Around the table with policymakers: Giving voice to children in contexts of poverty and deprivation

Abstract

Increasingly, children are seen as social actors who are knowledgeable about issues that concern their lives, both in research and policymaking. However, this approach is not without challenges, particularly in relation to sensitive topics like poverty. One key challenge relates to how to involve children effectively so that their stories are actually listened to and acted upon by policymakers. This article reflects on the potential of photovoice as a method to make explicit children’s narratives about their lives and to inform policymakers of children’s perspectives. We involved two groups of children living in contexts of poverty and deprivation in urban areas of the Netherlands, supporting them to refine their narrative and presentation through photography. The children were brought into contact with policymakers after they had gained experience as photographers and experiential experts. The policymakers found their narratives compelling, and there is evidence that the children’s perspectives were taken on board in local government. Exhibition of the photographs using a specially designed table was also found to be an effective addition to the photovoice method. We conclude that photovoice can be successfully used to facilitate dialogue between children and policymakers, but that its use requires time, creativity and reflexivity.

Keywords

Youth poverty photovoice participatory action research dialogue with policymakers invoking action and change

Introduction

Taking children seriously as partners in research has gained ground in recent years. In childhood studies, children are increasingly seen as social actors, that is as active participants in societal life, and are addressed accordingly as participants and coresearchers, revealing issues and concerns that they themselves identify as important (Christensen & Prout, 2002). Efforts are being made to develop research methods that support children’s contribution to our understanding of their living environment. These efforts range from consulting children to actively involving them in designing and carrying out research projects themselves (Dedding, Jurrius, Moonen, & Rutjes, 2013; Kellet, 2004; Vis, Strandbu, Holtan, & Thomas, 2011).

Not only social scientists but also local governments increasingly acknowledge the importance of taking children’s views into account to develop policies that fit their needs and daily reality, with regard to such diverse issues as tackling domestic violence (Jurrius, Havinga, Sarti, & Stapel, 2006), debt problems among youth (Noorda & Pehlivan, 2009) and quality of health care (Rutjes & Sarti, 2012). As in other European countries, local councils in the Netherlands have become increasingly responsible for youth policy (Timmerman, 2009). The law requires that local councils not only strengthen the development of children through families, neighbourhoods, schools and youth work but also invest in strengthening the ‘pedagogical civil society’ and in giving children and youngsters a voice (‘Coalition Agreement VVD-PvdA’ [Volkspartij Vrijheid & Democratie-Partij van de Arbeid], 2012). The local councils have considerable freedom in the way they interpret and carry out this obligation, leaving many of them struggling with the question of how to do this properly. Initiatives like youth councils are seldom potent, often failing to represent certain groups of children or to bring their issues to the policymaking table effectively, especially since they are often initiated and led by adults and depend on formal adult-oriented systems and communication styles (Wyness, 2009). For example, Matthews (2001) found that youth involved in UK-based youth councils named ‘it does not represent the views of people like me’ as a major weakness.

One promising method to achieve youth participation in research and policymaking is photovoice. Photovoice is a participatory action research (PAR) method that can be used to give voice to vulnerable groups by engaging them through photography to act as researchers and potential catalysts for change in their own communities (Wang & Burris, 1997). Photovoice can serve three goals: (a) help people to record and reflect on their community’s strengths and concerns, (b) promote critical dialogue and knowledge about important community issues through large and small group discussions of photographs and (c) reach out to policymakers (Wang, 2000, 2006; Wang & Burris, 1997). Although photovoice can serve these goals, action is not guaranteed. If not executed well, photovoice can raise false hopes, failing to inform policy or rally public concern and leaving participants feeling less empowered than before (Strack, Magill, & McDonagh, 2004). Especially children’s stories are often not translated into change because, even more than adults, they depend on researchers and policymakers to take the needed measures (Catalani & Minkler, 2010; Strack et al., 2004).

In this article, we consider how photovoice can be used to bring about an effective dialogue between children and policymakers, focusing on how children growing up in contexts of poverty can express themselves on issues which are relevant to them. In addition to the intrinsic advantages of photovoice described earlier, we opted for photovoice to cope with the methodological difficulties of discussing the subject of poverty with children. Poverty can set children apart, particularly if it is not addressed sensitively (Holloway, Sorcha Mahony, Royston, & Mueller, 2014). Poverty and being poor is surrounded by taboos because it can generate shame in both children and adults in a wealthy country like the Netherlands. Children who face deprivation tend to avoid using labels as ‘poverty’ and ‘poor’ and sometimes get angry or upset when others, like researchers, use these terms (Sarti, Schalkers, & Dedding, 2015; Sime, 2008). Moreover, due to the image of children as vulnerable and to the notion of childhood as an ideally carefree and joyful period in life (Sandbaek,1999; Sorin, 2005), researchers feel constrained when discussing what is seen as a painful and confrontational topic, while gatekeepers may express objections to such discussion as well (Cree, Kay, & Tisdall, 2002; Sandbaek, 1999).

Giving children the opportunity to photograph their lives and neighbourhoods allows them to address topics in a comfortable way because they can tell their story in their own words and at their own pace, without much intervention from adults. In our study, we aimed to bring children who grow up in contexts of poverty and deprivation and policymakers together, to stimulate genuine interest and understanding of children’s daily lives among the policymakers and to invoke a sense of urgency to act upon needs articulated by children. Furthermore, we considered whether photovoice, as is originally designed by Wang (2002, 2006), is suitable for reaching these aims or whether special adjustments and refinements are needed.

Methodology

Our study was designed as a PAR project. The PAR-approach entails data collection, reflection and involving the people in taking action to bring about public improvements (Baum, MacDoigall, & Smith, 2006). Photovoice was used as the central method, which meant that children were involved in recording and reflecting on their lives and neighbourhoods through photos. Although researchers initially directed the project, children gradually became more involved as partners, deciding on topics for photography and themes to discuss. In individual and group photo elicitation interviews (Epstein, Stevens, Mc Keever, & Baruchel, 2008; Harper, 2002), understanding of children’s experiences and needs was gained. Furthermore, we conducted participant observation and informal interviews while working and travelling with the children during work sessions and outings.

To enhance the quality of our research, provisions were made to ensure credibility. Among others, the following measures were taken: (1) Different methods, such as photovoice, individual and group discussions and observation, were used in concert, compensating for their individual limitations and exploiting their respective benefits (triangulation; Denzin, 2009; Shenton, 2004); (2) The adoption and adaptation of such a well-established method as photovoice allowed for us to obtain a more complete picture of children’s lives (Shenton, 2004); (3) All the researchers had many years of experience in the field of child participation and qualitative research; (4) Frequent debriefing sessions, including regular meetings, were organised with the project leader, researchers and project partners to discuss and reflect on results and interpretations, reducing researcher bias (Shenton, 2004).

The project was presented to children as ‘a photo project on children’s lives and neighbourhoods’. A total of 29 children, living in impoverished areas of the Dutch provincial town of Hoorn and the capital city of Amsterdam, participated in the project. The Hoorn group was recruited by local youth workers. This group consisted of 5 boys and 10 girls, aged 8–12 years. The Amsterdam group was recruited via three local schools and consisted of nine boys and five girls, aged 10–14 years. The children of the Hoorn and Amsterdam groups were all born and raised in the Netherlands but have diverse ethnic backgrounds: Dutch (n = 15), Moroccan (n = 7), Chinese (n = 2), Turkish (n = 1), Iranian (n = 1), Surinamese (n = 1), Iraqi (n = 1) and Afghan (n = 1). We met the Amsterdam children once a week for 2 hr, over a period of 1 year. We organised weekly meetings with the children from Hoorn as well. The Amsterdam group was involved in a dialogue with policymakers and the local community. Due to organisational challenges in the welfare organisation in Hoorn, they could not provide sufficient support to extend the project with a dialogue. For reasons of coherence, the findings of this article predominantly relate to our work with the Amsterdam children, validated by encounters with the Hoorn children.

The researchers developed relationships of trust with the children by walking them from school to the project location and to their homes afterwards, by organising recreational outings and by having casual conversations with them. This helped to establish high levels of rapport with the children and contributed to the researchers’ in-depth insights into the children’s lives. The children were intrigued by the fact that one of the researchers has the same ethnic and religious background as some of them, contributing to an atmosphere of trust and open-heartedness. The second researcher has a native, secular background and contributed a candid and inquisitive attitude, preventing researcher bias. However, in spite of the differences in researchers’ backgrounds, there were also many common characteristics that distinguished them from the children: Both researchers are older than the children and highly educated. Both are interested in and have much experience in working with the theme of child poverty in the Netherlands but are not poor themselves. This did not seem to pose an obstacle in connecting with the children, especially since poverty and being poor was not at the centre of discussions with children. Instead, the focus was on their neighbourhood with which the researchers were not familiar. The children appreciated adult attention and thrived on having someone to talk to and someone to listen to their stories, illustrated, for example, by them showing us their report cards or texting us during their holidays.

Given the sensitivity of the issue of child poverty, we chose to involve children as coresearchers and facilitate them in giving direction to the course of the project. We approached informed consent as a process rather than assuming it throughout on the basis of initial consent (Heath, Charles, Crow, & Wiles, 2007). This meant that consent was negotiated as an ongoing concern. We kept the parents and young people informed at all stages of the research. To ensure that we only involved children who were genuinely interested in taking part, we emphasised the voluntary nature of their participation and the opportunity to withdraw from the project whenever they wished and without any consequences. To ensure anonymity and confidentiality, aliases were chosen for use in publications, like the article in hand.

Throughout the project, expert research knowledge and local knowledge were combined. Children were involved in the interpretation of the material to increase validity of the results (Brydon-Miller, Greenwood, & Maguire, 2003). After initial basic training on how to use a camera provided by a well-known news photographer, the children took a first set of pictures. They discussed these among themselves and with the researchers. After these first photographs were categorised and initial themes were established, the researchers together with the children studied the results and determined which topics were missing. Increasingly, the children had more say in operational procedures and, on the basis of identified lacunae, new ideas for photography were discussed with the children to further deepen the understanding of their lives and needs. Children were not just involved in analysis once, after finishing data collection, but were involved throughout in a responsive dialogue. The researchers facilitated the process by doing small exercises, such as a candy sorting game (Foster-Fishman, Law, Lichty, & Aoun, 2010) and ranking exercises, to make the children familiar with the process of qualitative analysis. Parallel to the analysis with the children, detailed interview and focus group discussion transcripts, field notes and observation reports were written and analysed by the researchers. Inductive content analysis of the raw data was undertaken to identify recurring concepts and themes that were discussed and reflected upon in the research team. This fed the analysis with the children but also our own understanding of children’s lives and needs and assured that analyses were performed at an academic level, leading to articles for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Findings: Connecting children with policymakers through photovoice

In the first part of the findings, we focus on how photovoice contributed to dealing with the difficulty of discussing the sensitive topic of poverty with children in a nonoffensive manner. In the second part, we describe how we engaged policymakers in a dialogue with children about their concerns and needs.

Addressing child poverty with the help of photovoice

We developed a varied programme to guide the maturation of the children’s story and that children would find enjoyable to spend their time on. The programme was not fixed, we were always open to adjust and adapt to the unexpected, for example, when children needed more time to get acquainted with each other and the researcher, when they had better ideas on activities or when they appeared to be bored.

The first meeting was dedicated to explaining the goals and procedures of the photo project. We explained to the children that we were interested in their stories and lives and that they have a right to have their voices heard in matters that concern their lives. We asked them to take photographs and tell us about their ideas about what is positive in their lives and neighbourhood and how their lives could be improved. We further explained we wanted to generate attention to their lives and needs via these photographs. We explained that we wanted to set up a photography exhibition and that they could invite whomever they wanted, but that we thought it was beneficial to invite policymakers because they have the power to bring about change. To manage participant expectations, we informed the children that policymakers were not involved initially and that their involvement later on was not yet decided. We explained that we would fully commit ourselves to getting policymakers to listen to children’s stories. The children reacted enthusiastically but were also sceptical about the idea that they would discuss their lives and needs with policymakers, not expecting them to be interested. The researchers explained that they would help the children where needed, for example, in getting in touch with policymakers and focusing attention on their story.

During the photographer’s first encounter with the children, he explained basic mechanical aspects of camera use, like operating the camera when taking pictures, and close-ups and angles. Matters of ethical conduct, such as asking permission from subjects, were also discussed. Subsequently, the children were accompanied by the photographer on guided tours through their neighbourhood, appealing to children’s experiential knowledge. The children made photographs of places and things they liked or did not like. For example, Jamey made a picture of litter in his neighbourhood. For him, this is a significant problem because litter hinders him and his friends when playing outside (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

A walk through the neighbourhood with the photographer: capturing litter.

In addition to group trips through the neighbourhood, the children took the cameras home to capture different aspects of their day-to-day lives. The children expressed that they were excited about bringing the new camera to their homes because many of them had never owned a camera. We invited them to take 10–15 photographs of anything that says something about their lives, whether positive or negative. These photographs were used as a starting point for an individual interview, offering children the opportunity to bond with the researcher and to share things they might be less willing to talk about in a group setting. Some children preferred to do this interview together with their friend(s). The children determined which photos to discuss and in which order. The researcher asked short, open-ended questions, such as: What is this? What is happening here? Why did you take this photo? This provided insights into how children perceived their lives and neighbourhood and which themes were important to them.

As the project progressed, we carefully encouraged children to take photos of domains in their lives that were still underrepresented in their photo series. For example, we noticed that children mainly took photos of the outside environment, such as streets and playgrounds, their friends and school life, but very few of their home environment. Hence, we invited them to take some photos inside, for example, to take a picture of their favourite spot in the house. Moreover, to shape their own stories and for us to gain a better understanding of their personal lives, we invited them to make their own photograph series about a topic of their interest. Three children took advantage of this opportunity. Interestingly, these individual series yielded photographs of children’s home environment. This provided an opening to discuss why they initially were not very willing to take such photos. Children told us that this had to do with privacy aspects as their parents do not want them to take pictures of the interior, and only family and really good friends are allowed to see their house. Furthermore, this individual approach strengthened our relationship of trust with the children. New and sensitive topics that previously had not been explicitly addressed came to the fore, also during group discussions. For example, Ebru’s series concerning ‘things I hold dear and would not want to miss for the world’ included a picture of her mother’s wallet because, as she shortly explained, ‘money is important’. This was an opening for Brittany to share that her mother has financial problems: ‘Sometimes we have no money. Mum sometimes wants to cook a particular dish and we’re really looking forward to it but we can’t buy the ingredients’. The girls mentioned that they also know other people in the neighbourhood with little money, and they indicated that this is a topic that is not openly talked about. The conversation continued about why, according to children, being labelled as poor is such a bad thing. They associated being poor with scarcity and limitations in taking part in activities such as sports, things they don’t want to be identified with. As children explained, referring to someone as poor is ‘a bit like gossiping’ and only happens when people want to speak ill of a person. Therefore, when it affects you, you only want your nearest friends and people you trust to know about it. Brittany explained in response to a question as to why she is now talking about being poor:

It is really terrible if it’s said about you [that you are poor]. But this is about me, this is not gossip. This is not terrible because it’s only you [the researcher] and my girlfriends that are hearing it. That is safe but if you say it in public, then people will know and they will talk about you.

Successful elements of the photo project

Three main elements were identified that contributed to enabling a discussion about poverty with children and gaining in-depth insights into their personal lives and needs. First, children were in charge of presenting their own story. Second, they were encouraged to show rather than tell their stories, and third, the method appealed to children’s sense of pride.

Children in charge of their own story

Giving children a camera put them in charge and let them influence themes of subsequent conversations and what they would disclose and when. The children gradually grew in their role as photographers and ‘experts on their neighbourhood’, growing increasingly comfortable in discussing their lives and neighbourhood. Working in a group for a prolonged period of time contributed to children’s skills in expressing their own opinions and listening to others. In addition, children increasingly felt comfortable enough to speak up to make their voices heard. Tarik explained: ‘For example, you don’t want to talk, you’re afraid or something, maybe you’re shy. But then you are not shy anymore because the others talk and then you join them in conversation. That’s good’.

Show rather than tell

Photovoice offered the children an opportunity to show rather than ‘tell’ aspects of their lives and identities that might have otherwise remained unknown, as the method does not depend solely on their oral competencies. Besides, children believed that only talking is ‘boring’. At the same time, the verbal accounts elicited, supported and contextualised the visual images. For example, children took photos of playgrounds, explaining that playgrounds mainly address the needs of small children and that they never change, which makes them boring (see Figure 2). As Omar said: ‘Nobody goes to the playgrounds. There is no adventure at all!’

Figure 2.

Children take pictures of playgrounds.

By discussing the photos of inadequate playgrounds, we realised how these are especially problematic for children living in impoverished areas. Cramped living arrangements often mean that children have little space at home to play, and joining clubs and formal activities is impeded as well due to scarce financial resources. Ebru commented:

I play outside every day. I play more outside than inside. Outside you can play with your friends. Inside you can’t do that. There’s not much space inside: we’ve only got the rooms. We don’t have a garden. We would play at home more often if we had a garden.

Appeal to pride

Photography was found to have a positive impact on children’s sense of pride and feelings of self-worth. For children living in poverty, taking photos is not a common past-time, and they enjoyed having a camera in their possession. In addition to using photographs as a way of expressing their needs, we invited children to take photographs of positive issues as well. On a regular basis, they received prints of their photographs which were proudly put in a special place in their homes:

I just can’t believe that I am in the photo project and that I make all these beautiful photos [. . .] I have placed the card with my photograph on it on my cupboard. I look at it every day. (Sahar)

The fact that children increasingly had the opportunity to articulate and execute their own projects added to their sense of accomplishment.

Preparing for a dialogue with policymakers

Initially, children and policymakers were not enthusiastic about having a dialogue. Children stated that they were worried about whether policymakers would be genuinely interested in their photo exhibition and related stories. Policymakers saw practical barriers. For example, they commented that exhibition spaces had already been booked for the coming year. Nevertheless, 7 months after the start of the project, we visited the council office with seven children for a meeting with the local councillor, a policy advisor and a communication officer (see Figure 3). The children were quickly at ease, talking about the photo collages they had brought to the meeting, reflecting on different themes that needed attention in their opinion, such as the importance of adequate playgrounds, the handling of litter and feelings of unsafety in their neighbourhood.

Figure 3.

Preparing collages for the meeting with the local councillor.

The local councillor promised the children that their photos could be displayed at the council office notwithstanding earlier expressed practical objections, but nothing concrete was agreed upon concerning time and occasion.

In the meanwhile, we went to a photography museum with the children because we learned that none of the children had ever been to a formal exhibition. They enjoyed the outing but came to the conclusion that a conventional photo exhibition, as the researchers had planned, was boring. Based on the criticism of the children on the idea of having a ‘boring’ exhibition and a lack of space on the wall at the council office, the project leader came up with an innovative way to present the data, namely, a photo stories table, and the researchers proposed the idea of using the table to the children. Using the photo stories table bypassed the argument of not having space on the walls for an exhibition and offered more opportunities for creativity and for doing things differently. Together with an empathic codesigner, the children arrived at a table with seven different styles of legs, chosen and decorated by the children and representing their individual identities. It involved a glass top layer under which a selection of photographs could be displayed. Furthermore, some of the photo material was highly sensitive, calling for careful deliberation on what to exhibit. For example, children did not want to expose photos of their bedrooms. Children gave permission for the exhibition of other intimate photographs, such as photos of their homes and relatives, with the restriction that these photos would be less visible. This led to the idea of drawers for more intimate material, some of which could be opened and others not.

The advantage of the table is that it naturally facilitates a dialogue, since people literally gather around it. Due to its form, it has the ability to assert its presence and claim people’s attention. Two months after the meeting at the council office, the table was presented by the children to local policymakers and the general public at the annual open evening for citizens (see Figure 4). Parents stated that they were surprised and impressed that their children were having a public conversation with the local councillor and the general public. Adults seemed moved emotionally by the stories of the children, and they were also impressed by the children’s skills as storytellers of their lives and as knowledgeable conversation partners. People spontaneously started to talk to the children and each other. The local press was present to generate a number of items in local newspapers and a magazine. This contributed to the children’s sense of accomplishment and empowerment:

Researcher: What did you find most special about the photo project?

Omar: Well when we were at the council office, right guys?! [directed at the other children]

Researcher: The other evening?

Jasim: Yes, then we were famous!

The photo stories table stayed in the council offices for a week for everyone to see and reflect on the photographs and the children’s stories. During this time, people could share their thoughts on a blackboard on the side of the table (see Figure 5).

Figure 4.

Gathering around the photo stories table at the council office.

Figure 5.

Reactions on the blackboard: ‘Inspiring! Keep it up’ (left) and ‘Amazing, keep making sure people listen to your stories!’ (right).

Subsequently the table was also exhibited at two schools and at a local library. At these locations, the children had the opportunity to discuss their photographs with their peers. Furthermore, it provided them with the opportunity to communicate the results to their own communities and to influence local professionals. For instance, a head teacher said that he intended to involve children in the design of the school playground in the future.

The project stimulated local policymakers to further discuss the issue of youth poverty, taking children’s perspectives into account. For many policymakers, it was the first time they had actively communicated with children in their work and it gave them new insights. They became very enthusiastic about the potential of the method to address and prioritise the issues and needs identified by children. They stated that they wanted to continue with such a consultation process because it is consistent with current developments in the direction of citizen consultation (burgerraadpleging). Furthermore, the enthusiasm of the officials of the local council spread to the city of Amsterdam at large. A strategy meeting was organised in which the future policy for children living in poverty was discussed. The children’s table held centre stage at this meeting and was used to reflect on existing and future policies for children living in poverty (see Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Outlining policy for children living in poverty with the help of the photo stories table.

Discussion and conclusion

This study demonstrates how photovoice can be used to empower children who grow up in contexts of poverty and can be instrumental in bringing about an effective dialogue between children and policymakers. Photovoice facilitates this process by its focus on images that tell the children’s own stories and generate more empathy than words alone. Photovoice makes it possible for children to take charge of conversations, putting the image in the forefront and offering children the opportunity to clarify their stories verbally. Furthermore, a few additional aspects contributed to the success of the project. First, using photovoice, we were able to maintain contact with the children over a long period. This meant that there was enough time for the children’s stories about their lives and poverty to mature in a positive way giving, as is suggested by Wang and Burris (1997), children the opportunity to depict their own and their neighbourhood’s needs as well as assets. Furthermore, by giving children time and opportunity to practice discussion and presentation, children’s confidence was strengthened. Second, rather than starting out by connecting with and mobilising policymakers as is suggested by Wang (2006), we deliberately chose to start by forming a bond with children, empowering them to build their own narrative about their lives and neighbourhood. This turned out to be an effective way of getting heard by policymakers who initially did not have a clear vision on child participation and how to execute it in their municipality. We argue that confronting policymakers with an ongoing process and the first results was more powerful than asking them to join an indeterminate PAR process with unclear added value. Third, the photo stories table as a means for communicating children’s stories turned out to be an extremely powerful tool in facilitating dialogue. The children had the opportunity to literally gather round the table with policymakers, show them their photographs and tell their stories. This caused a change in the mind-set of individual policymakers who were drawn into children’s stories and felt the urgency for action. This led them to evaluate their own policies critically and define a new strategy for the future better fitting the daily realities of children.

Nevertheless, as is the case for other photovoice projects, our project was subject to pitfalls and limitations, and new questions arose. First, involving the most vulnerable children is a challenge. In our project, the choice to use photovoice was rooted in the ambition to give children the opportunity to develop the story of their lives and neighbourhood at their own pace, giving their own interpretation of the role poverty does or does not play. For this reason, rather than making a strict selection based on adult definitions of who is poor and not, participation was open to all children in neighbourhoods who are known to be deprived. We wanted to engage children of all segments in the neighbourhoods, including children with less aptitude for concentration, by incorporating many informal events and outings. Children who found it difficult to engage in photography were still welcome to the meetings and able to make a contribution to the conversations. However, we may have missed some of the most marginalised children that we ideally would have wanted to include because they did not feel welcome or comfortable or were not allowed by their parents to come. This corresponds with Wang’s (2000) suggestion that ‘it may be that the people who have the most difficult lives find the method impractical, unappealing or inaccessible’ (p. 191).

Secondly, using photovoice can intrude into children’s private space (Prins, 2010; Wang & Redwood-Jones, 2001), a challenge that becomes the more pressing with a sensitive topic like poverty. Given the intensive nature of the cooperation between the researchers and the children and because we continuously worked on developing a relationship of trust, we saw that the children increasingly felt at ease with sharing their experiences with us. Painful and difficult issues such as poverty were discussed openly. Children played a crucial role in coselecting and cointerpreting material (Newkirk, 1996). Although careful attention was paid to gaining and on regular basis renewing informed consent, we realise that children might not at all times have been sufficiently aware of the full meaning of their research involvement, as is reflected in Brittany’s statement that it is not bad to disclose being poor since it is only shared with the researcher and her friends. We carefully deliberated on what to include in public publications, such as this article. Given the importance of sharing children’s intimate experiences and the precautionary principles of anonymity being upheld, we decided to disseminate such processes and experiences. A related question that arises when working with photovoice is how the photographic material should be used. In our study, the sensitivity of some of the photo material meant that careful deliberation on whether to exhibit it was needed, and opportunities to exhibit some aesthetically beautiful photo material was lost.

Thirdly, taking a participatory approach, children’s interests directed the photography and determined the course of the discussions. We employed creative methods and games to empower children and give them space to explore and develop their ideas. Although initially hesitant, looking to the researchers for guidance, gradually children felt more in charge and took more initiative. Researchers’ ideas were always explained to the children, so that children were able to object or bring forward other ideas. This also meant that we were confronted with children’s limits and taboos. In particular, photographing and discussing the private home environment turned out to be problematic. This means that this area is relatively underexposed. More time would be needed to involve parents, creating the opportunity to learn more about children’s private lives inside the home and about interactions between children and parents.

Finally, we would like to make some suggestions for how to use photovoice to its best advantage. As we have experienced in our project, it is essential to take enough time for the children to gradually get used to each other, the researchers and the photographer and their roles as experiential experts. Employing photovoice once and briefly could lead to insufficient depth and false insights and interpretations. Although the literature considers the need for enough photos to reach saturation (Nykiforuk, Vallianato, & Nieuwendyk, 2011; Strack, Lovelace, Jordan, & Holmes, 2010), less consideration is given to the importance of taking enough time for a cyclic process in which new ideas for photography arise and are executed. In our project, children first took ‘safe’ photographs, showing things they were proud of and could show and discuss easily. It took time and encouragement to get the children to shift their focus to include more problematic parts of their life worlds as well. Moreover, it is important to come full circle by preparing a dialogue with relevant stakeholders to have children’s stories heard in such a way that it leads to change. This starts with giving children the opportunity to speak up in a way that fits their competences and interests, involving a mode of presenting with which they are comfort and which moves policymakers to action.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors’ gratitude goes to all of the children and parents who participated in this research project, the schools of the children and the Amsterdam city council for their support. A special gratitude goes out to Wina Smeenk, emphatic codesigner; Henk Wildschut, photographer; Tineke Willekens, Fleur Lambermon and Laura Buijs for their contributions.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Oranjefonds [Grant number: 20114549], the VSB Foundation [Grant number: 20111197] and the Rabobank Foundation [Grant number: P11.482].

Author biographies

Asia Sarti, MSc, studied pedagogy at the University of Utrecht and has been a researcher at the Alexander Foundation, Institute for Child Studies. She is currently working at the Athena Institute of the VU University Amsterdam. Her study mainly focuses on the experiences of children growing up in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the Netherlands and how they engage with their social environment, aiming to contribute to improving their living conditions and health.

Inge Schalkers, PhD, studied Health- and Life sciences and currently works as a policy advisor at a Dutch patient organisation representing the interests of people with cardiovascular disease. During her doctoral research she has been involved in several participatory research projects in which children's experiences and perspectives are central, including a study about children's perspectives on paediatric hospital care and a study into the life world of children growing up in poverty in the Netherlands.

Joske FG Bunders' is a Professor. Her specific field of interest is the linking of knowledge and expertise of end users (e.g. small-scale farmers or patients) with developments in modern science and (inter) national policy. She has published widely in the area of biotechnology and the role of users in shaping the innovation process. In particular she has conducted research on methodology development to stimulate and facilitate interactive and transdisciplinary processes of problem solving in which various stakeholders engage in a deliberative mutual search and learning process. Much of her current research is focused on low- and middle-income countries, such as Tanzania, Ethiopia, South Africa, Bangladesh, Indonesia and India.

Christine Dedding is a teacher and researcher at the Athena Institute of the VU University, Amsterdam. She graduated in Medical Anthropology at the University of Amsterdam. She continued her education with a PhD trajectory at the Amsterdam School for Social Science Research. By means of a two sided approach, Participatory Action Research and Ethnography, she analysed the power- and dependency relationships between children with diabetes and their medical professionals. Her current research projects focus on among others: child participation within healthcare, children and poverty, participation of elderly within formal home care, and improving mental health of students in Vietnam.

References

Baum

MacDougall

Smith

(2006) Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 60: 854–857.

Bruggen slaan; regeerakkoord VVD-PvdA [Building bridges; Coalition Agreement VVD-PvdA]. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl.

Brydon-Miller

Greenwood

Maguire

(2003) Why action research? Action Research 1: 9–28.

Catalani

Minkler

(2010) Photovoice: A review of the literature in health and public health. Health Education & Behavior 37: 424–451.

Christensen

Prout

(2002) Working with ethical symmetry in social research with children. Childhood 9: 477–497.

Cree

V. E.

Kay

Tisdall

(2002) Research with children: Sharing the dilemmas. Child & Family Social Work 7: 47–56.

Dedding

Jurrius

Moonen

Rutjes

(2013) Kinderen en jongeren actief in wetenschappelijk onderzoek: Ethiek, methoden en resultaten van onderzoek met en door jeugd. [Children and youngsters active in scientific research: Ethics, methods and results of research with and by youth], Houten, the Netherlands: LanooCampus.

Denzin

N. K.

(2009) The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological research methods, Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Epstein

Stevens

Mc Keever

Baruchel

(2008) Photo elicitation interview (PEI): Using photos to elicit children’s perspectives. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5: 1–11.

10.

Foster-Fishman

P. G.

Law

K. M.

Lichty

L. F.

Aoun

(2010) Youth ReACT for Social Change: A method for youth participatory action research. American Journal of Community Psychology 46: 67–83.

11.

Harper

(2002) Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies 17: 13–26.

12.

Heath

Charles

Crow

Wiles

(2007) Informed consent, gatekeepers and go‐betweens: Negotiating consent in child‐and youth‐orientated institutions. British Educational Research Journal 33: 403–417.

13.

Holloway, E., Sorcha Mahony, S., Royston, S., & Mueller, D. (2014). Through young eyes: Children’s commission on poverty. Retrieved from http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk.

14.

Jurrius

Havinga

Sarti

Stapel

(2006) Actieplan Aanpak Kindermishandeling: antwoord van kinderen en jongeren [Actionplan tackling child abuse: answers from children and youngsters], Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Stichting Alexander.

15.

Kellet

(2004) Just teach us the skills please, we’ll do the rest: Empowering ten-year-olds as active researchers. Children & Society 18: 329–343.

16.

Matthews

(2001) Citizenship, youth councils and young people’s participation. Journal of Youth Studies 4: 299–318.

17.

Newkirk

(1996) Seduction and betrayal in qualitative research. In: Mortensen

Kirsch

(eds) Ethics and the representation in qualitative studies in literacy, Urbana, IL: National council of teachers of English, pp. 36–49.

18.

Noorda

Pehlivan

(2009) Kredietcrisis onder risicojongeren. Een andere kijk op schulden en huisvestingsproblemen [Credit crisis among risk youth. A different perspective on debt and housing problems], Den Haag, the Netherlands: SDU.

19.

Nykiforuk

C. I.

Vallianatos

Nieuwendyk

L. M.

(2011) Photovoice as a method for revealing community perceptions of the built and social environment. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 10: 103–124.

20.

Prins

(2010) Participatory photography: A tool for empowerment or surveillance? Action Research 8: 426–443.

21.

Rutjes

Sarti

(2012) Cliënten actief met de kwaliteit van zorg – De Q4C standaarden in perspectief en in de praktijk. [Clients active with the quality of care – The Q4C standards in perspective and in practice.], Houten, the Netherlands: LannooCampus.

22.

Sandbaek

(1999) Adult images of childhood and research on client children. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2: 191–202.

23.

Sarti

Schalkers

Dedding

(2015) ‘I am not poor. Poor children live in Africa’: Social identity and children’s perspectives on growing up in contexts of poverty and deprivation in the Netherlands. Children & Society 29: 535–545.

24.

Shenton

A. K.

(2004) Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information 22: 63–75.

25.

Sime

(2008) Ethical and methodological issues in engaging young people living in poverty with participatory research methods. Children’s Geographies 6: 63–78.

26.

Sorin

(2005) Changing images of childhood: Reconceptualising early childhood practice. International Journal of Transitions in Childhood 1: 12–21.

27.

Strack

R. W.

Lovelace

K. A.

Jordan

T. D.

Holmes

A. P.

(2010) Framing photovoice using a social-ecological logic model as a guide. Health Promotion Practice 11: 629–636.

28.

Strack

R. W.

Magill

McDonagh

(2004) Engaging youth through photovoice. Health Promotion Practice 5: 49–58.

29.

Timmerman

(2009) Youth policy and participation: An analysis of pedagogical ideals in municipal youth policy in the Netherlands. Children and Youth Services Review 31: 572–576.

30.

Vis

Strandbu

Holtan

Thomas

(2011) Participation and health – A research review of child participation in planning and decision-making. Child & Family Social Work 16: 325–335.

31.

Wang

C. C.

(2000) Using photovoice as a participatory assessment and issue selection tool. In: Minkler

Wallerstein

(eds) Community based participatory research for health, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 179–196.

32.

Wang

C. C.

(2006) Youth participation in photovoice as a strategy for community change. Journal of Community Practice 14: 147–161.

33.

Wang

C. C.

Burris

M. A.

(1997) Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior 24: 369–387.

34.

Wang

C. C.

Redwood-Jones

Y. A.

(2001) Photovoice ethics: Perspectives from flint photovoice. Health Education & Behavior 28: 560–572.

35.

Wyness

(2009) Children representing children: Participation and the problem of diversity in UK youth councils. Childhood 16: 535–552.