Advertisement

Researching with Children

  • Graciela TononEmail author
  • Lia Rodriguez de la Vega
  • Denise Benatuil
Reference work entry

Abstract

Research with children is a vast and complex field, as it is influenced by the conceptions of childhood prevalent in each historical period, each particular culture, and each research team conception. In addition, research with children encompasses different points of view: social, political, cultural, and psychological. This chapter provides a review of the current state and the recent developments in each of these fields. Research with children presents researchers with the challenge of finding methods that are well-suited to children and that recognize the importance of children’s experience and agency. Such methods should promote a respectful approach based on ethics. We conceive children as the real protagonists, and thus believe they need to be addressed directly. In the same way, children’s self-expression, understanding, and empowerment should be promoted through the use of different techniques. For the purposes stated above, this chapter explores the possibility of using quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods and the emerging of new proposals such as the inclusion of technologies and arts-based methods that present significant future perspectives.

Keywords

Research methods Children Sociopolitical Culture Psychology Agency 

References

  1. Aber LJ, Jones S. Indicators of positive development in early childhood: Improving concepts and measures. In: Hauser RM, Brown BV, Prosser WR, editors. Indicators of children’s wellbeing, pp. 395–408. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. Ager A. Annual research review: resilience and child well-being–public policy implications. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013;54(4):488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appadurai A. La modernidad desbordada: dimensiones culturales de la globalización. Montevideo: Ediciones Trilce; 2001.Google Scholar
  4. Aries P. Centuries of childhood: a social history of family life. New York: Vintage Books; 1962.Google Scholar
  5. Backe-Hansen E. Between participation and protection. Involving children in child protection research. In: Fossheim H, editor. Cross-cultural child research ethical issues. Norway: The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees; 2013. Retrieved from https://www.etikkom.no/globalassets/documents/publikasjoner-som-pdf/cross-cultural-child-research-webutgave.pdf. Accessed 27 Jun 2015.Google Scholar
  6. Bagnoli A. Beyond the standard interview: the use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods. Qual Res. 2009;9(5):547–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben-Arieh A. Beyond welfare: measuring and monitoring the state of children – new trends and domains. Soc Indic Res. 2000;52(3):235–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ben-Arieh A. Where are the children? Children’s role in measuring and monitoring their wellbeing. Social Indicators. 2005;74(3):573–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ben-Arieh A. The child indicators movement: past, present, and future. Child Indic Res. 2008;1(1):3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ben-Arieh A, Kaufman NH, Andrews AB, George RM, Lee BJ, Aber LJ. Measuring and monitoring children’s well-being, vol. 7. Dordreth: Springer; 2013.Google Scholar
  11. Berry JW. Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Appl Psychol. 1997;46(1):5–34.Google Scholar
  12. Binda NU, Balbastre-Benavent F. Investigación cuantitativa e investigación cualitativa: buscando las ventajas de las diferentes metodologías de investigación. Rev Cienc Econ. 2013;31(2):179–87.Google Scholar
  13. Boddy J. Ethics tensions in research with children across cultures, within countries. A UK Perspective. In: Fossheim H, editor. Cross-cultural child research ethical issues. Norway: The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees; 2013. Retrieved from https://www.etikkom.no/globalassets/documents/publikasjoner-som-pdf/cross-cultural-child-research-webutgave.pdf. Accessed 27 Jun 2015.Google Scholar
  14. Bornstein MH, Bradley RH, editors. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. Oxon: Routledge; 2014.Google Scholar
  15. Boydell KM, Gladstone BM, Volpe T, Allemang B, Stasiulis E. The production and dissemination of knowledge: a scoping review of arts-based health research. Forum Qualitat Social Res. 2012;13(1):Art. 32. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1711/3328Google Scholar
  16. Bradshaw J, Hoelscher P, Richardson D. An index of child well-being in the European Union. Soc Indic Res. 2007;80(1):133–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bryman A. Social research methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.Google Scholar
  18. Chapple S, Richardson D. Doing better for children. OECD; 2009.Google Scholar
  19. Christensen P, James A, editors. Research with children: perspectives and practices. London: Falmer Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  20. Clark E. The proceedings of the thirtieth annual child language research forum. Stanford: Center for Study of Language and Information; 2000.Google Scholar
  21. Cochran-Smith M, Lytle SL. Commentary – changing perspectives on practitioner research inquiry: perspectives, processes and possibilities. Learning Landscape. 2011; 4(2):7–30.Google Scholar
  22. Coffey A, Atkinson P. Making sense of qualitative data: complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1996.Google Scholar
  23. Collins CS, Cooper JE. Emotional intelligence and the qualitative researcher. Int J Qual Methods. 2014;13(1):88–103. http://ijq.sagepub.com/content/13/1/88.full.pdf+html. Accessed 25 Jun 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cook TD, Reichardt CS. Métodos cualitativos y cuantitativos en investigación evaluativa. Madrid: Morata; 1986.Google Scholar
  25. Denzin NK. The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: Praeger; 1978.Google Scholar
  26. ECLAC/UNICEF TACRO (The Americas and the Caribbean Regional Office). Pobreza infantil en América Latina y el Caribe, LC/R.2168. Santiago: ECLAC; 2010.Google Scholar
  27. Edwards CP. Children’s play in cross-cultural perspective: a new look at the six cultures study. Faculty Publications, Department of Child, Youth, and Family Studies. Paper 1. 2005. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=famconfacpub. Accessed 9 Oct 2015.
  28. Espíndola Advis E, Rico MN. Child poverty in Latin America: multiple deprivation and monetary measures combined. In: Minujin A, Nandy S, editors. Global child poverty and well-being: measurement, concepts, policy and action Bristol. UK: The Policy Press.pp; 2013. p. 379–418.Google Scholar
  29. Fernandez S. Promoting the benefits of language learning. Report to the department of education and training. Melbourne: Research unit for multilingualism and cross cultural communication at the university of Melbourne. 2007. Retrieved from https://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/teachlearn/student/promobenefitslanglearning.pdf.Google Scholar
  30. Fossheim H. Introduction. In: Fossheim H, editor. Cross-cultural child research: Ethical issues. Oslo: Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees; 2013. p. 9–16. https://www.etikkom.no/globalassets/documents/publikasjoner-som-pdf/cross-cultural-child-research-webutgave.pdf. Accessed 27 Jun 2015.Google Scholar
  31. Fu G, Xu F, Cameron CA, Heyman G, Lee K. Cross-cultural differences in children’s choices, categorizations, and evaluations of truths and lies. Dev Psychol. 2007;43(2):278–93. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2581463/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fuhs B. Die Generationenproblematik in der Kindheitsdforshcung /The Problem of Generations in the Research of Childhood. In Honig, 1999.Google Scholar
  33. Gaitan Muñoz L. El espacio social de la infancia. Madrid: Comunidad de Madrid Conserjería de Sanidad y Servicios Sociales; 1999.Google Scholar
  34. García M, Hecht AC. Los niños como interlocutores en la investigación antropológica. Consideraciones a partir de un taller de memoria con niños y niñas indígenas. Telluso. 2009;7:163–86.Google Scholar
  35. Gilbert K, editor. The emotional nature of qualitative research. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  36. Giménez G. Identidades en globalización. Espiral, Vll. 2000;19:27–48.Google Scholar
  37. Giménez G. La concepción simbólica de la cultura. In: Giménez G, editor. Teoría y análisis de la cultura. México: CONACULTA e Instituto Coahuilense de Cultura; 2005. p. 67–88.Google Scholar
  38. Glokner Fagetti V. Infancia y representación. Hacia una participación activa de los niños en las investigaciones en Ciencias Sociales. Revista Tramas, subjetividad y procesos sociales. N° 28. Diciembre. México DF: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana; 2007. p. 67–83.Google Scholar
  39. Hanson MJ. Families with Anglo-European roots. In: Lynch EW, Hanson MJ, editors. Developing crosscultural competence: a guide for working with young children and their families. Baltimore: Brookes; 1992. p. 65–87.Google Scholar
  40. Hirschfeld L. Why don’t anthropologists like children? Am Anthropol. 2002;104(2):611–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hymes D. Why linguistics needs the sociologist. Soc Res. 1967;34:632–47.Google Scholar
  42. Jackson-Maldonado D, Thal D, Marchman V, Bates E, Gutierrez-Clellen V. Early lexical development in Spanish-speaking infants and toddlers. J Child Lang. 1993;20:523–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. James A, Prout A, editors. Constructing and reconstructing childhood: contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. London: Falmer Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  44. Johnson R, Onwuegbuzie B, Turner L. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1:112–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Junker DA, Stockman IJ. Expressive vocabulary of German-English bilingual toddlers. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2002;11(4):381–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kamerman S. Preface. In: Kamerman S, Phipps S, Ben-Arieh A, editors. From child welfare to child well-being. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kibria N. The changing lives of Vietnamese-Americans. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  48. Kjørholt AM. “Childhood studies” and the ethics of an encounter: reflections on research with children in different cultural contexts. In: Fossheim H, editor. Cross-cultural child research: ethical issues. Oslo: Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees; 2013. p. 17–44. https://www.etikkom.no/globalassets/documents/publikasjoner-som-pdf/cross-cultural-child-research-webutgave.pdf. Accessed 27 Jun 2015.Google Scholar
  49. Kohan W. Infancia entre educación y filosofía. Barcelona: Ed. Laertes; 2003.Google Scholar
  50. Kwan YK, Ip WC. Life satisfaction, perceived health, violent and altruistic behaviour of Hong Kong Chinese adolescents: only children versus children with siblings. Child Indic Res. 2009;2(4):375–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lau AS, McCabe KM, Yeh M, Garland AF, Wood PA, Hough RL. The acculturation gap-distress hypothesis among high-risk Mexican American families. J Fam Psychol. 2005;19(3):367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Li H, Martin AJ, Armstrong D, Walker R. Risk, protection, and resilience in Chinese adolescents: a psycho-social study. Asian J Soc Psychol. 2011;14(4):269–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods, 4th edn. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  54. Liddicoat A. Learning a language, learning about language, learning to be literate. Babel. 2001;35(3):12–5.Google Scholar
  55. Liebel M. Paternalismo, participación y protagonismo infantil. In: Corona Caraveo Y, Linares Pontón ME, editors. Participación infantil y juvenil en América Latina. México: UAM; 2007.Google Scholar
  56. Lyubomirsky S, Lepper S. A measure of subjective happiness: preliminary reliability and construct validation. Soc Indic Res. 1999;46:137–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Maxwell J. Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. New York: Sage; 1996.Google Scholar
  58. Mieles Barrera M, Tonon G. Children’s quality of life in the Caribbean: a qualitative study. In: Tonon G, editor. Qualitative studies in quality of life methodology and practice, Social indicators research series, vol. 55. Switzerland: Springer; 2015. p. 121–48.Google Scholar
  59. Moreno R. Everyday instruction: a comparison of Mexican American and Anglo mothers and their preschool children. Hisp J Behav Sci. 1997;19:527–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moore KA, Lippman L, Brown B. Indicators of child well-being: The promise for positive youth development. The annals of the american academy of political and social science. 2004;591(1):125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Peterson C. The strengths revolution: a positive psychology perspective. Reclaiming Child Youth. 2013;21(4):7–14.Google Scholar
  62. Pita Fernández S, Pértegas Díaz S. Investigación cuantitativa y cualitativa. Cad Aten Primaria. 2002;9:76–8. http://www.fisterra.com/mbe/investiga/cuanti_cuali/cuanti_cuali.aspGoogle Scholar
  63. Powell MA, Graham A, Taylor NJ, Newell S, Fitzgerald R. Building capacity for ethical research with children and young people: an international research project to examine the ethical issues and challenges in undertaking research with and for children in different majority and minority world contexts – report prepared for the Childwatch International Research Network. Oslo, Norway. 2011. Retrieved from http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=ccyp_pubs. Accessed 26 Jun 2014.
  64. Prosser J, Burke C. Image-based educational research: childlike perspectives. In: Knowles JG, Cole A, editors. Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: perspectives, methodologies, examples and issues. London: Sage; 2008. p. 407–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Punch S. Research with children: the same or different from research with adults? Childhood. 2002;9(3):321–41.Google Scholar
  66. Rabello de Castro L. Participación política en el contexto escolar: experiencias de jóvenes en acción colectiva. In: Corona Caraveo Y, Linares Pontón ME, editors. Participación infantil y juvenil en América Latina. México: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana; 2007. p. 17–45.Google Scholar
  67. Rodriguez Pascual I. Redefiniendo el trabajo metodológico cualitativo con niños: el uso de la entrevista de grupo aplicada al estudio de la tecnología EMPIRIA. Rev Metodología Cienc Soc. 2006;12:65–88. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=297124008003. Accessed 23 Jul 2015Google Scholar
  68. Roer-Strier D, Rosenthal MK. Socialization in changing cultural contexts: a search for images of the “adaptive adult”. Soc Work. 2001;46(3):215–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sampieri RH, Collado CF, Lucio PB. Metodología de la investigación. México: Edición McGraw-Hill; 1996.Google Scholar
  70. Sanders J, Munford R, Liebenberg L. Young people, their families and social supports: understanding resilience with complexity theory. In: Ungar M, editor. The social ecology of resilience. New York: Springer; 2012. p. 233–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Scott J. Children as respondents: the challenge for quantitavive methods. In: Christensen P, James A, editors. Research with children: perspectives and practices. London: Routledge; 2000. p. 98–119.Google Scholar
  72. Sen A. Desarrollo y libertad. Bogota: Ed. Planeta; 2000.Google Scholar
  73. Szapocznik J, Kurtines WM. Family psychology and cultural diversity: opportunities for theory, research, and application. Am Psychol. 1993;48:400–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tonon G. Young people’s quality of life and construction of citizenship, Series SpringerBriefs in well-being and quality of life research. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tonon G, editor. Qualitative studies in quality of life methodology and practice, Social indicators research series, vol. 55. Cham: Springer; 2015.Google Scholar
  76. WHO. Social determinants of health and well-being among young people. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 2012.Google Scholar
  77. Yelland G, Pollard J, Mercuri A. The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language. Appl Psycholinguist. 1993;14:423–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graciela Tonon
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lia Rodriguez de la Vega
    • 3
  • Denise Benatuil
    • 4
  1. 1.Master Program in Social Sciences and CICS-UP, Universidad de PalermoBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.UNICOM- Universidad Nacional de Lomas de ZamoraBuenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, University of PalermoBuenos AiresArgentina
  4. 4.Master Program in Social Sciences and CICS, Universidad de PalermoBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations