meet with an already established youth advisory group, YPBV, as mentioned earlier. This opportunity provided the researchers with a clearer understanding of the role and function of such groups. While collaborating research partners were very committed to the importance of engaging youth in the design and conduct of research that concerns their lives, pragmatic issues such as how, where and when youth advisory groups would function need to be resolved for ongoing research.

Strengths and limitations of photo-elicitation interviewing

Photo elicitation is now a widely accepted method in qualitative research with children (Dockett, 2009; Einarsdottir, 2007; Epstein et al., 2006; Rasmussen, 2004; Veale, 2005). This approach is seen as diminishing some of the limitations of traditional style interviews in that it does not rely as strongly on verbal linguistic communication skills; it presents an alternative to the ‘question-and-answer’ formula, which may not feel ‘natural’ to children; and it breaks down the adult authority implicit in traditional interview formats, helping to build positive relationships between adult interviewers and children (Epstein et al., 2006). The approach provides a concrete product and a ‘show and tell’ dynamic that can help make interviews more engaging and fun and feel less like a test. While there are ethical issues to consider, particularly relating to children taking photos of others without their consent, there is considerable value in children being able to represent what is important and meaningful to them, in order to better promote their deep reflection (Einarsdottir, 2007; Epstein et al., 2006). For this study, photo elicitation was particularly important since it was seen as an engaging, concrete and respectful way of stimulating conversations with the children, grounded in their experience, rather than trying to access their views about learning in more abstract ways that may have been confusing or conflicting with cultural norms about what children know, do and can say.

In this project, then, children were asked to take photographs of things that they had learnt to do at home and school. The purpose of the photos was extensively explored at the briefing sessions, and children were subsequently also given a written ‘tip sheet’ to help them remember what they were required to do. Only a small number of children had seen or used a camera before, so the opportunity to take photos (and retain a copy of these at the end of the interviews) was an exciting and engaging aspect of the study.

The decision was made to purchase the cameras for children in Vietnam. Initially, disposable cameras were purchased, but issues with their quality and functionality meant they could not be relied upon. It was necessary, then, just days before the first scheduled field trip, to locate the only viable alternative, which were the non-disposable film-based cameras.

However, a number of problems persisted that ultimately impacted on the quality and success of the photos for a number of the children involved in the first field trip. Some cameras did not have their film or batteries loaded properly; some did not wind on or photographed over each other; and the cameras also did not clearly show how many photographs the children had taken. One child’s camera was also damaged during use. To compound matters, some children took the film out and exposed it when trying to find out what was wrong with their cameras. Photo development in the rural province of Na Ri (the site of the research) also proved problematic, and despite the local shop indicating they could develop the photos, the films were in fact sent back to the major town centre in Bac Kan. The delays were not communicated to the research team causing considerable inconvenience. Consequently, a number of children who were to participate in interviews during the first field trip did not have any successful photos available and, as a consequence, the research design was modified to include them in the second field trip (as described earlier). Good quality disposable cameras were subsequently purchased from Australia for use on the second field trip, and film processing was managed directly by the research team in the major town centre.

While these difficulties may appear somewhat incidental, they point to some very pragmatic considerations for researching effectively with children in developing world contexts. The photos were considered integral in the research design since they were to act as both a stimulus and a scaffold for developing conversations with the children that they may not be used to having. Our experience has both galvanised our view of the potential of photo elicitation for this purpose and highlighted the complexity in successfully utilising it in a context like rural Vietnam.

Issues of consent, curiosity and confidentiality

In considering the ethical dimensions of this project, we were guided and informed by our own extensive research experience, the insights of our Vietnamese research partners, the principles embedded in our own Centre’s policy in relation to ethical research with children (Centre for Children and Young People, 2009) and critical engagement with a range of leading international literature (Alderson, 2004; Hill, 2005; Morrow, 2009; Thomas and O’Kane, 1998). In doing so, we were particularly cognisant of reflexively applying Western principles to the conduct of ‘ethical’ research within the Vietnamese context. A more attuned approach to issues, such as accessing communities, negotiating consent and recognising social and cultural receptivity around listening to children’s voices, emerged as critically important in this study.

Given the traditional cultural positioning of children (described earlier in this article), we were particularly sensitive to issues concerning consent and how this was approached. During the Australian researchers’ initial visit to the province, meetings had been organised with education managers, teachers, parents and children to explain the project and discuss any issues or concerns. While these meetings indicated very positive and strong support for the project, both the Vietnamese and Australian researchers were mindful of the novelty element (both in terms of the cameras and in terms of the research itself) so undertook to monitor closely that all stakeholders, especially the children, understood what they were agreeing to.

As is usual elsewhere in research involving children and young people, consent was required from parents before they became involved in the project. After early advice from the Vietnamese researchers, and approval by the Southern Cross University Human Research Ethics Committee, passive consent was requested since it was ascertained that signing a document may be regarded suspiciously by parents. While we had some reservations about this approach, continuing consent was confirmed in that briefing sessions were held on Sundays (after advice that this was quite normal and accepted practice), so parents willing to have their children participate in the research facilitated travel to the school for the sessions convened out of school time. All sampled children and their families chose to participate.

Support from teachers continued to be strong throughout the research; however, we did need to explain to teachers that the children were to engage in the research activities without undue adult interference. For example, during one briefing session, when the children were drawing their families (as an icebreaker activity), some teachers came into the room to advise children on how to draw their pictures better. While these actions might have been interpreted as the teachers wanting to ‘keep an eye on’ children, or influence their responses, we discussed this at length with the Vietnamese researchers who felt that it was more because of the teachers’ curiosity. Like the children, they had also had little exposure to cameras, and we realised that they also probably wanted to be involved in using them. It was thus suggested to children, on the second field trip, that they might want to invite their teacher to take photos of them.

Cultural issues in talking with children

As discussed earlier in this article, Vietnamese society has traditionally placed a very high value on children showing morality, respect and obedience. As such, it must be supposed that some children’s responses, particularly to questions asking them to make suggestions for improving their schools or their teachers’ practice, would be influenced by their lack of experience in, or willingness to, challenge the practices of adults.

Chi’s (2009b) research with Vietnamese minority children documented instances of ‘heteroglossia’, where the voice of power prevails in children’s discourse, underpinned by the power structures in the classroom and in children’s daily lives. An example of this, cited by Truong Huyen Chi, was where a girl condoned teachers’ behaviours in beating them ‘because we are too dumb; they couldn’t teach us, they must punish us’ (p. 13). No such ‘extreme’ examples were evident in our study, although children were certainly hesitant to question the authority of their teachers or parents. Sometimes, it was what children did not say, as much as what they did say that is of note and paying attention to the points in interviews where children paused or did not respond was important.

A number of examples might be provided of the subtle and not-so-subtle instances of a power imbalance evident between adults and children. For example, when children’s perceptions of being asked their views on matters were sought, Duc and Thom responded,

When they ask, I need to answer honestly and accurately. (Duc)

If they find out any wrong ideas while listening to us, they will correct and tell us. (Thom)

Such quotes indicate that some children perceived talking to adults as a ‘test’, reinforcing the importance of interviewers continuing to state that there were no right or wrong answers.

That said, the research did not identify a marked imbalance in power relationships impacting on children’s ability to express their views. Most children enthusiastically voiced their beliefs that adults should talk to children and an evident desire to be ‘talked to as an adult’, signalled that they sought the same respect afforded to adults. There was also evidence that they often did receive this respect and children’s praise for their teachers appeared genuine and not unduly influenced. Notably, however, this culture of respect did manifest in children understating or under-emphasising issues. For example, Long and Vu described the toilet as dirty because ‘there are many leaves falling off’ and ‘there are some cracks’ in the walls. Such comments cloaked the very obvious and significant issues related to the condition of toilets.

While requiring some prompting, the interviews were not lacking examples of children offering criticisms or constructive suggestions. They did so, however, in a highly respectful way. For example, there were evident tensions in at least one school between the children and their English teacher and children respectfully spoke of the contrast between his/her relationship with them and that of their homeroom teacher (although they also said they would not ‘complain’ at school).

Another issue, which in retrospect warranted explicit discussion in the project planning and training, was the relationship that the interviewer established when interacting with the children. While interviewers sought to be friendly and personable with the children, some elements of the discussions resonated more as teachers speaking to students. In fact, some children referred to the interviewer as ‘Teacher’, even though they had been encouraged to use the interviewer’s name. On occasions, comments from the interviewer herself made the teacher role explicit, as indicated in the following well-intended introductory comment:

Don’t be afraid. I am like your teacher. When talking with me, if you find any question difficult, you can ask me again or you can tell that this question is too difficult, I can’t answer. (Interviewer)

The cultural values embedded in adult–child relationships in Vietnam are reflected in the interview context, and some children equating the interviewer role with that of a teacher was very likely reflecting their deeply held respect towards adults. However, it may have been beneficial to clarify such perceptions early in the interview.

Issues of representing children’s voices

Analysing and writing up of data were complex from a number of perspectives. The issue of representing children’s views is, in itself, fraught with difficulties, and issues of maintaining the integrity of children’s views were of critical importance. Mannion (2007) cautions that children’s voices may be scripted by adults or by other deeply embedded social or cultural considerations, and that adults should be mindful not to assume they have heard all that children are trying to say. We regarded it as important to privilege children’s voices over our own, since the intent of this project was to capture and report as fully as possible their views and perspectives on learning and schooling. As such, in our reporting (Phelps and Graham, 2010), we maintained inclusion of extensive interview text, including both brief comments from the children, as well as longer narrative dialogue.

That said, the interpretive lens of adults inevitably influences particular representations of what children have to say. The extracts we chose to focus upon and cite (despite a reflexive process focused on resisting any ‘cherry picking’ of data) invariably reflected our own perspectives on what we saw as important. Furthermore, there was a continual struggle to represent the more articulate views alongside those where the responses were brief or the meaning was unclear. We were also conscious of our own predominantly Western constructions of children and childhood and how these influenced our representation of data. For example, we acknowledged the tension between conceiving the children as ‘student’ versus ‘child’ and consciously preferred to acknowledge them as the latter. This was important as we were interested in their perceptions of learning both in and out of school, and we therefore sought to acknowledge them as competent and capable people in their own right, not just within the institutionalised and socially constructed identity of ‘student’.

While the above-mentioned matters are relevant to any research with children, a further complication in this research was the barriers of language and the complications of analysis post-translation. As English-speaking Australian researchers conducting the data analysis, we were in the position of only engaging with children’s voices through the words chosen by the translators. It was their choice of English terms and phrases, rather than the children’s direct language and meaning, which we were interacting with. This was particularly an issue when we became interested in the nuances of language around teaching and learning. Phrases that seemed unlikely to represent the wording of children, but which we were not in a position to reinterpret included ‘contaminated’ (probably meaning dirty), ‘ragged’ (probably meaning torn) and ‘attractive’ (which in context may have meant interesting). Other examples of phrasing that were ambiguous in translation included the following:

They praise me as a docile child. (Mai)

About my friends, they are meek and humorous. (Lac)

Within the scope of this project, it was not possible for the Australian researchers to meet with the transcribers and translators. While a briefing article had been prepared for them and the Vietnamese Project Leader communicated directly, it was not clear how attuned they were to capturing the nuances in discussion that might have been central to the project’s interests (particularly around the meaning of ‘learning’). In hindsight, this was a significant issue. With more time or opportunity for conversation with the translators, a greater emphasis would have been placed on revisiting specific words and phrases in the original recordings to explore more deeply the nuances of children’s meanings. While the translators’ skills were excellent and we had high levels of confidence in the transcripts provided, in any further research, it would be beneficial to undertake more analysis of translations with Vietnamese staff, using original recordings, to help ensure the children’s meanings are accurately captured and represented.

As part of our commitment to communicating the findings of the research to the children, parents and teachers in this study, children’s perspectives and ideas were documented in a children’s book titled Feeling Glad and Proud: Children in Rural Vietnam Have a Say about Learning (Phelps, 2010). This picture book used children’s own comments and photos to explain some of the key findings in a positive and affirming way.

These issues concerning interpretation and representation are illustrative of the complexities of doing research in a country and context where the child’s native language is not that of the researchers undertaking data analysis and report writing. These issues are compounded when the research is interested in nuances of meaning and language choice as children convey their views and reflect on their experience. A very positive outcome of the research has been the cross-cultural dialogue between the researchers that has allowed for deeper engagement around how to conduct respectful, rigorous research involving the voices of children when those voices are moderated through the process of translation.

Conclusion and recommendations

There is now a sound evidence base to suggest that children’s participation contributes to the well-being of individuals and communities (Greene and Hill, 2006; Smart, 2002, 2006; Smith, 2002, 2007). When children’s voices inform policy in areas such as education, it is far more likely to be sensitive to their needs and perspectives and therefore more likely to work (Davis and Hill, 2006; Wierenga et al., 2003). A critically important way of capturing the voices of children and young people is to design qualitative research that allows for their views and experiences to be captured through respectful, engaging methods and represented in ways that do not appropriate or attribute meaning coloured by adult-centric interests.

This article has reflected on the issues that have arisen through one such endeavour in conducting cross-cultural research with children in rural Vietnam focused on understanding their experiences and views about learning in primary school. Despite our considerable concerns about the methodological and ethical implications of engaging in research in such a context, the experience was very positive, with our own understandings and skills, together with those of our Vietnamese research partners, having been significantly enriched throughout the process.

Our experience would suggest that researchers conducting similar work approach it in close collaboration with a respected in-country partner and a strong disposition towards mutual capacity building. The importance of collaborative planning in research design, from the early stages, is critical in order to identify the ‘taken for granted’ assumptions embedded in research methods (even when these are considered ‘child centric’ in Western contexts) since these may not resonate with local cultural values and practices. In any research with children, issues of ethics are of critical importance and in the foreground with research planning, study design and project implementation. However, in our experience of cross-cultural research, ethical dimensions are considerably amplified and the entire research process needs to be framed as an ethical endeavour with every detail from planning through to report writing being approached in a consultative, self-conscious and reflexive way. The value of undertaking such research is not only then measured in terms of the study findings – in this case what children had to tell us about their experience of learning and schooling in rural Vietnam – but also in relation to the shifts in mindset and practice concerning one’s role as a researcher in a cross-cultural context.

Footnotes

Funding

The project was jointly funded by ChildFund Australia and Southern Cross University.

Notes

Author biographies

Anne P Graham is Director of the Centre for Children & Young People and Professor of Childhood Studies in the School of Education at Southern Cross University, Australia. Her research and professional interests include children’s social and emotional well-being, participation and engagement in schools, ethical issues in researching with children and young people and teacher learning. She has written a highly successful series of publications for a loss and grief education programme, Seasons for Growth, which over 160,000 children have now participated in throughout Australia, New Zealand, England, Ireland and Scotland.

Renata A Phelps is a Senior Research Fellow with the Centre for Children and Young People at Southern Cross University, Australia. Among her research interests is a focus on learner-centred pedagogy, metacognition and metacognitive approaches to learning; self-directed and self-regulated learning. She has applied these ideas particularly in the area of teacher professional development for ICT integration. She is involved in a number of research projects with children and young people, including this study of Vietnamese children’s perspectives on learning and the provision of primary school education and young people’s advocacy in environmental sustainability. Much of Renata’s research is informed by complexity theories.

Ha Thi Tuyet Nhung was the Education Programme Manager with ChildFund in Vietnam, responsible for leadership, management and supervision of all aspects of ChildFund’s education projects. She has extensive experience in education and training, including participatory curriculum development and training in learner-centred, activity-based pedagogy. She recently completed an action research project focused on supporting primary schools in Vietnam to develop and implement a professional monitoring system promoting self-directed learning by teachers and the creation of a learning organisation. This project brought about substantial changes in school management and teachers’ perception about learning and development. Nhung was the Project Leader within Vietnam for this study of Vietnamese children’s perspectives on learning and the provision of primary school education research.

Richard Geeves is an International Programme Coordinator at ChildFund Australia based in Sydney. He has worked as a teacher, teacher educator and school principal in Australia’s Northern Territory and then with non-government organisations in Cambodia organising programmes in the field of education. In recent years, he has participated in the development and piloting of curriculum and training for community teachers, the Cambodian government’s Child Friendly Schools Programme and in the qualitative evaluation of development projects using digital media. He is currently interested in ways in which under-resourced education systems and individual schools can improve the quality of their programmes from the bottom-up, complementing the many top-down global schemes currently in place.

References

Alderson

(2004) Ethics. In: Fraser

Lewis

Ding

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

Archer

(2005) Critical issues around the millennium development goals and education. Convergence 38(3): 19–31.

Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) and the NSW Commission for Children and Young People (eds) (2009) Involving Children and Young People in Research. Canberra, ACT, Australia: ARACY.

Bell

(2008) Ethics in child research: rights, reason and responsibilities. Children’s Geographies 6: 7–20.

Boyden

Eyber

Feeny

. (2003) Children and Poverty: Voices of Children: Experiences and Perceptions from Belarus, Bolivia, India, Kenya and Sierra Leone: Children and Poverty Series Part II. Richmond, VA: Christian Children’s Fund.

Burr

(2002) Global and local approaches to children’s rights in Vietnam. Childhood 9: 49–61.

Burr

(2006) Vietnam’s Children in a Changing World. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Cairns

(2006) Participation with purpose. In: Tisdall

Davis

Hill

. (eds) Children, Young People and Social Inclusion: Participation for What? Bristol: Policy Press, 216–235.

Centre for Children and Young People (2009) Code of Ethics, Duty of Care Guidelines and Child Protection Guidelines. Lismore, NSW, Australia: Centre for Children and Young People, Southern Cross University.

10.

ChildFund Australia (2008) Annual Report 2007–08. Sydney, NSW, Australia: ChildFund Australia.

11.

ChildFund in Vietnam (2007) ChildFund in Vietnam: Strategic Plan 2006–2011. Hanoi, Vietnam: ChildFund in Vietnam.

12.

ChildFund in Vietnam (2008) Project on improving quality of basic education in Na Ry – Bac Kan. Report on KAP Survey for Primary School and Kindergarten Teachers, ChildFund in Vietnam, Vietnam, December.

13.

Christensen

James

(eds) (2000) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices. London: RoutledgeFalmer Press.

14.

Clark

(2011) In a Younger Voice: Doing Child-Centred Qualitative Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

15.

Davis

Hill

(2006) Introduction. In: Tisdall

Kay

Davis

. (eds) Children, Young People and Social Inclusion: Participation for What? Bristol: Policy Press, 1–22.

16.

Dawes

Donald

(2005a) Child-Context Relationships and Developmental Outcomes: Some Perspectives on Poverty and Culture. Richmond, VA: Christian Children’s Fund.

17.

Dawes

Donald

(2005b) Improving Children’s Chances: Linking Developmental Theory and Practice. Richmond, VA: Christian Children’s Fund.

18.

Dockett

(2009) Engaging young children in research. In: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) and NSW Commission for Children and Young People (eds) Involving Children and Young People in Research. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth and NSW Commission for Children and Young People, 52–63.

19.

Dung

Le Thi Dan

(2008) International NGOs (INGOs) – State Relations in Vietnam: Who Leads Development? Sydney, NSW, Australia: Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Arts, Macquarie University.

20.

Einarsdottir

(2007) Research with children: methodological and ethical challenges. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 15(2): 197–211.

21.

Epstein

Stevens

McKeever

. (2006) Photo elicitation interview (PEI): using photos to elicit children’s perspectives. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(3): 1–9.

22.

Feeny

Boyden

(2003a) Children and Poverty: A Review of Contemporary Literature and Thought on Children and Poverty: Rethinking the Causes, Experiences and Effects: Children and Poverty Series Part I. Richmond, VA: Christian Children’s Fund.

23.

Feeny

Boyden

(2003b) Children and Poverty: Shaping A Response to Poverty: A Conceptual Overview and Implications for Responding to Children Living in Poverty: Children and Poverty Series Part III. Richmond, VA: Christian Children’s Fund.

24.

Fitzgerald

Graham

(2009) ‘Young People, Big Voice’: reflections on the participation of children and young people in a university setting. In: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) and NSW Commission for Children and Young People (eds) Involving Children and Young People in Research. Canberra, ACT, Australia: ARACY, 64–75.

25.

Freeman

Mathison

(2009) Researching Children’s Experiences. New York: Guilford Press.

26.

Giacchino-Baker

(2007) Educating ethnic minorities in Vietnam: policies and perspectives. Kappa Delta Pi Record 43(4): 168–173.

27.

Graham

Fitzgerald

(2010) Children’s participation in research: some possibilities and constraints in the current Australian research environment. Journal of Sociology 43(2): 133–147.

28.

Greene

Hill

(2006) Researching children’s experience: methods and methodological issues. In: Hogan

Greene

(eds) Researching Children’s Experience: Methods and Approaches. London: Sage, 1–21.

29.

Harman

Ngoc

Le Thi Bich

(2010) The research role of Vietnam’s universities. In: Harman

Hayden

Pham

(eds) Reforming Higher Education in Vietnam: Challenges and Priorities. London: Springer, 87–102.

30.

Harman

Hayden

Nghi

Pham Thanh

(eds) (2010) Reforming Higher Education in Vietnam: Challenges and Priorities. London: Springer.

31.

Harpham

Huong

Nguyen Thu

Long

. (2004) Participatory child poverty assessment in rural Vietnam. Children & Society 19: 27–41.

32.

Hart

(1992) Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. Florence: UNICEF.

33.

Hill

(2005) Ethical considerations in researching children’s experiences. In: Greene

Hogan

(eds) Researching Children’s Experiences: Methods and Approaches. London: Sage, 61–86.

34.

James

Prout

(eds) (1997) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood (2nd Edition). London: Falmer Press.

35.

Kellett

(2005) Developing Children as Researchers. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

36.

Kellett

(2010) Rethinking Children and Research: Attitudes in Contemporary Society. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

37.

Kesby

(2000) Participatory diagramming: deploying qualitative methods through an action research epistemology. Area 32(4): 423–435.

38.

Nguyen

Kim Cuc

Fahey

(2001) The relationship between students’ achievement and early school leaving in rural Vietnam. Melbourne Studies in Education 42(2): 49–67.

39.

Lansdown

(2005) Innocenti Insight: The Evolving Capacities of the Child. New York: UNICEF.

40.

(2004) Language from the street: an ethnographic study of street kid’s English in Vietnam. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference 2004, Melbourne 28 December - 2 December. Available at: http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/le04720.pdf

41.

(2005) Rethinking civic education in the age of biotechnology. Educational Theory 55(1): 23–44.

42.

Liu

(2003) Flying ducks? Girls’ schooling in rural Vietnam. Asian Economic Journal 15(4): 385–403.

43.

Lundy

(2007) Voice is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal 33(6): 927–942.

44.

Lyytikainen

Jones

Hutty

. (2006) Childhood Poverty, Basic Services and Cumulative Disadvantage: An International Comparative Analysis. London: Young Lives, Save the Children UK.

45.

Mannion

(2007) Going spatial, going relational: why ‘listening to children’ and children’s participation needs reframing. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 28(3): 405–420.

46.

Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) (2009) Vietnam Educational Development Strategies 2009–2012. Hanoi, Vietnam: MOET.

47.

Ministry of Labor – Invalids and Social Affairs (2010) The National Children’s Forum 2009: ‘Children and Goals for Children’. Hanoi, Vietnam: Labor and Social Affairs.

48.

Morrow

(2009) The Ethics of Social Research with Children and Families in Young Lives: Practical Experiences. Oxford: Young Lives.

49.

Morrow

Richards

(1996) The ethics of social research with children: an overview. Children & Society 10: 90–105.

50.

Moss

Clark

Kjorholt

(2005) Introduction. In: Clark

Kjorholt

Moss

(eds) Beyond Listening: Children’s Perspectives on Early Childhood Services. Bristol: The Policy Press, 1–16.

51.

Neale

Flowerdew

(2007) New structures, new agency: the dynamics of child-parent relationships after divorce. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 15: 25–42.

52.

Nevile

Bessel

Moore

(2007) Responsive Policy and Support Services for Children. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian National University.

53.

Pham

Thi Lan

Jones

(2005) The Ethics of Research Reciprocity: Making Children’s Voices Heard in Poverty Reduction Policy-Making in Vietnam. London: Young Lives, Save the Children UK.

54.

Phelps

(ed.) (2010) Feeling Glad and Proud: Children in Rural Vietnam Have a Say about Learning. Lismore, NSW, Australia: Centre for Children and Young People, Southern Cross University.

55.

Phelps

Graham

(2010) Vietnamese children’s perspectives on learning and the provision of primary school education within the rural Na Ri district in Vietnam. Report on a Pilot Project, Centre for Children and Young People, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW, Australia.

56.

Prout

(ed.) (2005) The Future of Childhood: Towards the Interdisciplinary Study of Children. London: Routledge.

57.

Rasmussen

(2004) Places for children: children’s places. Childhood 11(2): 155–173.

58.

Redmond

(2008) Children’s perspectives on economic adversity: a review of the literature. Innocenti discussion paper no. 2008-01, March. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

59.

Robson

Porter

Hampshire

. (2009) ‘Doing it right’? Working with young researchers in Malawi to investigate children, transport and mobility. Children’s Geographies 7: 467–480.

60.

Rydstrom

(2003) Embodying Morality: Growing Up in Rural Northern Vietnam. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

61.

Rydstrom

(2006) Masculinity and punishment: men’s upbringing of boys in rural Vietnam. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research 13(3): 329–348.

62.

Schwartzman

(2005) Promoting the agency of young people. Children & poverty working paper 4. Richmond, VA: Christian Children’s Fund.

63.

Shier

(2010) Children as public actors: navigating the tensions. Children & Society 24: 24–37.

64.

Smart

(2002) From children’s shoes to children’s voices. Family Court Review 40(3): 307–319.

65.

Smart

(2006) Children’s narratives of post-divorce family life: from individual experience to an ethical disposition. Sociological Review 54(1): 155–170.

66.

Smart

Neale

Wade

(2001) The Changing Experience of Childhood: Families and Divorce. Cambridge: Polity.

67.

Smith

(2002) Interpreting and supporting participation rights: contributions from sociocultural theory. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 10: 73–88.

68.

Smith

(2007) Children as social actors: an introduction. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 15: 1–4.

69.

Thomas

O’Kane

(1998) The ethics of participatory research with children. Children & Society 12(5): 336–348.

70.

Truong

Trang Le

Fisher

(1997) Factors affecting research in Vietnam education: Some issues. In: Paper presented at the science, mathematics and technology education and national development: proceedings of the 1997 international conference on science, mathematics and technology education, Hanoi, Vietnam.

71.

Luu

Truong Tra Son

(2008) My teacher will punish that person right away: Cham and Khmer children in Vietnam. In: Alerby

Brown

(eds) Voices from the Margins: School Experiences of Refugee, Migrant and Indigenous Children. Rotterdam: Sense, 145–161.

72.

Chi

Truong Huyen

(2009a) Aspects of education policies for ethnic minorities in Vietnam: experiences of ‘Young Lives’ children. London: Young Lives.

73.

Chi

Truong Huyan

(2009b) Understanding Vulnerability and Negotiating Resilience in the Context of Poverty and Ethnicity through Children’s Discursive Practice in Vietnam. London: Young Lives.

74.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2007) Vulnerability among Children/Youth Populations in Vietnam: Literature Review. London: UNICEF.

75.

Veale

(2005) Creative methodologies in participatory research with children. In: Greene

Hogan

(eds) Researching Children’s Experiences: Methods and Approaches. London: Sage, 253–272.

76.

Volkmann

(2005) 30 years after the war: children, families and rights in Vietnam. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 19(1): 23–46.

77.

Wierenga

Wood

Trenbath

. (2003) Sharing a new story: young people in decision-making. Report for the Foundation for Young Australians. October. Parkville, VIC, Australia: Australian Youth Research Centre, The University of Melbourne.

78.

Woodhead

(2009) Childhood studies: past, present and future. In: Kehily

(ed.) An Introduction to Childhood Studies (2nd Edition). London: Open University Press, 17–34.

79.

Wordsworth

McPeak

Feeny

(2005) Understanding Children’s Experience of Poverty: An Introduction to the DEV Framework. Richmond, VA: Christian Children’s Fund.

80.

Young Lives (2009) Concept Note Proposing a School-Based Component in Young Lives. London: Young Lives.