Foregrounding Ethics in Visual Research with Children: Tales from the Field
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
DRAFT ONLY … DRAFT ONLY … DRAFT ONLY …DRAFT ONLY
Foregrounding issues of consent in visual research with children: ethical tales from the field
Renold, Emma, Amanda Coffey and Bella Dicks. Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University.
Introduction It could be argued that ethics become of greater concern in social research that uses visual methods and social research in which the participants are children because of the power of the visual and the power relations of researching with children and thus the “ambiguities, ambivalence and resulting questions of responsibility” (Papademas 2004:123) that can arise. This paper offers some thinking in progress around these issues by reflecting upon visual ethnographic fieldwork with young children (age 6-7) on a school trip to a local science discovery centre (Coffey et al. 2006). Some of the ethical issues under consideration include the contentious nature of negotiating ‘informed consent’ with children under the surveillance of adult gate-keepers, the temporality of ‘consent’ in relation to the research process (before, during and after) and the impact of moral panics around representations of the ‘digital child’ on the process of negotiating consents. All indirectly and directly attend to the problematics of confidentiality and anonymity and the issues of representation in a visual project which sought to negotiate consent with children in active participatory ways.
The project: visual ethnographic research with young children The paper draws upon a research project designed to develop an integrated, digital, hypermedia environment for data collection, analysis and authoring in qualitative research. The project built directly on previous methodological work undertaken by the research team (Dicks and Mason 1999; Mason and Dicks 2001; Dicks et al. 2004). A primary aim of this research was to address the theoretical, methodological and empirical implications of undertaking substantive qualitative research that exploits the full possibilities of contemporary information and communication technologies. This was attempted through undertaking a multimedia ethnographic project of one research site, and seeking to document, analyse and represent ethnographic data in digital, hypermedia form.
While the main focus of the project was methodological (and is the focus of this paper), there was also significant substantive focus, through the detailed ethnographic exploration of an interactive science discovery centre. The centre receives a substantial element of its funding from a local government education budget, and is also a major visitor attraction to a city site that has undergone and is undergoing major regeneration. Hence the science discovery centre has both an education and an entertainment remit. The centre offers a number of different opportunities and spaces for visitors, and especially (primary) school age children, to engage with science. These include an exhibits hall and a science theatre. The exhibits hall (see figure 1), is a large open ‘interactive’ space, in which are situated multiple gadgets, machines, computers and devices (‘exhibits’), designed to be easily operated by children. In the science theatre (see figure 2), ‘performances’ of scientific themes are presented on stage by live presenters to visiting groups of schoolchildren. Figure 1 Exhibits Hall
Figure 2 Science Theatre The project sought to explore and understand the kinds of scientific knowledge that are produced with/in the discovery centre, and how these are communicated to, and received by visitors, particularly primary school children. Hence we were interested in exploring the ways in which the centre creates environments and spaces for science engagement and learning, the ways in which scientific knowledge is reproduced and performed through exhibits and theatre, and the ways in which children interact and engage with (and reflect upon) the exhibits and shows.
Research activities The project adopted an ethnographic approach to the generation of data collection and the generation of research questions. Hence data collection was exploratory and our analytical ideas emerged from our data. We conducted an intensive period of fieldwork at the science discovery centre, utilising digital technologies. Data gathering strategies included participant observation, qualitative interviews, focus groups, soundscapes and the collection of documents (including annual reports, brochures and posters). Data recording strategies included still photography, digital audio recordings and digital video, alongside ‘conventional’ ethnographic fieldnotes. Research activities included working with staff throughout the centre (including education officers, management, exhibit designers and builders, and helpers on the ‘floor’), engaging with children, teachers and families visiting the centre, participating in primary school trips, and working with children at school prior to and following the school visit (the latter being the focus of this paper). The project therefore had an extensive multimedia data set documenting the everyday activities and work of the science discovery centre, and the ways in which various significant social actors (centre staff, children, teachers, and families) interact with, and reflect upon their engagements with/in the centre.
The data were archived and are being analysed and (re)presented using digital, hypermedia technology. This has meant exploring and exploiting various technological solutions for working with and across a range of different media and data types. Moreover our aim has been to develop an ethnographic hypermedia environment in which to present and represent both the original data and analytical interpretations of those data. In sum then, the project that we have undertaken was specifically designed as a demonstrator project – to explore and document the practical and methodological accomplishment of qualitative research in the digital age. The choice of research site also provided an opportunity to consider a range of issues and challenges of undertaking such work in an educational and entertainment setting (see Coffey et al. 2006), and with a variety of social actors, including primary school age children, and the ethical issues and challenges that such an approach can bring. For example, our decision to visually and textually record a school field-trip via video camcorder and fieldnotes afforded a range of methodological possibilities and helped address a number of ethical dilemmas, some anticipated, some unanticipated. We specifically chose to use two researchers to observe the school trip to the science discovery centre, with an explicit aim to compare and contrast the methodological implications of using and integrating textual (pen and paper) and audio-visual (camcorder) forms of participant and non-participant ‘observation’. We also planned to (and did) use edited video clips of the children’s visit in our second phase of data collection, when we returned to the primary school to invite children to reflect upon their experience [link to next para]
Ethics and research with children: We come from the starting point that methods are fundamentally embedded within epistemological and ontological frameworks. This runs counter to the ‘tool-box’ approach of purpose for fit, as if methods are somehow atheoretical (i.e. not guided by a conceptual framework) and thus separate from, initially un-informed by, or only follow and never precede (such as in much ethnographic work) substantive research questions. For those researching the field of ‘personal experience’ then, the ways in which we conceptualise what we know and how we go about knowing are rooted in our particular theorizations of the social and the subject. The ways in which theory informs method, hence the term methodology is well recognised within the field of critical social science studies, although is somewhat downplayed in research methods textbooks and edited collections on research with children (although see, Christensen and James 2000 and Pole et al. 1999) and either absent (BSA and BERA guidelines) or actively denied in professional ethical codes of conduct (ESRC’s REF 2005). Thus we are mindful of the need (as suggested by Pole et al. 1999) for those working in the field of childhood studies to locate and scrutinize what one of us (Renold et al. 2006) has termed ‘method/ological and theoretical synergy’, and thus how our own perceptions of the local, global and historically specific ‘child’ and specifically in this project, the ‘child-as-pupil’ shape our methodologies and inform our ethical values and practice.
Although it is not the purpose of this paper to explore these issues, it is important to foreground the political backdrop to the ways in which government rhetoric and practice has embraced notions of child participation and participatory methods. Indeed, such developments have been greatly informed and underpinned by a range of social research documenting the experiences and perspectives of children – work that has provided a fundamental challenge to the social construction of the ‘child’ as passive recipient imprinted upon or socialised by society, and a fundamental recognition of children as socially competent and active agents fully implicated in the construction and maintenance of their social and cultural worlds and actively caught up in processes of subjectification.
Re-framing children as participants in research (rather than objects, see Woodhead and Falkner) and developing participatory approaches which necessitate researching ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ children (Mayall 1994) has a long and varied history (see Prout and James 1998, Qvortrup 1994; Oakley 1994). Essentially this shift came about from confronting the way in which (particularly pre-teen) children have been (and in many ways continue to be) perceived almost as alien ‘others’ with their own and distinct ‘alien’ worlds that are somehow separated off from the ‘adult’ world. Much of this thinking derives from outmoded yet deeply embedded developmental theories and their conceptual frameworks in which children are positioned as ‘immature’, ‘culturally neutral’, ‘passive bystanders’ within processes of socialisation (see James et al. 1998; Woodhead and Montgomery 2003). Consequently, children’s accounts of social reality and personal experience are rarely taken as competent portrayals of their experiences (Hutchby and Moran-Ellis 1998) with children rarely exclusively participating as subjects of study in their own right or what Barrie Thorne (1987) referred to as the denial of ‘conceptual autonomy’. In terms of ethics, Christensen and Prout neatly summarise how this perception of the child as object framed research relations:
This approach more or less neglects the understanding of children as persons in their own right … their lives and welfare are investigated from the perspectives of adults …. researchers (are) suspicious of children’s trustworthiness and doubtful of their ability to give and receive factual information. Children are perceived as incompetent and accordingly unable to understand the idea of research, lacking the ability to consent to it or have a voice in its design, implementation and interpretation” 2002:480)
Foregrounding children’s conceptual autonomy, locating children as active social agents via participatory methods, and in particular, ethnographic methods (as the methodological gold standard of ‘hearing children’s voices’, see James and Prout 1990/8) is in many ways our own approach to research with children. In particular, we critically engage with Leena Alanen’s position to design and conduct research from the ‘children’s standpoint’ (adapted from feminist-standpoint epistemology), that is, empowering, respecting and giving voice to children as knowledgeable and active subjects (although recognising these are contested, yet desirable concepts) and using the research process as a vehicle to enable children to communicate experiences that are important to them. In their discussion of ‘ethical symmetry’ Christensen and Prout (2002) stress the need for researchers engaging in participatory research to connect with children’s own ‘local cultures of communication’ by paying attention and establishing a dialogue to better understand “the social actions of children, their use of language and the meanings they put into words, notions and actions” (2002:483) in all their complexity, temporality and diversity. Indeed, like many other projects, the use of visual methods for data generation has considerable potential for making ethnographic fieldwork both pleasurable and participatory (see for example, Bolton et al. 2001; Rasmussen 2004; Young and Barrett 2001a and 2001b; Gauntlett and Hlawarth 2006; Brannen 2005; Flewitt 2005; Clarke et al. 2002; Buckingham et al. 2001). In our own project, for example, the majority of children were very familiar with camcorders with over half of the children having one in their home. We found that using video and photographic methods enhanced children’s direct participation in the research process in a number of ways. Taking photographs or video footage was something the children immediately understood, and already had experience of in their lives (this contrasted with the ways in which taking notes in a field notebook was more difficult to explain). Many were excited to “be on the tele” and talked to the camcorder (personifying it as “Cammy”) directly to the extent that it almost became a third researcher. For example, the children would rush up to Cammy and with the words ‘come on Cammy’ directed the researcher behind the camera around the research site, eager to draw attention to events and artefacts that they wanted recorded. We could also share footage immediately with them (in ways that are often not possible with illegible fieldnotes) and in terms of reciprocity in research relations, we were also able to very quickly share our ‘data’ with the children, returning to their school with photographs and video (and later a DVD which they could keep and take home). The children’s interactions with the camcorder and the images were thus purposeful and reflective and, in some ways, disrupted many of the asymmetrical power relations between adult researchers and child participants during the fieldwork stage, for the children at least1.
Although levels of child participation vary from project to project (from the lofty aims of including children at all stages of the research to minimal participation such as choice over research method, or as in much ethnographic research wielding some control over the direction of the research) most researchers, in their rationale for choosing a participatory approach, foreground the ways in which it has the potential to disrupt and blur the frequently asymmetrical power relations, while acknowledging or exploring the challenges that such an approach entails (David 2002, Smith et al.
1 In line with many other research using visual methods, many adults were reluctant to be filmed (e.g. all teachers and parent helpers on the school trip declined to be filmed, with many ducking out of the way of the camera if it shot in their direction). Thus the pleasures many of the children experienced were certainly not shared by the adults. Thus the inclusion of visual methods had differential impacts upon participation, engagement and access for adults and children. 2002, Stafford et al. 2003, Pole et al 1999, Holt 2004, Grover 2004). Discussing methodology and its relationship to method, Pole et al. (1999) for example, reflect upon the ways in which theoretical desires to promote and realise children’s agency are routinely thwarted in an adult-centric world in which cultural and structural odds are stacked against children as being anything but ‘participatory’ in the research process. Thus, as many researchers embarking on participatory research with a view to disrupting rigid structural generational hierarchies (or what Pole et al. 1999 term lack of ‘age capital’) the participatory ethos is frequently compromised in the first stages of access via a range of adult gate-keepers. Our own project was no exception with its own multiple hierarchies of access, although as will be outlined and discussed in more detail below, recognising and attending to structural generational hierarchies and in particular children’s own cultures of participation (in addition then to connecting with children’s local cultures of communication) was central in going some way to disrupt the ways in which young children are frequently positioned through a range of regulatory discourses and practices (see Devine 2002) as passive subjects rather than agentic actors with little ‘voice’ when it comes to their rights as ‘pupils’ and indeed ‘citizens’ within the institutional space of the school to shape practice or policy. In terms of the ways in which children-as-pupils are constructed within school discourse (and frequent lack of participation) we generated methodological techniques which disrupted conventional forms of participation, from disrupting (adult) question and (child) answer sessions within group work by using video-footage rather than direct questions to explore children’s reflections of their experience of the science discovery centre through to the ways in which we negotiated the various hierarchies of consent and indeed children’s own consent to participate in the research. And it is our approach to consent within our commitment to ‘ethical symmetry’ in which “the rights, feelings and interests of children should be given as much consideration as those of adults” (Christensen and Prout 2002:493) that we critically explore below.
Young children and ethnographic research: the (im)possibility of informed consent We take as our starting point, that notions of informed consent cannot be easily separated out from other ethical issues (such as respect, protection from harm, anonymity, confidentiality etc.) and is located in specific socio-political and historical moments and thus mediated by the ways in which ‘the child’ is constructed and represented (from public discourse to legislation). For example, since the respect for children’s rights has grown with the UK’s ratification in 1991 of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child (particularly article 12 which specifies that children have a right to express views on all matters that affect them) and the legal grey area (via Gillick ruling) in which it is possible for children’s consent to override parental dissent (see Alderson and Morrow 2004) children’s consent to research has been taken increasingly seriously. Professional guidelines (SRA; BSA 2002; BERA 2004; MRS 2005; ESRC’s REF 2006) now specify that children’s consent must be sought in addition to obtaining parental (or equivalent) consent and that researchers must ensure that children are provided with opportunities to withdraw their consent are made available throughout the research process. Indeed the temporality of consent, as something always in process, always in negotiation and always in a state of renewal (Thorne 1987) is something that is recognised and thus supported in the ESRC’s research ethics framework under ‘participatory research methods’:
In the case of participatory social sciences research, consent to participate is seen as an ongoing and open-ended process. Consent here is not simply resolved through the formal signing of a consent document at the start of research. Instead it is continually open to revision and questioning. Highly formalised or bureaucratic ways of securing consent shdoul be avoided in favour of fostering relationships in which ongoing ethical regard for participants is to be sustained, even after the study itself as been completed. (ESRC 2005:24, para 3.2.2).
Indeed the acknowledgement of the ‘open-ended’ and ‘on-going’ nature of consent in participatory approaches (e.g. ethnographies) are particularly pertinent to the frequently provisional, partial and indeed changeable nature of the ways in which young children can be simultaneously keen and reluctant participants. As we explore in more detail below, the ways in which institutionalised settings such as schools close-down rather than open-up spaces in which children can refuse to participate (see Heath et al. 2005), the grey legal area on children’s consent and the UNCRC foregrounding children’s rights have all facilitated and shaped our approach to the negotiation of consent from the hierarchy of adult gate-keepers and specifically from children themselves in a multi-media ethnographic research project, all of which involved lengthy yet crucial discussions on the temporality of consent in relation to initial access, participation during fieldwork and representation following fieldwork.
Participation: consent and time present Opting in, opting out: negotiating consent with adult gate-keepers As many researching with children are familiar, it is almost impossible to directly negotiate consent with children without first gaining access (and thus consent to seek children’s consent) from either one or multiple adult gate-keepers. In the case of the local primary school, an initial access letter proceeded by a follow up phone-call and a visit to the school to meet the head teacher and classroom teacher (of the class we would be accompanying to the science discovery centre) to discuss the project (see information leaflet, Appendix A) all had to be negotiated before we could introduce ourselves and our project with the children and their parents. To achieve the starting point of ensuring that children were sufficiently informed and thus could ‘provisionally’ (Flewitt 2005, see below) consent to and thus participate in the research project, we took an ‘opt out’ approach to parental consent and an ‘opt-in’ approach to children’s consent. The decision of an ‘opt out’ approach for parents/guardians was informed by our own political and theoretical position of assuming children’s competence (supported by Alderson 19972) and the knowledge that this was a relatively undemanding short piece of fieldwork (3 days maximum) generating data on a non-sensitive topic. In liaison and with the consent of the class and headteacher, our ‘opt-out’ approach involved sending a letter home (via children) and encouraging children to discuss the project and their possible participation, with their parents (NB. the children also had their own leaflets).
To ensure that parents did not become overly protective (see Aldereson and Morrow 2004) or anxious over sharing the visual images of their children being (even within a relatively small educational/social science community) in ways that might prevent or override children’s own desire to participate in the project we separated out participation from dissemination. Our ‘consent’ letter (see Appendix B) thus stated that parents would be contacted at a later date regarding issues of representation. On reflection and in hindsight this softly softly approach was perhaps overly cautious 2 Alderson’s view is that we should assume that school age children are ‘gillick’ competent (and thus the onus would be on parents/guardians or teachers in locoparentis who disagree to prove incompetence). given children’s own positive comments when asked by the two researchers (Renold and Soyinka) on what their parents thought about them being ‘on film’. As a consequence, our anxiety levels decreased and on our next school visit (which involved meeting and filming a group of children at the centre) we included in our ‘opt-out’ letter the ways in which the data might be used (see Appendix C).
Negotiating ‘provisional’ (Flewitt 2005) consents within asymmetrical power relations: time past, time present, time future
Foregrounding children’s consent was provisionally negotiated informally in our first meeting with them (a week before the fieldtrip) as a whole class and then in informal group and individual conversations at playtime. We then returned to the school the day before the fieldtrip and spent 15-20 minutes at each table (approx. 5 children on each) talking through in ways they seemed to understand and engage in, the aims of our research (children’s experiences of and reflections on the exhibits and shows at the science discovery centre), the research methods (e.g. taking fieldnotes still photographs and moving image via camcorder and radio-mikes placed on 5 children), the research activities (accompanying children on school trip, talking with children in groups about their visit) and type of dissemination (producing a DVD for use and re- use for educational purposes). This included a hands on introduction to the camera, camcorder and fieldnote diary. What was interesting during discussions was the ways in which the children were excited about being ‘on the tele’ or ‘on film’ and then the same children said they were a ‘bit shy’ and ‘not sure about being filmed’. Two children (one girl, one boy) changed their minds over four times during the morning session. In relation to the radio-mikes, some were very keen and others were adamant that while they enjoyed being filmed, they didn’t want to be hooked up with radio- mikes. On the day of the trip, however, almost all of the children wanted to be ‘tracked’ with the radio-mikes and the majority of the children were visibly excited about being filmed for the day (running up to the camera with smiling faces, laughing and waving their arms to attract our attention, including the original ‘reluctant two’). Those that weren’t sure had no problem in turning the camera away or ducking its gaze. Thus, what became increasingly noticeable both during our discussions around participation before the trip and during the trip was that how the children seemed more than happy to be part of the project and share their experiences with us and specifically, in relation to our multi-media approach, they all seemed to be making informed choices over whether or not and the extent to which and the way they wanted to be filmed (via camera or radio-mike). Moreover, the ways in which some of the children were frequently changing their minds by withdrawing and re-engaging consent also drew our attention to the impossibility and meaningless activity in this context of consent as a one-off activity and as already indicated above. Indeed the ways in which children ducked out of the camera’s gaze or embraced the camera and directed its gaze really foregrounded active consent and consent as always in negotiation and in process.
Representation: consent and time future We recognise that the non-sensitive nature of the projects substantive aims has afforded greater flexibility in terms of digitising the data and the technological possibilities for wider access and sharing of data, although made more challenging by undertaking some of the fieldwork with young children (6-7). However, where consent can be constantly renewed and negotiated at the level of participation, there comes a time, on ‘leaving the field’ when issues of representation in terms of future use of visual data cannot be continuously renewed. Our original idea to show a DVD of selected episodes of the fieldtrip with parents and children after school as a way of discussing some of our key substantive ‘findings’ (e.g. the ‘wow’ factor with the exhibits) and a way of demonstrating the kinds of footage that we would like to share with the educational and social science community was not taken up as a viable option with the class teacher (mainly due to time constraints). As a compromise, the class teacher offered to distribute the DVD’s to all the children from them to take home and watch/share with their parents. However, while this enabled some form of ethical reciprocity, re-negotiating consent from children and informing parents of our intended use was at that time unresolved. A decision was thus made to send an ‘opt- out’ letter via the school to parents informing them of the intended use of the visual and audio data and to re-visit the school at a later date, when we were ready to disseminate more widely and more importantly when the children were two years older (age 9) and perhaps in a better position to reflect on and think through whether or not they would be happy with making this data more widely available. We are currently discussing a range of audio or textual release forms and the possibility of negotiating with the school some time to enable a discussion to take place with the children from the original field visit their thoughts about the use of visual data where children like themselves might be identifiable (although as a 6-7 year old, rather than a 9 or 15 year old). The dilemma which we may face is discussing what would happen if some children are adamant that they do not want to be identified. In such a case anonymisation could only be achieved through ‘blurring’ faces (which for many of the research team evokes feelings of unethical unease in the extent to which it erases identities which sits uncomfortable in a participatory project to foreground children’s experience and perspective). While it is possible (although time consuming) to edit out the visual data from the school trip and the follow-up visit, this strategy which would effectively exclude children’ voices, bodies, faces, identities, experiences and participations from innovative qualitative research would by default create an ‘adults only’ space within this kind of qualitative enquiry. While on one level (in relation to the Data Protection Act 1997 and the law in relation to copyright and gillick competence) we could share the visual data given that children themselves (as the subjects of the research and thus of the data) all verbally agreed at the end of the fieldwork period for the research team to share the visual, textual and audio data with other researchers, our own professional and personal ethical values would be compromised if we did not endeavour to re-inform parents and re-negotiate consentfrom children and thus really foreground some of the issues around what it means and how it feels to consent to representations during participation (at the age of 6/7) and renew that consent at age 9/10. We hope, if we are successful in returning to the school to explore these issues further, that this will generate much needed and further insights on the ways in which children feel about being involved in a social research project using visual images a couple of years after the research has been completed (see Hill 2005). [not very well articulated I know!!]
Conclusion Taking photographs or video footage of children has unsurprisingly exacerbated a range of ethical concerns about anonymisation, representation and data sharing. The extent to which anonymisation is possible, or indeed desirable, with regard to visual data is an issue that we continued to return to as a research team. In the project on which this project draws the ethical manifestations of digital and multimedia research practices have been a matter of ongoing debate and concern in discussions both within the research team and with research participants. This paper, we hope, is a modest contribution to sharing and engaging in the kind of ‘collective responsibility’ and ‘collective dialogue’ identified by Christensen and Prout (2002:494) as necessary to inform the ‘strategic development of ethical research practice’ – particularly in relation to some of the issues around consent and anonymisation in (visual) research with child participants. Working with multi-media data generation and representation techniques provide particularly exciting possibilities for research collaborations with children. Being a research participant is at once a more active and visible role, and researchers in turn can promptly share data with them. However using visual images of children in the communication and representation of a project within an increasingly heightened ethical climate (from Data Protection Acts to Research Ethics Commitees) is problematic. Indeed our own heightened awareness of the moral panic of what could be termed the ‘digital child’ informed our own cautious strategy of prioritising participation over representation. This though leaves a dilemma for social scientific research, where dissemination and communication are key components.
Visual methods are becoming an increasingly important aspect of social scientific inquiry, and offer exciting possibilities for innovative, engaged and participatory research practice. We would wish to argue that they are especially well suited to undertaking research with children and young people. Our own experience has made us increasingly aware of the need for open dialogue on the possibilities, limitations and problematics of using and sharing visual data where children are research participants. Researchers of course need to be guided by professional ethical codes and personal ethical values, ensuring that protection from harm, informed consent, respect and dignity remain paramount aspects of research practice. We are also convinced that the ethical hurdles are not insurmountable and that the participatory possibilities and pleasures of taking part in such research are important ones for both researchers and participants.
References Alanen, L. (1994) Gender and Generation: Feminism and the Child Question, in Qvortrup et al. (Eds.) (1994), Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics. Aldershot: Avebury Publishing. Alderson, P. and Morrow, G. (2004) Ethics, social research and consulting with children. Barnardos. Alderson, P. (1995) Listening to Children: Children, Ethics and Social Research. London: Barnardos. Banks, M. (2001) Visual Methods in Social Research. London: Sage. Bolton, A., Pole, C. and Mizen, P. (2001) Picture This: Researching Child Workers, Sociology: 35: 501-518 Brannen, J. (2005) The use of video in research dissemination: children as experts on their own family lives, International Journal of Social research Methodology 5 (2): 173-180 Christensen, P. and James, A. (2000) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices. London: Falmer Press. Coffey, A., Renold, E., Mason, B. and Soyinka, B. (2006) ‘Hypermedia Ethnography in Educational Settings, Education and Ethnography 1 (1) Crawford, P & Turton, D (1992) Film as Ethnography, Manchester: Manchester University Press. David, M. (2002) Problems of participation: the limits of action research, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5 (1):11-17 Devine, D. (2003) Children, Power and Schooling. Trentham Books. Dicks, B & Mason, B (1999) Cyber ethnography and the digital researcher, in J Armitage and J Roberts (eds) Exploring Cybersociety: Social, Political, Economic and Cultural Issues Vol. 1, Newcastle: University of Northumbria Press. Dicks, B & Mason, B (2002) Ethnography, academia and hyperauthoring, in O Oviedo, J Barber and J R Walker (eds) Texts and Technology, New York: Hampton Press. Dicks, B, Mason B, Atkinson P & Coffey A. (2005) The Production of Hypermedia Ethnography, London, Sage. Emmison, M. and Smith, P. (2000) Researching the Visual, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage. Flewitt, Dr. Rosie (2005) Conducting research with young children: some ethical considerations. Early Child Development and Care, 175, (6), 553-565 Fraser, S. et al. (2004) (Eds.) Doing Research with Children and Young People. Buckingham: Open University Press. Gauntlet, D. and Holzworth, P(2006) Creative and visual methods for exploring identities: a conversation between David Gauntlett and Peter Holzwarth, Visual Studies. Grover, S. (2004). "Why Won't They Listen to Us?: On Giving Power and Voice to Children Participating in Social Research." Childhood 11(1): 81-93. Hutchby, I. and Moran-Ellis, J. (1998) (Eds.) Children and Social Competence: Arenas of Action, London: The Falmer Press. Holt, L. 92004) The ‘Voices’ of Children: De-centring Empowering Researh Relations, Childrens’ Geographies 2 (1): 13-27 James,A. Jenks,C. and Prout,A. (1998) Theorizing Childhood, Cambridge: Polity Press. Lewis et al. (2004) (eds.) The Reality of Research with Children and Young People. Buckingham: Open University Press. Mayall,B. (Ed.) (1994) Children’s Childhoods: Observed and Experienced, London: The Falmer Press. Morrow, V. and Richards, M. (1996) The ethics of social research with children: An overview, Children and Society, 10 (2): 90-105 Oakley,A. (1994) Women and Children First and Last: Parallels and Differences Between Children’s an Women’s Studies, in B. Mayall (Ed.) (1994) Children’s Childhoods: Observed and Experienced, London: The Falmer Press. Papademas, Diana (2004) Editor’s Introduction: Ethics in Visual Research. Visual Studies, 19 (2): 122-124 Pink, S. (2001) Doing Visual Ethnography. London: Sage. Pole, C., Mizen, P. and Bolton, A. (1999) Realising children’s agency in research: partners and participants, international journal of social research methodology 2 (1): 39-54 Prout, A. and Christensen, P. (2002) Working with ethical symmetry in social research with children, Childhood, 9 (4): 477-497 Qvortrup,J., Brady,M., Sgritto,G. and Winterberger,H. (1994) Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics, Aldershot: Avebury Publishing. Rasmussen, K. (2004) Places for Children – Children’s Places, Childhood 11 (2): 155-173 Rose, G. (2001) Visual Methodologies. London: Sage. Renold, E. and Holland, S. (2006) Ethical intentions, reflections and expectations: participatory research with looked-after children and young people, conference paper presented at Childhood and Youth: Choice and Participation, Sheffield University, 2-5 July. Smith, R. and Monaghan, M. and Broad, B. (2002) Involving Young People as co- researchers: facing up to the methodological issues, 1 (2): 191-207 Stafford, A, Laybourn, A, Hill, M and Walker, M (2003) ‘Having a say’, children and young people talk about consultation’, Children and Society, 17 (50) 361-373 Thorne, B. (1980) You Still Takin’ Notes?: Fieldwork and Problems of Informed Consent, Social Problems, 27 (3): 284-297 Woodhead, M. and Montgomery, H. (eds.) (2003) Understanding Childhood: an interdisciplinary approach. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Young, L. and Barrett, H. (2001) Issues of Access and Identity: Adapting research methods with Kampala street children, Area 33 (2): 141-152 Young, L. and Barrett, H. (2001) Adapting visual methods: action research with Kampala street children, Area 33 (2): 141-152 Appendix A
Experiencing science @ Techniquest
Who is doing the research? This project is a research collaboration between the Cardiff School of Social Sciences and Techniquest. The project team are Dr Amanda Coffey, Dr Bella Dicks, Dr Emma Renold, Bambo Soyinka, Bruce Mason, Matt Williams.
Aims of the research The project is exploring how Techniquest communicates ideas about science to visitors, and the processes of teaching and learning that take place as a result of a visit to Techniquest. We are also particularly interested in children’s and teacher’s experiences of the exhibits and shows. We are keen to explore how children anticipate the visit, what occurs during the visit and how they reflect upon the visit afterwards. In addition we are interested in how class teachers view Techniquest as a teaching and learning resource, and what reflections they have on the school visit.
Research activities The project team are engaged in a number of research activities, including observing the day-to-day running of Techniquest, interviewing key staff, documenting the ways in which shows and exhibits are produced and received. One of the ways in which we are gathering these experiences is by following a small number of school trips to Techniquest.
What will it involve? The ‘school trip’ research activity has three parts. First, we would like to visit the class shortly before the trip. The main research activity would be the school visit itself. We would like to accompany the class as they travel to Techniquest and undertake their visit. This would also include attending the show with them, and observing them in the exhibit hall. Finally we would like to talk to the children in small groups about their visit to Techniquest and if the class is engaged in any follow up activities we would welcome the opportunity to observe these.
Multi-media and consent The research project is employing a range of multi-media techniques for recording data and activities. This includes some video and still photography, and audio recording. Children will have the opportunity to see the recording equipment prior to he school trip, and appropriate permissions will be sought from parents/guardians, teachers and children. The research team have considerable experience of undertaking research with children and young people and are sensitive to ethical considerations.
What will it be used for As outlined above, a main of the research is to explore how Techniquest communicates ideas about science to children and how children experience science at Techniquest. For each school a visit a multi-media report will be provided at the end of the project.
Questions If you have any questions or concerns please contact Bambo, Emma or Amanda by e-mail or by phone on the numbers and addresses listed below. Contact details:
Bambo Soyinka (029 2087 5123; [email protected]) Emma Renold (029 2087 6139; [email protected]) Amanda Coffey (029 2087 5501; [email protected]) APPENDIX B
Dear parent/guardian,
Re. Visit to Techniquest on Wednesday 4th June
I am writing to you on behalf of a research team at Cardiff School of Social Science. We are engaged in a project to investigate how Techniquest communicates ideas about science to children. As part of this project we will be spending a period of time with
If you do not want your child to be filmed please let
When we have finished the research we will make video clips and photographs available for parents and children to watch. We will write to you again to seek further consent if we want to reproduce the video and/or photographs on an educational web-site or in a book.
Yours sincerely
Bambo Soyinka and Emma Renold on behalf of Emma Renold, Amanda Coffey, Bella Dicks, Mathew Williams and Bruce Mason.
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Project website: http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/hyper