Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 279 Accesses

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods ((PSERM))

Abstract

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.

And so she forges towards the new frontier, although confident, she steps tentatively, for little does she know what is to become of her.”(Brown, 2008, p. 152)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, A. (1972). A new context for psychology: Social ecology. American Psychologist, 27(9), 903–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, A., Stokols, D., & Catalano, R. (1975). Social ecology: An emerging multidiscipline. Journal of Environmental Education, 7(2), 32–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Brown, A. (2009). South Burnett early movement and stimulation project. Retrieved from Toowoomba, QLD. https://eprints.usq.edu.au/22536/1/Brown_2012_whole.pdf

  • 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 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2017.13799.

  • 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. http://www.sbm.org/UserFiles/file/Symposium_24_Stokols.pdf

  • Bushin, N. (2009). Researching family migration decision making: A children-in-families approach. Population, Space and Place, 15(5), 429–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, P., & James, A. (Eds.). (2008). Research with children: Perspectives and practices (2nd ed.). Milton Park, Oxon: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K. J. (2007). Qualitative methods for family studies and human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabb, J. (2010). Researching intimacy in families. Basingstoke, UK: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organisation of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein, T. N., & Davis, S. N. (2013). Methods of family research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA/Los Angeles: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • hooks, b. (2000). Feminist theory: From margin to center (2nd ed.). London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://familydesigncollab.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FLDC-Convening-Report-Fin-033117.pdf

  • Kaestle, C. (2016). Feminist perspectives advance four challenges to transform family studies. Sex Roles, 75(1), 71–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellett, M. (2010). Rethinking children and research: Attitudes in contemporary society. London: Continuum International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Mason, J., & Danby, S. (2011). Children as experts in their lives: Child inclusive research. Child Indicators Research, 4(2), 185–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. R., Doolittle, M., & Schlater, S. D. (2012). Understanding family meanings: A reflective text. Bristol, UK: The Open University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, T. (2015). Applying critical social theories to family therapy practice. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McHale, S., Booth, A., & Amato, P. (Eds.). (2014). Emerging methods in family research. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T., & Fry, R. (2011). Place-based approaches to child and family services: A literature review. Retrieved from Parkville, VIC. http://www.rch.org.au/uploadedFiles/Main/Content/ccch/Place_based_services_literature_review.pdf

  • 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. https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/sites/default/files/cfca39-community-engagement.pdf

  • 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. https://www.rch.org.au/uploadedFiles/Main/Content/ccch/CCCH_Collaborate_for_Children_Report_The_Evidence_Nov2014.pdf

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, D., & Winn, M. (Eds.). (2014). Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qvortrup, J. (2005). Varieties of childhood. In Studies in modern childhood (pp. 1–20). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci, R. (2003). Autoethnographic verse: Nicky’s boy: A life in two worlds. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 591–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Seelig, T. (2011). inGenius: A crash course on creativity. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Shonkoff, J. P. (2017). Breakthrough impacts. What science tells us about supporting early childhood development. Young Children, 72(2), 8–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environments. Toward a social ecology of health promotion. American Psychologist, 47(1), 6–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, D. (1996). Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10(4), 282–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, D. (2018). Social ecology in the digital age: Solving problems in a globalised world. San Diego, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from New York. https://www.humanrights.gov.au/convention-rights-child

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice Brown .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brown, A. (2019). Forging Frontiers—Reframing, Methodological Innovation, and Possibilities for Research with, and of, Young Families. In: Respectful Research With and About Young Families. Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02716-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02716-2_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02715-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02716-2

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics