The Child as Co-researcher—Moral and Epistemological Issues in Childhood Research

Willumsen, Elisabeth; Hugaas, Jon; Studsrød, Ingunn

doi:10.1080/17496535.2014.894108

Cited by 32 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…57,58 Arguably, the greatest challenge that may arise from co-producing research with young people refers to their need to be protected from harm. [59][60][61] It is important that facilitators develop a child protection protocol, tailored to the needs and potential vulnerabilities of their particular group. For example, in the NeurOx YPAG, partially because many participants had first-hand experience of mental health difficulties, we invited a clinically trained psychologist to attend our initial session.…”

Section: Ta B L E 1 Values and Associated Commitments Agreed Upon By mentioning

confidence: 99%

Co‐producing research with youth: The NeurOx young people's advisory group model

Pavarini

Lorimer

Manzini

et al. 2019

Health Expectations

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to be heard in all matters affecting them. The Convention inspired a surge in research that investigates young people's perspectives on health and wellness‐related concerns and that involves children as ‘co‐researchers'. Young people's advisory groups (YPAGs) are a widely used method to enable young people's involvement in all research stages, but there is a lack of academic literature to guide researchers on how to set up, run and evaluate the impact of such groups. Objective In this paper, we provide a step‐by‐step model, grounded in our own experience of setting up and coordinating the Oxford Neuroscience, Ethics and Society Young People's Advisory Group (NeurOx YPAG). This group supports studies at the intersection of ethics, mental health and novel technologies. Our model covers the following stages: deciding on the fit for co‐production, recruiting participants, developing collective principles of work, running a meeting and evaluating impact. Results We emphasize that throughout this process, researchers should take a critical stance by reflecting on whether a co‐production model fits their research scope and aims; ensuring (or aspiring to) representativeness within the group; valuing different kinds of expertise; and undertaking on‐going evaluations on the impact of the group on both the young people and the research. Conclusion Adopting a critical and reflective attitude can increase researchers' capacity to engage youth in democratic and inclusive ways, and to produce research outputs that are aligned with the target audience's needs and priorities.

show abstract

Section: Ta B L E 1 Values and Associated Commitments Agreed Upon By mentioning

confidence: 99%

Co‐producing research with youth: The NeurOx young people's advisory group model

Pavarini

Lorimer

Manzini

et al. 2019

Health Expectations

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hooper and Gunn (2014) acted as consultants with no control over project decisions, and Murray (2006) recruited young people to conduct focus groups without her being present. Several authors, however, took a greater role in the described projects and placed the ultimate responsibility for the research with the adult researchers (Bradbury Jones and Taylor 2015), arguing that it is not always feasible or ethical to give a child full control of a project (Burton et al 2010;Willumsen et al 2014). Lomax (2015) described how sharing decisions with children can lead to disagreements and based on her specific case, which included the production of a film, she argued that decision making with regards to dissemination needs to be carefully balanced with the (adult) researchers' responsibility to co-researchers.…”

Section: Theme 2: Power and Research Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lomax (2015) described how sharing decisions with children can lead to disagreements and based on her specific case, which included the production of a film, she argued that decision making with regards to dissemination needs to be carefully balanced with the (adult) researchers' responsibility to co-researchers. Willumsen et al (2014) questioned whether the term 'co-researcher' can be applied to children at all, as it signals too much responsibility over the research process and outcomes and may force children into making ethical and moral decisions for which they are not prepared.…”

Section: Theme 2: Power and Research Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children’s Involvement in Research—A Review and Comparison with Service User Involvement in Health and Social Care

Jørgensen

2019

Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changing conceptions of children and childhood have in the last three decades led to the increasing participation of children in social research and their involvement in active research roles. However, the benefits and challenges of this process are rarely discussed in relation to the wider literature on adult involvement, thus missing an opportunity to learn from potential commonalities or differences. In this paper, I argue for an explicit comparison between children’s involvement in research and (adult) service user involvement in health and social care research. The paper presents findings from a review of children’s involvement in research, first separately, and second, in comparison with themes from the literature on service user involvement. As the paper will illustrate, many of the themes manifest themselves in similar ways in the two areas of practice, leaving scope for the development of cross-disciplinary practice, reflection and conceptual development. Particular suggestions deriving from the paper are (a) a strengthening of organisational frameworks within Higher Education institutions to facilitate the involvement of diverse groups of children in research, (b) the development of a more systematic mechanism for reporting the involvement of children and young people in research and (c) cross-disciplinary and theoretical exploration of key concepts such as power and empowerment within the involvement context.

show abstract

“…For eksempel brukes betegnelser som medforsker, forsker og barneledet forskning, begreper som kan vaere lite forklart, og det tegnes et uklart bilde av hvilke roller og hvilket ansvar barn faktisk har i forskningsprosjektene. For en utdypende diskusjon om barn som medforskere, se Willumsen, Hugaas & Studsrød et al (2014).…”

Section: Kunnskap Og Forskning -Samproduksjon Og Barns Medvirkningunclassified

“…Men om forskning faktisk skaper endring, er usikkert (Dockett et al, 2009). Når et prosjekt er avsluttet, drar forskerne ofte videre til neste oppdrag uten å følge opp et aktuelt endringsarbeid (Willumsen et al, 2014).…”

Section: Etiske Aspekterunclassified

10. Involvering av barn i samproduksjon i forskning– metodologiske og etiske aspekter

Svendby¹,

Øien²,

Willumsen³

2019

Samproduksjon I Forskning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

10. Involvering av barn i samproduksjon i forskningmetodologiske og etiske aspekter ELLEN BERG SVENDBY, INGVIL ØIEN OG ELISABETH WILLUMSEN SAMMENDRAG Forventninger om samproduksjon i forskning gjelder også barn. I dette kapittelet vil vi belyse saerskilte metodologiske og forskningsetiske dilemmaer som gjør seg gjeldende når barn involveres i samproduksjon i forskning. Vi drøfter hvilket ansvar barn bør og kan ha i ulike faser av forskningsprosjekter og på hvilke premisser barn kan medvirke. Som grunnlag for å belyse disse spørsmålene tas utgangspunkt i to perspektiver med relevans for forskning med barn, barneperspektivet og barnets perspektiv. Fordi valg av perspektiv alltid vil vaere forbundet med hvilken forståelse av kunnskap som ligger til grunn, er perspektivene knyttet til det Nowotny et al. betegner som Modus 1-og Modus 2-kunnskap. Barn har rett til medvirkning, men kan samtidig ha behov for beskyttelse. Når barn involveres i forskning, må derfor forskerne foreta saerskilte avveininger av både metodologiske og etiske problemstillinger. NØKKELORD: barneperspektiv | barnets perspektiv | forskning | samproduksjon | etikkABSTRACT Expectations for co-production in research also apply to work with children. In this chapter we will describe specific methodological and ethical dilemmas that arise when children are involved in co-production in research. We discuss what responsibilities children can and should have during different phases of research projects, and on what grounds they can contribute to the research process and results. The underlying premise for these questions is based on two perspectives relevant to research with children, a child perspective and the child's perspective. Because choice of perspective always will be associated with understandings of the underlying knowledge, these perspectives are linked to what Nowotny et al. describe as Modus 1 and Modus 2 knowledge. Children are entitled to participation, but in so doing, may also need protection. The involve-10. INVOLVERING AV BARN I SAMPRODUKSJON I FORSKNING -METODOLOGISKE OG ETISKE ASPEKTER

show abstract

The Child as Co-researcher—Moral and Epistemological Issues in Childhood Research

Cited by 32 publications

References 24 publications

Co‐producing research with youth: The NeurOx young people's advisory group model

Co‐producing research with youth: The NeurOx young people's advisory group model

Children’s Involvement in Research—A Review and Comparison with Service User Involvement in Health and Social Care

10. Involvering av barn i samproduksjon i forskning– metodologiske og etiske aspekter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About