Advertisement

Knock, Knock! Who’s There? Opening the Door to Creating Ethical, Respectful, and Participatory Research Spaces with Young Families

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

Abstract

Researching with family members offers an unprecedented opportunity for family scholars to explore new understandings of the lived experiences and a range of other phenomena associated with young children, parents, and significant carers. However, due to the busy and very private nature of family life, being invited into these domestic spaces, and entering into dialogical relationships with others, is a privilege. This chapter contributes to this topic by drawing upon the authors’ empirical research, her collaborative research with colleagues. The intent is that by addressing such topics readers are afforded opportunities to more deeply consider the meaning of ‘participation’ in qualitative research and to critically consider how this translates to ethical, respectful, and meaningful research with young families.

References

  1. Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2011). The ethics of research with children and young people: A practical handbook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter, J. (2016). The modern Australian family. Retrieved from Melbourne, VIC. https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/families-week2016-final-20160517.pdf
  4. Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 13(1), 191–222.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Brown, A., & Danaher, P. A. (2012, December 2–6). Respectful, responsible and reciprocal ruralities research: Approaching and positioning educational research differently within Australian rural communities. Paper presented at the In: Joint International Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education and the Asia Pacific Educational Research Association (AARE 2012): Regional and Global Cooperation in Educational Research, 2–6 Dec, Sydney, NSW.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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2017.13799.
  8. Brown, A., Danaher, P. A., Kenny, M., Hyland, S., Levinson, M., & Quvang, C. (2016). Leading educational research: Innovative methodologies that maximise rapport and reciprocity in ways that are ethical and empowering (Symposium). Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  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. Chung, K., & Lounsbury, D. W. (2006). The role of power, process, and relationships in participatory research for statewide HIV/AIDS programming. Social Science & Medicine, 63(8), 2129–2140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2005). Spaces to play: More listening to young children using the Mosaic approach. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2011). Listening to young children: The Mosaic approach (2nd ed.). London: National Children’s Bureau and Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook, T. (2012). Where participatory approaches meet pragmatism in funded (health) research: The challenge of finding meaningful spaces. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  15. Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘participation’: Models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cutcliffe, J. R., & Ramcharan, P. (2002). Leveling the playing field? Exploring the merits of the ethics-as-process approach for judging qualitative research proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 12(7), 1000–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daly, K. J. (2007). Qualitative methods for family studies and human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. De Fina, A., & Perrino, S. (2011). Introduction: Interviews vs. ‘natural’ contexts: A false dilemma. Language in Society, 40(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2011). Researching with young children: Seeking assent. Child Indicators Research, 4(2), 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dussel, E. (1997). The architectonic of the ethics of liberation. In D. Bastone, E. Mendiete, L. A. Lorentzen, & D. N. Hopkins (Eds.), Liberation theologies, postmodernity and the Americas (pp. 273–304). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Dussel, E. (1998). Ética de la Liberación en la Edad de la Globalización y de la Exclusión. Madrid, Spain: Trotta.Google Scholar
  23. Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1998). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach advanced reflections (2nd ed.). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Edwards, R., & Mauthner, M. (2012). Ethics and feminist research: Theory and practice. In T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner, & J. Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 14–28). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. England, K. (1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fenton, A., Walsh, K., Wong, S., & Cumming, T. (2015). Using strengths-based approaches in early years practice and research. International Journal of Early Childhood, 47(1), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Gabb, J. (2009). Researching family relationships: A qualitative mixed methods approach. Methodological Innovations Online, 4(2), 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gabb, J. (2010). Home truths: Ethical issues in family research. Qualitative Research, 10(4), 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gabb, J., & Singh, R. (2015). The uses of emotion maps in research and clinical practice with families and couples: Methodological innovation and critical inquiry. Family Process, 54(1), 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gallacher, L.-A., & Gallagher, M. (2008). Methodological immaturity in childhood research? Thinking through participatory methods. Childhood, 15(4), 499–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gallagher, M. (2009). Ethics. In K. Tisdall, J. M. Davis, & M. Gallagher (Eds.), Researching with children and young people: Research design, methods and analysis (pp. 11–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Geia, L. K., Hayes, B., & Usher, K. (2013). Yarning/aboriginal storytelling: Towards an understanding of an Indigenous perspective and its implications for research practice. Contemporary Nurse, 46(1), 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gerson, K., & Horowitz, R. (2002). Observation and interviewing: Options and choices in qualitative research. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Given, L., Cantrell Winkler, D., Willson, R., Davidson, C., Danby, S., & Thorpe, K. (2016). Parents as coresearchers at home: Using an observational method to document young children’s use of technology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), 1609406915621403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gorin, S., Hooper, C. A., Dyson, C., & Cabral, C. (2008). Ethical challenges in conducting research with hard to reach families. Child Abuse Review, 17(4), 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Guillemin, M., & Heggen, K. (2009). Rapport and respect: Negotiating ethical relations between researcher and participant. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 12(3), 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hammersley, M. (2015). On ethical principles for social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 128(4), 433–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harcourt, D., & Einarsdóttir, J. (2011). Introducing children’s perspectives and participation in research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(3), 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Harcourt, D., Perry, B., & Waller, T. (2011). Researching young children’s perspectives: Debating the ethics and dilemmas of educational research with children. New York: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Harcourt, D., & Sargeant, J. (2012). Doing ethical research with children. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Hart, R. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. Retrieved from Florence, Italy. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/childrens_participation.pdf
  46. Hart, R. (2008). Stepping back from ‘the ladder’: Reflections on a model of participatory work with children. In Participation and learning (pp. 19–31). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Irvine, A., Drew, P., & Sainsbury, R. (2013). ‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’: Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews. Qualitative Research, 13(1), 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kirby, P., Lanyon, C., Cronin, K., & Sinclair, R. (2003). Building a culture of participation: Involving children and young people in policy, service planning, delivery and evaluation. Retrieved from London. https://www.unicef.org/adolescence/cypguide/files/Building_a_culture_of_participation.pdf
  49. 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
  50. Mapedzahama, V., & Dune, T. (2017). A clash of paradigms? Ethnography and ethics approval. SAGE Open, 7(1), 2158244017697167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Miller, T., Birch, M., Mauthner, M., & Jessop, J. (2012). Introduction. In T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner, & J. Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Mohan, G. (2001). Beyond participation: Strategies for deeper empowerment. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? London: Zed Boos.Google Scholar
  54. Morrow, V. (2009). The ethics of social research with children and families in Young Lives: Practical experiences (Working paper no. 53). Retrieved from University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. https://www.younglives.org.uk/sites/www.younglives.org.uk/files/YL-WP53-Morrow-EthicsOfResearchWithChildren.pdf
  55. Morrow, V. (2013). Practical ethics in social research with children and families in young lives: A longitudinal study of childhood poverty in Ethiopia, Andhra Pradesh (India), Peru and Vietnam. Methodological Innovations Online, 8(2), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. National Health and Medical Research Council Australian Research Council. (2007). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) - Updated December 2015 (the National Statement). Retrieved from Canberra, ACT. https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research-2007-updated-2018
  57. Palaiologou, I. (2012a). Ethical praxis when choosing research tools for use with children under five. In I. Palaiologou (Ed.), Ethical practice in early childhood (pp. 32–46). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Palaiologou, I. (2012b). Introduction: Towards an understanding of ethical practice in early childhood. In I. Palaiologou (Ed.), Ethical practice in early childhood (pp. 1–12). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. Paris, D., & Winn, M. (Eds.). (2014). Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Phelan, S., & Kinsella, E. (2013). Picture this ... safety, dignity, and voice—Ethical research with children practical considerations for the reflexive researcher. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(2), 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Powell, M. A., Fitzgerald, R. M., Taylor, N., & Graham, A. (2012). International literature review: Ethical issues in undertaking research with children and young people (Literature review for the Childwatch International Research Network). Retrieved from Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross University, Centre for Children and Young People/Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago, Centre for Research on Children and Families. http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=ccyp_pubs
  64. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). Introduction. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research. Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed., pp. 1–10). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching, and learning. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  66. Rizvi, S. (2017). Treading on eggshells: ‘Doing’ feminism in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2017.1399354
  67. Roulston, K. (2014). Interactional problems in research interviews. Qualitative Research, 14(3), 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Saleebey, D. (2012). The strengths perspective in social work practice (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  69. Shier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations. Children & Society, 15(2), 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Somekh, B. (2002). Inhabiting each other’s castles: Towards knowledge and mutual growth through collaboration. In C. Day, J. Elliott, B. Somekh, & R. Winter (Eds.), Theory and practice in action research: Some international perspectives (pp. 79–104). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  71. Sumsion, J., & Goodfellow, J. (2012). ‘Looking and listening-ein’: A methodological approach to generating insights into infants’ experiences of early childhood education and care settings. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 20(3), 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. Vähäsantanen, K., & Saarinen, J. (2013). The power dance in the research interview: Manifesting power and powerlessness. Qualitative Researcher, 13(5), 493–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Von Unger, H. (2012). Participatory health research: Who participates in what? Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(7), 1–28.Google Scholar
  76. Wright, M. T., Roche, B., von Unger, H., Block, M., & Gardner, B. (2010). A call for an international collaboration on participatory research for health. Health Promotion International, 25(1), 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yee, W. C., & Andrews, J. (2006). Professional researcher or a ‘good guest’? Ethical dilemmas involved in researching children and families in the home setting. Educational Review, 58(4), 397–413.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910600971859.CrossRefGoogle 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