Conducting Research with Children and Students

  • Saiyidi Mat Roni
  • Margaret Kristin Merga
  • Julia Elizabeth Morris


When we set about conducting research with young people, we need to put aside our assumption that they will perceive the experience as we might in their place. As we know that “both respondent and question characteristics affect the reliability of responses in surveys” (Borgers et al. 2004, p. 17), conducting any research with children and students requires careful consideration of characteristics often unique to this demographic. Unlike in some qualitative approaches, such as semi-structured interviews, where we can exercise a degree of flexibility to probe the areas of our inquiry, we do not have the same wriggle room in survey-based quantitative data collection.


Satisficing Piloting Engagement with schools Ethics 


  1. Bell, A. (2007). Designing and testing questionnaires for children. Journal of Research in Nursing, 12(5), 461–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borgers, N., & Hox, J. (2001). Item nonresponse in questionnaire research with children. Journal of Official Statistics, 17(2), 321–335.Google Scholar
  3. Borgers, N., De Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive development and response quality 1. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 66(1), 60–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgers, N., Sikkel, D., & Hox, J. (2004). Response effects in surveys on children and adolescents: The effect of number of response options, negative wording, and neutral mid-point. Quality & Quantity, 38(1), 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research, 12(3), 229-238.Google Scholar
  6. Fuchs, M. (2005). Children and adolescents as respondents. Experiments on question order, response order, scale effects and the effect of numeric values associated with response options. Journal of Official Statistics, 21(4), 701.Google Scholar
  7. Merga, M. K. (2016). “I don’t know if she likes reading”: Are teachers perceived to be keen readers, and how is this determined? English in Education, 50(3), 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Merga, M. K., & Roni, S. M. (2017). The influence of access to eReaders, computers and mobile phones on children’s book reading frequency. Computers & Education, 109, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Morrow, V., & Richards, M. (1996). The ethics of social research with children: An overview. Children & Society, 10(2), 90–105.Google Scholar
  10. National Health and Medical Research Council. (2007, updated May 2015). National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  11. Read, J. C., & MacFarlane, S. (2006, June). Using the fun toolkit and other survey methods to gather opinions in child computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 2006 conference on interaction design and children (pp. 81–88). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Van Teijlingen, E., & Hundley, V. (2002). The importance of pilot studies. Nursing Standard, 16(40), 33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saiyidi Mat Roni
    • 1
  • Margaret Kristin Merga
    • 2
  • Julia Elizabeth Morris
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Business and LawEdith Cowan UniversityJoondalupAustralia
  2. 2.School of EducationEdith Cowan UniversityPerthAustralia
  3. 3.School of EducationEdith Cowan UniversityMount LawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations