Forging Frontiers—Reframing, Methodological Innovation, and Possibilities for Research with, and of, Young Families

  • Alice BrownEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods book series (PSERM)


Django Paris (‘A friend who understand fully’: Notes on humanizing research in a multiethnic youth community. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(2), 137–149, 2011) helps to set the scene for this chapter by commenting that “We can be friends with our participants. We can, in small ways, come to understand. We can inspire them as they inspire us. We can humanize through the act of research” (p. 147). This text aims to elucidate foundational considerations, perspectives, approaches, and methodologies in an attempt to challenge researchers to rethink, reflect upon, and consider their approaches when planning to engage in researching about, and with, young families. The final chapter captures the direction that a new line of critical inquiry might look like. This journey requires researchers to be open to the process of deconstructing and critically reflecting on existing approaches and methods, but also willing to take risks in venturing beyond the dominant qualitative discourse: of being prepared to explore new ways of thinking that are still very much at the fringe of qualitative research, such as that of humanising, decolonising, critical feminist, and post-structuralist research.


  1. Bermúdez, J. M., Muruthi, B., & Jordan, L. (2016). Decolonizing research methods for family science: Creating space at the centre – Decolonizing research practices. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(2), 192–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binder, A. (1972). A new context for psychology: Social ecology. American Psychologist, 27(9), 903–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder, A., Stokols, D., & Catalano, R. (1975). Social ecology: An emerging multidiscipline. Journal of Environmental Education, 7(2), 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, A. (2008). Towards a new frontier in understanding the contextual influences on paediatric inactivity. In R. Henderson & P. A. Danaher (Eds.), Troubling terrains: Tactics for traversing and transforming contemporary educational research (pp. 149–168). Teneriffe, QLD: Post Pressed.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, A. (2009). South Burnett early movement and stimulation project. Retrieved from Toowoomba, QLD.
  6. Brown, A. (2012). The new frontier: A social ecological exploration of factors impacting on parental support for the active play of young children within the micro-environment of the family home. PhD, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A., & Danaher, P. A. (2017). CHE Principles: Facilitating authentic and dialogical semi-structured interviews in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 1–15.
  8. Brown, A., Stokols, D., Sallis, J., Hiatt, R., & Orleans, T. (2013). The possibilities and potential of social ecological frameworks to understand health behaviours and outcomes. Paper presented at the proceeding of symposium (24) presented at the 34th annual conference of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, San Francisco.
  9. Bushin, N. (2009). Researching family migration decision making: A children-in-families approach. Population, Space and Place, 15(5), 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen, P., & James, A. (Eds.). (2008). Research with children: Perspectives and practices (2nd ed.). Milton Park, Oxon: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, A. (2011). Breaking methodological boundaries? Exploring visual, participatory methods with adults and young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(3), 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coyne, I., Hallström, I., & Söderbäck, M. (2016). Reframing the focus from a family-centred to a child-centred care approach for children’s healthcare. Journal of Child Health Care, 20(4), 494–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daly, K. J. (2007). Qualitative methods for family studies and human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Darder, A. (2015). Decolonizing interpretive research: A critical bicultural methodology for social change. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 14(2), 63–77.Google Scholar
  15. Dockett, S., Perry, B., Kearney, E., Hamshire, A., Mason, J., & Schmied, V. (2009). Researching with families: Ethical issues and situations. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10(4), 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doucet, A. (2016). Is the stay-at-home dad (SAHD) a feminist concept? A genealogical, relational, and feminist critique. Sex Roles, 75(1–2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fargas-Malet, M., McSherry, D., Larkin, E., & Robinson, C. (2010). Research with children: Methodological issues and innovative techniques. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(2), 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiese, B. (2013). Family context in early childhood. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (3rd ed., pp. 369–384). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Foster, V., & Young, A. (2015). Reflecting on participatory methodologies: Research with parents of babies requiring neonatal care. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(1), 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fulcher, M., Dinella, L. M., & Weisgram, E. S. (2015). Constructing a feminist reorganization of the heterosexual breadwinner/caregiver family model: College students’ plans for their own future families. Sex Roles, 73(3–4), 174–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gabb, J. (2010). Researching intimacy in families. Basingstoke, UK: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organisation of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Greenstein, T. N., & Davis, S. N. (2013). Methods of family research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA/Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harden, J., Backett-Milburn, K., Hill, M., & MacLean, A. (2010). Oh, what a tangled web we weave: Experiences of doing ‘multiple perspectives’ research in families. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(5), 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henderson, A., Harmon, S., & Newman, H. (2016). The price mothers pay, even when they are not buying it: Mental health consequences of idealized motherhood. Sex Roles, 74(11–12), 512–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. hooks, b. (2000). Feminist theory: From margin to center (2nd ed.). London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  28. Ishimaru, A., & Bang, M. (2015). Toward a transformative research and practice agenda for racial equity in family engagement: 2015–2016 family leadership design collaborative white paper. Retrieved from University of Washington.
  29. Kaestle, C. (2016). Feminist perspectives advance four challenges to transform family studies. Sex Roles, 75(1), 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kellett, M. (2010). Rethinking children and research: Attitudes in contemporary society. London: Continuum International Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate: The essential guide for progressives. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Lakoff, G. (2014). The all new don’t think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Mannion, G. (2007). Going spatial, going relationational: Why “listening to children” and children’s participation needs reframing. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3), 405–420.Google Scholar
  34. Mason, J., & Danby, S. (2011). Children as experts in their lives: Child inclusive research. Child Indicators Research, 4(2), 185–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCarthy, J. R., Doolittle, M., & Schlater, S. D. (2012). Understanding family meanings: A reflective text. Bristol, UK: The Open University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCubbin, L. D., McCubbin, H. I., Zhang, W., Kehl, L., & Strom, I. (2013). Relational well-being: An indigenous perspective and measure. Family Relations, 62(2), 354–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McDowell, T. (2015). Applying critical social theories to family therapy practice. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McHale, S., Booth, A., & Amato, P. (Eds.). (2014). Emerging methods in family research. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. McNeil, T. (2010). Family as a social determinant of health: Implications for governments and institutions to promote the health and well-being of families. Healthcare Quarterly, 14(Special Issue, Child Health Canada), 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McTavish, M., Streelasky, J., & Coles, L. (2012). Listening to children’s voices: Children as participants in research. International Journal of Early Childhood, 44(3), 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moore, T., & Fry, R. (2011). Place-based approaches to child and family services: A literature review. Retrieved from Parkville, VIC.
  43. Moore, T., McDonald, M., McHugh-Dillon, H., & West, S. (2016). Community engagement: A key strategy for improving outcomes for Australian families. Retrieved from Melbourne, VIC.
  44. Moore, T., McHugh-Dillon, H., Bull, K., Fry, R., Laidlaw, B., & West, S. (2014). The evidence: What we know about place-based approaches to support children’s wellbeing. Retrieved from Parkville, VIC.
  45. Moss, P. (2015). Where am I? Position and perspective in researching early childhood education. In A. Farrell, S. Kagan, E. Tisdall, & M. Kay (Eds.), The Sage handbook of early childhood research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Palaiologou, I. (2014). ‘Do we hear what children want to say?’ Ethical praxis when choosing research tools with children under five. Early Child Development and Care, 184(5), 689–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Paris, D. (2011). ‘A friend who understand fully’: Notes on humanizing research in a multiethnic youth community. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(2), 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paris, D., & Winn, M. (Eds.). (2014). Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Pascal, C., & Bertram, T. (2009). Listening to young citizens: The struggle to make real a participatory paradigm in research with young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 17(2), 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pascal, C., & Bertram, T. (2012). Praxis, ethics and power: Developing praxeology as a participatory paradigm for early childhood research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 20(4), 477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Poulton, R., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (2015). The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study: overview of the first 40 years, with an eye to the future. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 50(5), 679–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Qvortrup, J. (2005). Varieties of childhood. In Studies in modern childhood (pp. 1–20). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reid, C. (2013). Developing a research framework to inform an evidence base for person-centered medicine: Keeping the person at the centre. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare, 1(2), 336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ricci, R. (2003). Autoethnographic verse: Nicky’s boy: A life in two worlds. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 591–596.Google Scholar
  55. Ritchie, J., & Rau, C. (2010). Countercolonial narratives of early childhood education in Aotearoa2. In G. Cannella & L. Soto (Eds.), Childhoods: A handbook (pp. 355–373). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Seelig, T. (2011). inGenius: A crash course on creativity. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  57. Shahjahan, R. A. (2011). Decolonizing the evidence-based education and policy movement: Revealing the colonial vestiges in educational policy, research, and neoliberal reform. Journal of Education Policy, 26(2), 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shonkoff, J. P. (2012). Leveraging the biology of adversity to address the roots of disparities in health and development. Proceedings from the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 109(Supp 2), 1–6.Google Scholar
  59. Shonkoff, J. P. (2017). Breakthrough impacts. What science tells us about supporting early childhood development. Young Children, 72(2), 8–16.Google Scholar
  60. Shonkoff, J. P., & Fisher, P. (2013). Rethinking evidence-based practice and two-generation programs to create the future of early childhood policy. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4), 1635–1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environments. Toward a social ecology of health promotion. American Psychologist, 47(1), 6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stokols, D. (1996). Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10(4), 282–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stokols, D. (2018). Social ecology in the digital age: Solving problems in a globalised world. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  64. Stokols, D., Grzywacz, J., McMahan, S., & Phillips, K. (2003). Increasing the health promotive capacity of human environments. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18(1), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Swadener, B., & Mutua, K. (2008). Decolonizing performances: Deconstructing the global postcolonial. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 31–43). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  66. Swenson, A. R., & Zvonkovic, A. M. (2016). Navigating mothering: A feminist analysis of frequent work travel and independence in families. Sex Roles, 74(11–12), 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tesoriero, F., Boyle, F., & Enright, L. (2010). Using strengths-based ways to build community and contribute to social inclusion. New Community Quarterly, 8(4), 33–37.Google Scholar
  68. Tuck, E. (2016). In conversation with Michelle Fine. Inner angles: Of ethical responses to/with indigenous and decolonizing theories. In N. D. M. Giardina (Ed.), Ethical futures in qualitative research: Decolonizing the politics of knowledge, International congress of qualitative inquiry series (pp. 145–168). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from New York.
  70. Uttal, L. (2009). (Re)visioning family ties to communities and contexts. In S. A. Lloyd, A. L. Few, & K. R. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of feminist studies (pp. 134–146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. van Eeden-Moorefield, B., Malloy, K., & Benson, K. (2016). Gay men’s (non) monogamy ideals and lived experience. Sex Roles, 75(1–2), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zavala, M. (2013). What do we mean by decolonizing research strategies? Lessons from decolonizing, Indigenous research projects in New Zealand and Latin America. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 2(1), 55–71.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business, Education, Law and ArtsUniversity of Southern QueenslandSpringfield CentralAustralia

Personalised recommendations