This page has been created to provide some introductory material for researchers who are interested in carrying out participatory research with children and young people, or just begin to answer questions for anyone who might be interested in finding out more.

Participatory research and all the different methodologies that can be brought under or near to this category could never be covered thoroughly in the scope of this website, and are not intended to be, but the hope is that it provides enough of an introduction to prompt and guide further exploration- especially where there is disagreement or contradiction within the literature included.

What is participatory research?

On this page, we intend to introduce some of the main discussion points of this type of research, and signpost you to more information.

Some interesting places to start would be here:

• The Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Sheffield provides an excellent introduction to co-production, as one example of an approach to participatory research: for more information, visit here.

• Here, Kirsten Schlebbe provides a video explanation of Different Degrees of Participation with Children and Young People, as part of the DigiLitEY Methods Corner website.

There are a variety of ways of conceptualising participatory research, and a definition is impossible to pin down, with many different levels of influence and participation that can be involved, or understanding of what participatory research can or 'should' involve to be classed as such.

• Participatory research is a methodological approach to research inquiry which can be briefly summarised as some level of research 'with' rather than 'on' groups, communities and individuals.

• It involves those being researched or implicated in the research in the process of decision-making and the way the research is conducted at least at some level.

• Participatory research approaches sometimes incorporate a commitment to the principles of democratising and decolonising academic research (Janes, 2016).

• There is usually a focus on where the power is located in the research process, prioritising the incorporation of views and knowledge from those other than the research leaders, using a "bottom-up" approach (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995).

• There is an argument that the research itself is also enriched by this process of participation, and that to do this will have a significant and useful effect, with the ideal outcome is that this research process benefits the participants as much as the academic researcher (Bergold & Thomas, 2012).

• However, there are also critiques of the unfounded claims made to the potential of achieving outcomes such as increased representation, emancipation, or agency, or access to a superior type of knowledge, via participatory research with children and young people, without critical engagement with these admittedly 'ethically alluring' concepts and the epistemological or ontological assumptions they are reinforcing (Gallacher & Gallagher, 2008).

How can Participatory Research Be Carried Out with Children and Young People?

Participatory research can involve bringing the children and young people (CYP) into the process in a number of different ways, at different stages and to different extents.

It can mean giving CYP more ownership of the data gathering by providing accessible and meaningful opportunities to direct and decide on what questions they want to answer, or how to answer them. It can also bring CYP into the process of setting those questions in the first place, or interpreting and analysing the data, or in disseminating the results of the research to a wider audience.

Below is an introduction to one of the most relevant approaches commonly discussed: co-production.

Co-production

Smith, et al. (2022) composed a series of questions which provide a guide as to what co-production seeks to achieve:

1. How can researchers work with individuals or groups typically referred to in the literature as lay people, stakeholders, value holders, citizens, service users, patients, public contributors, community members, and (end) knowledge users?

2. How can those with such lived experience be afforded more power in academia to ensure that research agendas and outputs address their needs, concerns, and preferences?

3. How can research be done with or led by partners in ways that are transformative, equitable, and impactful?

4. How can we take more seriously knowledge translation and ensure that evidence informs action and theory informs practice?"

(Smith, et al., 2022, p.2).

The Moving Social Work Co-production Collective worked with Smith et al. (2022) to co-produce a series of communication material that offers some working principles, practical tips and criteria for co-producing research, including the video below.

One example of co-production in practice in the University of Sheffield would be the Living Life to the Fullest project and the Co-Researcher Collective, which is led by a group of disabled young women who direct the focus of this research by making decisions, co-leading the project, undertaking fieldwork, collaborating in data analysis, and writing, sharing and promoting the research and its findings.

Co-production as an approach is representative of a desire and commitment for these voices to be heard in a way that is meaningful, but in some cases a lack of consistency in definition of co-production as well as details of how it can be understood can lead to practice that is tokenistic (Smith, et al., 2022; Williams, et al., 2020).

Despite the valorisation of co-production in academic circles (Mason, 2021), co-production is not the 'gold standard' of participatory research (Smith, et al., 2022) and can be either unnecessary, unhelpful or inappropriate in the wrong research context (Williams et al., 2021), just as much as it can be powerful in addressing issues of equality, diversity, and inclusion in the right ones.

Key Challenges of Participatory Research with CYP

Some challenges can be unique to the individual project or they can be universal across all examples, but the more conscious of what kind of challenges there could and probably will be, the more effectively a researcher can either prevent or mitigate them, and the more effective their research will be in achieving their aims.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but based upon the expertise and experiences of the case studies included on this website.

Definitions

There is no consensus on what should or can be classed as participatory research. This is by necessity in some instances, as it would be undesirable to create any form of checklist or prescriptions on what it is. However, it is also a source of confusion and in some cases leaves open the possibility of research being included or defined as participatory when it is hard or impossible to identify the ways in which this is the case (Montreuil, et al., 2021).

Setting expectations

One aspect of participatory research with CYP is in setting realistic expectations from the outset. For example, if the research is not going to have a significant impact on the lives of the CYP involved, then it should not be suggested that could be the case. This may seem obvious, but communication between researchers (or any adult) and CYP is not always as clear as it could be.

It is also necessary to be clear from the outset what the shared understanding of participatory research will be. As explained above, sometimes this can be difficult to achieve and so no level of knowledge or shared understanding should be assumed.

Consent

Gaining genuinely informed consent from CYP is fraught with difficulty in numerous ways. As already mentioned, there are communication differences between adults and CYP, and it is necessary to ensure that the CYP have access to information about the project in language that they can understand, whilst being given the language and space to respond in a way that is comfortable for them.

It may be that they need information presented in a different format, such as visual or auditory rather than written, and ensuring child-friendly language. They may need a parent or other responsible adult caregiver present to support this communication and understanding, and consent may have to be requested via these adults as gatekeepers. However, sometimes this may not be appropriate, possible or desirable, and so each situation must be weighed up carefully by the researchers involved. Access to CYP in the first place may sometimes need to be through these parents/guardians, or through other responsible adults such as teachers or youth workers, and so there is an additional layer of relationship building and communication that academic researchers must negotiate.

The CYP must also be empowered to withdraw their consent at any time in the process and question their role in the research. Academic researchers must be conscious of providing non-threatening and simple ways for the CYP to communicate that they no longer wish to be a part of the project. There must also be frequent opportunities for the CYP to ask questions and the time given to do this. It is also important to bear in mind that many CYP are uncomfortable with asking adults questions, or not sure how to phrase them, especially if the adults are new to them. Even towards the end of a project, it is important to keep providing these opportunities, as it may only be after trust is established that the CYP feel comfortable to ask questions of the adults.

Benefits of participation

There is potentially a significant mental, emotional and physical burden that participatory research can place upon CYP invited to be a part of it, as much as there can be benefits, and they may not want to or be able to take those on. The benefits to them taking part may not be sufficient or relevant. The values that underpin participatory research (e.g. democracy, activism etc.) are a facet of Western humanist mindsets that may not be shared in all cultures or communities, and so they may not be seen as appropriate to the CYP.

In addition, as previously noted, if these burdens are not communicated clearly from the outset, then there are ethical implications in involving CYP that may not have been given the correct opportunity to understand what they were taking part in.

Sometimes there will be a lack of confidence in CYP that their expertise is really valued, and they still defer to the academic research team as the adults and so the traditional authority figure- this needs to be acknowledged from the start, and addressed explicitly.

Barriers to starting and maintaining participation

Even if there is a desire, sometimes there are seemingly insurmountable barriers to effective participation. The first one is time availability. Children and young people have numerous demands on their time, including school or education, and sometimes they are faced with unexpected responsibilities that mean the level of participation intended is not feasible as the project progresses. The CYP's interest in the project may also fade as it continues, and they may realise they do not wish to be a part of it once they realise that their priorities are not the same as the project. This also reflects upon the first challenge- it is necessary for the academic researchers to communicate clearly and honestly what they can know about what the project will consist of, and what the outcomes will be at the end.

Recognition of power relations

Power dynamics within research are not simple or obvious, and in particular the power relationship between CYP and adults is in some ways obvious and other ways quite subtle in the way that it plays out in interactions. It is not always as simple as adult = powerful/CYP = powerless.

There has been at times a lack of critical engagement with the impact of participatory methods in research with children and young people (CYP), the potential for harm, and the privileges that are taken for granted in certain 'voices' (Cornwall and Jewkes,1995; McGarry, 2016; Spencer et al., 2021; Spyrou, 2011). Participatory research specifically can be lauded as a way to conduct research that can have democratising and decolonising effects, but in reality it can further perpetuate academic epistemic privilege (Janes, 2016). In other words, the ownership of knowledge still ultimately lies with the academic researcher, despite intent to include other knowledges. Post-colonialist theory argues that no matter the desire on the part of the academic researcher, privilege cannot be revoked or negated, and there is no space or subject position outside of power (Janes, 2016). These realities are necessary to acknowledge especially when carrying out research that aspires to social justice.

Reference and Reading List

Bell, D. M., & Pahl, K. (2018). Co-production: towards a utopian approach. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1348581

Bennett, H., & Brunner, R. (2022). Nurturing the buffer zone: conducting collaborative action research in contemporary contexts. Qualitative Research : QR, 22(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120965373

Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion. Historical Social Research (Köln), 37(4 (142)), 191–222.

Bussu, S., Lalani, M., Pattison, S., & Marshall, M. (2021). Engaging with care: ethical issues in Participatory Research. Qualitative Research : QR, 21(5), 667–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120904883

Clarke, R., Chadwick, K. & Williams, P. (2017) Critical Social Research as a ‘Site of Resistance’: Reflections on Relationships, Power and Positionality. Justice, Power and Resistance, Volume (Number). pp.261-282. https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/620728/1/Clarke%20et%20al.pdf

Clough, & Nutbrown, C. (2012). A student's guide to methodology : justifying enquiry (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine (1982), 41(12), 1667–1676. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-S

Gallacher, L.-A., & Gallagher, M. (2008). Methodological Immaturity in Childhood Research? Childhood (Copenhagen, Denmark), 15(4), 499–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568208091672

Janes, J. E. (2016). Democratic encounters? Epistemic privilege, power, and community-based participatory action research. Action Research (London, England), 14(1), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750315579129

Lundy, L. (2007). 'Voice' is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033

Mason, W. (2021). On staying: Extended temporalities, relationships and practices in community engaged scholarship. Qualitative Research : QR, 146879412110493. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211049318

McGarry, O. (2016) Repositioning the research encounter: exploring power dynamics and positionality in youth research, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19:3, 339-354, https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1011821

Montreuil, M., Bogossian, A., Laberge-Perrault, E., & Racine, E. (2021). A Review of Approaches, Strategies and Ethical Considerations in Participatory Research With Children. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 160940692098796. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920987962

The Critical Methodologies Collective (eds). (2022). Politics and Ethics of Representation in Qualitative Research : Addressing Moments of Discomfort. Taylor & Francis.

Smith, B., Williams, O., Bone, L., & the Moving Social Work Coproduction Collective (2022): Co-production: A resource to guide co-producing research in the sport, exercise, and health sciences, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2022.2052946

Spencer, G., Fairbrother, H., & Thompson, J. (2020). Privileges of power: authenticity, representation and the “problem” of children’s voices in qualitative health research.

Williams, O., Sarre, S., Papoulias, S. C., Knowles, S., Robert, G., Beresford, P., Rose, D., Carr, S., Kaur, M., & Palmer, V. J. (2020). Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18(1), 43–43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00558-0