Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229786796
‘HowcomeIdon’tgetaskednoquestions?’
Researching‘hardtoreach’childrenand
teenagers
ArticleinChild&FamilySocialWork·March2004
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2004.00304.x
CITATIONS
READS
65
170
5authors,including:
KatherineCurtis-Tyler
JeanetteCopperman
City,UniversityofLondon
TheOpenUniversity(UK)
38PUBLICATIONS487CITATIONS
10PUBLICATIONS94CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
SEEPROFILE
AnnaDownie
KristinLiabo
InternationalHIV/AIDSAlliance
UniversityCollegeLondon
4PUBLICATIONS87CITATIONS
19PUBLICATIONS353CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
Allin-textreferencesunderlinedinbluearelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,
lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.
SEEPROFILE
Availablefrom:KristinLiabo
Retrievedon:19September2016
Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKCFSChild and Family Social Work1365-2206Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004May 200492167175Original ArticleResearching ‘hard to reach’ children and teenagers
K Curtis
et al.
‘How come I don’t get asked no questions?’ Researching
‘hard to reach’ children and teenagers
Katherine Curtis*, Helen Roberts†, Jeanette Copperman‡, Anna Downie§ and Kristin Liabo*
*Research Fellows, and †Professor of Child Health, City University, London, ‡Lecturer, Royal Holloway, University of London,
London, and §MA Student, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Correspondence:
Katherine Curtis,
Child Health Research and Policy
Unit,
City University, Bartholomew Close,
London EC1A 7QN,
UK
E-mail: [email protected]
Keywords: children, consultation,
participation, research methods,
research practice, teenagers, young
people
Accepted for publication: July 2003
A B S T R AC T
This article discusses two related areas of research practice with
children and young people that have received less attention in the
literature than they might. The first is working with children and
teenagers for whom the traditional, discursive nature of interviewbased research is less accessible. The second is the disinclination of
researchers to report on difficulties in the research process. As
researchers, we scanned the literature for assistance for some of the
problems we encountered, with little reward. In describing everyday
problems (and some of our – still developing – solutions) we hope
to encourage more dialogue on the uncomfortable realities of the
research process, and how we might improve research practice, making it a more fruitful exercise for researchers, and a more enjoyable
one for children and teenagers.
INTRODUCTION
Shane: ‘Can I just ask you a simple question? Are you trying
to get everyone to talk about what, talk about anything?’
Interviewer: ‘Well, no, we’re talking about risk taking and
keeping yourself safe.’
Doug: ‘What are you doing man! For fuck’s sake man, is that
what you come here for man? . . .’
[Everyone talks at once, interrupting. One young man asks
for the recorder to be stopped.]
There has been a growing literature over the last
decade on interviewing children, working with children as subjects not objects of research, listening to
children, and respecting the rights of children. In the
UK, the Economic and Social Research Council
research programme on children 5–16 has played a
significant part in this enterprise, as have the children’s charities. Some of this work is driven by the
desire to know – the disinterested questioning that
underpins scholarly enquiry. However, a considerable
body of work is driven by service questions. How can
we deliver a good service in health, education or welfare to young people? What can children and teenagers tell us? What do they know that we do not?
As a group of authors, we work, or have done, for
167
Child and Family Social Work 2004, 9, pp 167–175
Barnardo’s, the UK’s largest childcare charity. We
draw particularly on our experiences in this organization, while acknowledging the debt we have to colleagues in other children’s charities. Barnardo’s has a
significant history in listening to the voices of children
and teenagers. The charity initiated a collaboration
with the National Centre for Survey Research (then
Social and Community Planning Research) to establish the first young person’s component to the benchmark British Social Attitudes published as Young
People’s Social Attitudes (Roberts & Sachdev 1996). We
commissioned Priscilla Alderson to work on a report
on children and ethics looking at the questions that
should be asked, and the kind of guidelines established to enable Barnardo’s to work with children in
research in an ethical way (Alderson 1995). We have
worked on issues of children’s participation (McNeish
1999, 2000). More recently, however, we have
become concerned with the perspectives and special
knowledge of children who get left out. While carrying
out the research for Young People’s Social Attitudes
(Roberts & Sachdev 1996) we were aware that selecting children on the basis of their living in a household
with an adult participant in the British Social Attitudes survey, while yielding good intra-household
© 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Researching ‘hard to reach’ children and teenagers K Curtis et al.
comparative research data, systematically excluded
children who do not live in a family home. Since the
selection depended on a child or teenager being at
home on one of up to three call backs, it also excluded
children and teenagers who, for whatever reason,
chose to spend less time in the family home than those
we did interview.
‘Hard to reach’ children, who are frequently in
greatest need of good services, have tended to be
marginalized in enquiries about those services (M.
Hill 1998). Disabled children, children excluded from
school, and children for whom the discursive nature
of conventional interview-based research is less accessible have been less well represented in participatory
research than children who are easier to interview. For
a range of methodological and practical reasons, children who communicate well, and in English, or who
are regular school attendees, are more likely to be
given a voice in the research literature.
TH E L I T E RA T U R E
In reviewing the literature, we found a good deal more
methodological detail and helpful advice on interviewing disabled children and sick children than on
children who were otherwise marginalized. While
there is an extensive literature on working with ‘difficult’ children across a range of settings (for example,
Cooper et al. 1994; Sanders & Hendry 1997; Sandiford 1997; Daniels 1999; Spalding et al. 2001), there
is little describing the practicalities of involving these
young people in a research study. Were we the only
researchers who would find ourselves in a room of
children and teenagers for whom the give and take of
social intercourse was difficult? We rather suspect not,
but while there has been a research literature on the
gap between the reality and the final report in social
research (Bell & Newby 1977; Oakley 1981; Bell &
Roberts 1984) we were unable to find described
detailed experiences of others, from which we might
have drawn practical lessons, or reassurance that our
experiences were not unusual. Is every researcher a
friend to the kids, and every child, or every child
reported, a real trooper? Airbrushing out the problems of research may occur as a result of pressure on
length of journal articles, professional pride or a disinclination for well-trained, careful researchers to
admit to difficulties. We believe that frankness about
some of these problems is the first step towards building and developing better research practice.
In undertaking studies with ethnic minority participants whose first language is not English, Dwivedi
168
Child and Family Social Work 2004, 9, pp 167–175
(1996, p. 156) emphasizes the importance of ‘a great
deal of preparation’ and ‘sensitivity and openness to
a variety of alternative communication styles and cultural perspectives’. Similar considerations form recurring themes in the extensive literature on undertaking
research with children with disability-related communication difficulties. There is much emphasis on the
need for ‘a cautious and unrushed approach’ in
undertaking research with this group of young people
so that issues arising at each stage of the research
process can be addressed (Beresford 1997, p. 36).
The literature broaches the most appropriate ways to
invite young people to take part in a study (Ward
1997; Morris 1998) and to gain informed consent
(Beresford 1997; Morris 1998). Further questions
include how confidentiality – and accompanying
issues around child protection – are best addressed
(Beresford 1997; Ward 1997; Morris 1998; Begley
2000; Detheridge 2000). Are young people reminded
throughout the research process about their rights to
refuse or withdraw from the study (Beresford 1997;
Ward 1997; Begley 2000)? How are carers/gatekeepers to be involved in the process (Ward 1997; Morris
1998; Russell 1998)? What is the best way of recording young people’s input (Morris 1998)? And how can
we explore issues of validity and reliability (Morris
1998; Begley 2000; Costley 2000; Detheridge 2000)?
In terms of research practice, a variety of techniques for eliciting the views of young people with
communication difficulties have been documented.
Approaches such as ‘spending time’ (Morris 1998) or
‘joining in their activities’ (Bearison 1991, cited in
Beresford 1997, p. 29) are recommended. The literature also explores appropriate use of different styles
of questioning (Beresford 1997; Ward 1997; Morris
1998; Begley 2000), different types of communication
tools such as British Sign Language and Makaton
(Beresford 1997; Ward 1997; Russell 1998;
Detheridge 2000) and visual aids, props and games
(Beresford 1997; Berson & Meisburger 1998; Russell
1998; Begley 2000).
However, disabled young people are not the only
ones who may find conventional qualitative research
processes inaccessible. These also can exclude those
unfamiliar or uneasy with the give and take of group,
or one-to-one, discussion. There is a reticence about
the problems that may arise out of this. When describing the processes of data collection, information
which Oakley (1981) describes as ‘legitimate’ – such
as number of interviews completed, degree of flexibility in the interview schedule and how information was
recorded – is invariably recounted. But despite calls
© 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Researching ‘hard to reach’ children and teenagers K Curtis et al.
for the development of new ways to elicit the views
of young people (Burgess 1995), information on
researcher planning and learning processes seems to
have been relegated to the realm of the ‘illegitimate’
or at least the less discussed.
Studies which specifically involve children and
teenagers described as having ‘challenging behaviour’
routinely set out the style and form of data collection
tools (Cooper 1993; Gersh & Nolan 1994; Garner
1995; Alderson 1999; Wise 2001). Often these constitute semistructured interviews, with, in a number
of cases, the researcher adopting a particularly flexible
and reflexive approach (Cooper 1993; Alderson &
Goodey 1998; Wise 2001). Some researchers report
briefly on their relationship with participants,
although usually in terms of their having known them
in a teaching capacity prior to the study (Turner 2000;
Wise 2001). In terms of problems, actual or potential,
Turner (2000, p. 14) reports how her presence during
observations may have affected the behaviour of the
young man who was the subject of her case study,
while R. Hill (1997) and Wise (2001) recount some
slight reluctance at times by participants to be interviewed or, once in the interview situation, to give
their views. Wise (2001, p. 21) acknowledges that her
approach ‘makes a basic assumption that pupils want
to talk [and] can articulate their thoughts’.
The attention to potential or actual difficulties is
scant in comparison with the extensive information
available on how professionals have successfully
elicited the views of children whose communication
difficulties arise out of disability. And (possibly
judiciously) the literature tends to skate over just
how non-judgemental researchers should be when
confronted with, for instance, racist or homophobic
behaviour.
As a result of some of our recent work (Liabo et al.
2000, 2002; Curtis 2001) we have started to think
about some of the practical strategies we can use to
make the research process more productive for the
researcher, more enjoyable for the participants, and
more meaningful in terms of service development. We
consider that we have, at best, some partial answers
(and as ever, more questions than answers), but
present some of our experiences in what we hope may
be the beginning of an exchange on interviewing children for whom the discursive nature of conventional
qualitative research processes is challenging.
The following reflections are based on our experiences of interviewing young people for several
research projects. The first of these looked at sexual
exploitation of young people through prostitution and
169
Child and Family Social Work 2004, 9, pp 167–175
young people’s strategies for keeping themselves safe
in a variety of contexts (Liabo et al. 2000). The second
involved collecting teenagers’ views on the physical
aspects of Therapeutic Crisis Intervention. This is a
technique for calming and, where necessary, physically restraining teenagers who are behaving in a way
that is dangerous to themselves or someone else (Curtis 2001). The third was a consultation with children
from 4 to 18 years on their local health services (Liabo
et al. 2002).
WH A T A R E S O M E O F T H E P R O B L E M S A N D
ISSUES WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED?
Gatekeepers and informed consent
In several instances it has been our experience that
gatekeepers with whom we have made good relationships to gain access, and who frequently share a keen
desire to foster the participation of marginalized children and teenagers, may encourage young people to
meet with us in a way which makes informed (or any)
dissent difficult for the young people concerned. The
behaviour of children and teenagers may also be used
by gatekeepers as an inclusion criterion for access to
the research process, with participation in research
seen as a ‘reward’ and exclusion as a ‘punishment’. At
the very beginning of one group session with very
young children, and prior to setting ground rules, an
argument broke out, and a small child started crying.
The ‘perpetrator’ was immediately, and with considerable and vocal resistance, removed from the group
by the project worker.
These issues have raised concern that in leaving the
process of invitation to the research in the hands of
gatekeepers we are not entirely taking responsibility
for ensuring young people’s fully informed consent.
On another occasion when visiting a local community
project to speak with teenagers, it became clear that
some were not, after all, keen to take part. We reassured them that it was fine to change their minds and
encouraged them not to continue with the research
process if they did not feel comfortable with it. No
young person actually left the group (Curtis 2001). If
once in the ‘interview setting’ it is difficult for young
people to leave – even with reassurance that this is
‘OK’ – there is an even greater onus to ensure that
the child or teenager comes there of their own volition.
Where time and resources allow it, we now plan to
carry out introductory visits before fieldwork in order
to ensure that children and teenagers are able to make
their own decisions about participating or not.
© 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Researching ‘hard to reach’ children and teenagers K Curtis et al.
Rewards
The issue of incentives or rewards is a tricky question
in any research setting. One community youth group
leader alerted us that teenagers at his project would
expect a reward for taking time to talk with us. After
deliberation about whether to make incentives standard for all participants – a discussion which threw
up more questions than answers – we agreed that a
group reward would be paid to the school for all those
interviewed in school settings; and that young people
interviewed in other settings would be given a gift
voucher. In setting the amount we considered the
young people’s age and the length of the interview.
Just as with adults and other young people, we
found the ‘thank you’ payment a strong motivator for
some teenagers to take part – teenagers whom we had
been advised might not otherwise have done. However, we felt some unease about paying for opinions
that in a democratic society one might want to
encourage to be freely given. Furthermore, we
became aware that some of those with little experience
of having their opinions sought out and valued felt
obliged to stay for the whole of the session simply to
get their payment, rather than because they had
become engaged in what we were discussing:
‘I want my £15! That’s why I’m here, man . . . what do you
mean continue, I’m not taking the fucking piss man! I now
want my voucher man, I’m not fucking sitting here man. I
want my fucking voucher man!’
Planning the fieldwork for a later project on young
people’s experiences of using health services we once
again discussed the pros and cons of offering incentives. In this case we opted instead to provide our
thank you in the form of a take out pizza which
teenagers – and researchers – chose, ordered, and ate
together at the start of the group discussion. While as
a matter of course we have always provided drinks and
snacks for young people, we felt that the pizza went
down particularly well, and plan to use this again in
some cases instead of thank you payments. The choosing, ordering and sharing process worked well as an
‘ice-breaker’ and we hoped also avoided young people
feeling they had to stay for the whole session simply
to get their reward.
Group settings
Ability to contribute meaningfully in a group setting
has been a key issue for us. The advantages of using
discussion groups have been well described (Kitzinger
170
Child and Family Social Work 2004, 9, pp 167–175
1995), particularly when working with young people
(Hurley 1998); and we found some children and teenagers who were used to working in a group well able
to sustain a discussion among themselves with little
input from the interviewer, as is shown in this extract
from a discussion between peer educators about
young women being hassled on the street:
Dean: ‘When you get hassled does it depend on what you’re
wearing or is it just in general?’
Jasmine: ‘I can wear like whatever . . . you can wear anything,
like you can wear a big baggy top and ordinary trousers and
you’ll still get hassles.’
Dean: ‘But it depends on what she’s wearing don’t it?’
Jasmine: ‘You can wear anything.’
Dean: ‘What I would like to know is: at what point is it
hassle . . .’
Jasmine: ‘You say “I want to go now” and they’re like “No, no
wait one second!” and I need to go NOW!’
However, we found the group interview to be an
inappropriate format for young people unfamiliar
with group work or those whose experiences of the
group classroom setting had been less than positive.
For example, this young man felt his contribution to
the discussion was being ignored because questions
were directed at the group as a whole rather than him
specifically:
Jay: ‘How come I don’t get asked no questions?’
Tyrone: ‘You do ‘cos you answer them anyway.’
Jay: ‘Since when?’
Tyrone: ‘You just answer the question.’
Interviewer: ‘OK I’ll ask you this question.’
Jay: ‘I don’t want to, I’m sulking.’
A number of teenagers found it difficult to take
turns speaking and became angry at peers whom they
felt to be dominating the conversation:
Shane: ‘Yeah there are certain areas . . .’
[All speaking at once, some arguing with one another.]
Project worker: ‘One at a time!’
Kamara: ‘It’s just him man, he’s just pissing me off man!’
Shane: ‘You listen man!’
This young man became frustrated because he had
anticipated a set list of questions as in a street corner
survey, and felt it unfair when we asked for elaboration on the answers he gave:
Teo: ‘All I’m saying is it’s time for the next question like that,
the time’s ticking, it’s closing up to three o’clock . . .’
[Interviewer asks for elaboration on an answer.]
Teo: ‘Jesus, you’re making it more complicated than it is,
man . . . next question please I’m getting frustrated here!’
© 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Researching ‘hard to reach’ children and teenagers K Curtis et al.
Project worker: ‘I think there’s a bit of confusion here, it doesn’t
have to be that you answer a certain number of questions
. . . It’s more like if you take one question and everybody has
a say.’
To avoid some of these problems in future discussions
we took to asking project staff, and, wherever possible, young people, ahead of time about whether participants would be happier to talk in a one-to-one,
small/friendship-based, or larger group setting. Where
we used group settings, we tied into our introductory
discussion about the nature of the work, reporting and
confidentiality, clarification of the discursive nature
of questioning so that young people knew what to
expect. We are also currently exploring alternative
approaches to the traditional ‘discussion’ format as a
means for collecting young people’s views. Building
on visual, non-verbal and game-based approaches –
as described for example in Boyden & Ennew (1997),
O’Kane (2000) and Shephard & Treseder (2002) – we
are developing techniques which we hope will make
it easier for those children and teenagers for whom
round the table discussion is not an easily accessible
format.
We are increasingly using website questionnaires
as well as group work approaches. This circumvents
some access and consent issues and provides a tool
for data collection that in some cases may be more
accessible to those for whom group work is difficult.
It can also fit with children and teenagers’ own timetables, and further provides a format for feedback and
information to participants. We are considering the
use of mentors for children and teenagers who might
otherwise be excluded because of literacy or other
problems, but this work is at a very preliminary stage.
Setting
While getting an appropriate setting is important to
the success of any discussion group it is particularly
key with those who may be unfamiliar with group
work. In one case – at a project for young people who
had been excluded from school – the room allocated
for the interview was a long thin school room. With
the young people all seated in a line we had little
chance of a good discussion. However, once we broke
into small groups of three, eye contact between members of the group was much easier and the discussion
much more fruitful. Both project staff and young people themselves have made useful suggestions about
where and how participants might like to be seated.
At one school we visited the class teacher explained
that the young men would find sitting around in a
171
Child and Family Social Work 2004, 9, pp 167–175
circle extremely difficult and recommended that
instead they have the option to remain behind their
desks where they may feel ‘safer’. This was an option
which all but one of the five young men took.
Presence of staff member
Whilst it would normally be considered bad practice
for a project worker to be present during an interview,
we found that this could be helpful when working with
those less familiar with group work. When given the
option, many young people – especially when discussing something sensitive – decided to have a particular
member of staff with them when they talked to us. As
well as offering encouragement and support to the
young people, we found staff able to spot where their
difficulties with the research process might lie. In the
example above, for instance, the project worker
understood that Teo’s frustration was arising from his
expectation of a set list of questions – something we
had not realized.
An assumption of focus groups is that people will
disclose the information that they feel safe with in
what is essentially a one-off research setting. In practice, the fact that the lives of some of the young people
we interviewed were chaotic and unplanned meant
that they were vulnerable to disclosing information
which they may have barely had the time to process
themselves. During one focus group a young woman
of 16 said that she had found out that she was pregnant half an hour beforehand. In this case, the presence of a worker from the project meant that support
was available after the interview. We have also found
it useful to prepare for young people a list of resources
relevant to issues raised in the discussion group (and
checked in advance for accuracy). If the discussion
raises specific questions for young people they can
then access information and support from local agencies if they wish.
Though interviewing is not intrinsically one of life’s
riskier activities, interviewing more challenging
groups is more likely than general interviewing to
raise risks. This is the case both for those conducting
the interview, and, on occasion, for those participating, when strength of feeling on a topic may erupt into
verbal or physical violence, or emotions which are
difficult to deal with. Although the Social Research
Association guidelines on safety (Social Research
Association 2000) are drawn up around a model of
the researcher working in participants’ households, a
number of recommendations are also pertinent to
research carried out in community project settings,
© 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Researching ‘hard to reach’ children and teenagers K Curtis et al.
particularly when staff are not present – for example,
building in risk reduction strategies at the research
planning stage and being aware of the personal and
cultural expectations of participants.
The other area where we have benefited in difficult
group settings is building in a staffing structure where
there are always two researchers in a group interview,
one leading and the other taking notes or being
trained, but fully able to lend a hand if needed. This
potentially has funding implications, but we have
found that it has benefits for subsequent discussion,
analysis and training.
Single or mixed sex groups
One issue we have deliberated is whether to interview
young men and young women separately or together.
In a focus group of sexual health peer educators, the
young men and young women – at their own suggestion – were interviewed together. Some 20 years after
Spender (1985) observed ‘the young men spoke more,
for longer periods, and tended to set the terms within
which the discussion was conducted’, we found that
in a group evenly split between young men and
women, the young men dominated.
However, as these two excerpts from the discussion
about young women being hassled show, the mixed
gender composition of the group also allowed the
young men to explore some issues which would have
been difficult to explore in the same way in single sex
groups:
Chris: ‘But can I ask you, how are guys supposed to approach
women? Because sometimes when you approach them nicely
and say hello you get accused of hassle. So can any of the
ladies in here give us insight on how to approach a woman
without being accused of hassling them, whether I do in a nice
way or whether I do it in a horrible way.’
Jasmine: ‘Just say hello rather than like “Yo!”’
However, it is also possible to see above how disbelief
from some of the young men about the way in which
the young women viewed ‘hassle’ meant that the
young women spent time in the discussion explaining
that rather than focusing on issues of concern to them.
Where young men and women were interviewed separately, more open discussion took place among the
young women, without them having to justify themselves – for example, the following discussion of what
to do if your boyfriend refuses to wear a condom:
Jess: ‘Well if my boyfriend said anything like that to me I’d tell
him where to stick it, I would.’
Laci: ‘I would do the same about the condom or whatever.’
172
Child and Family Social Work 2004, 9, pp 167–175
Jess: ‘Yeah, you’d have to.’
Laci: ‘If the girl wants it and he wants it, like, and he don’t
want to wear a condom, then that’s tough innit?’
Jess: ‘Yeah, he’d have to go to another girl that won’t use a
condom.’
Our experience was that, when discussing sensitive
topics, the young women talked in more depth in a
single sex group, whilst the young men benefited from
a mixed group. However, this observation is contextbound, in this case, to groups of young people themselves experiencing a range of problems associated
with disadvantage.
The role of the researcher
Like Gersh & Nolan (1994), and in line with conventional wisdom in qualitative work, we try to adopt a
non-judgemental approach within the interview setting. However, just how non-judgemental should
researchers be when dealing with, for instance, racist
or homophobic behaviour? As part of our work on
young people exploited through prostitution and how
young people keep themselves safe (Liabo et al. 2000)
we wanted to explore with young people some case
studies of young men being approached by older men.
We wanted to clarify whether young people had come
across propositions at a range of levels, what appropriate support might be, and what might be the
responses of their peers. This proved far more difficult
to talk about in a focus group setting than the other
case study we used, which considered an older man
approaching a younger woman. The discussion
became dominated by a strong homophobic response
and the interjection of the project worker, below,
highlighted for us the distinction between ‘finding out’
– researching – and challenging young people’s views:
Martin: ‘I just think it is totally unacceptable.’
Dean: ‘How can you not like a woman?’
Chris: ‘Man wasn’t made for man.’
Project worker: ‘You are entitled to your opinion but I don’t
agree with that.’
Martin: ‘What do you think then, are you gay?’
Project worker: ‘I’m not actually gay, but I think it’s a very
positive thing if someone is gay, then that’s totally up to them.’
The final question resonates with Oakley’s (1981)
work on respondents themselves asking questions of
the (usually more powerful) interviewers, or, in this
case, their associate. As researchers we found it useful
to be clear before meeting with young people what we
would be willing to discuss of our own experiences
and views within the interview setting. For example,
© 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Researching ‘hard to reach’ children and teenagers K Curtis et al.
prior to talking to young people about their experiences of being physically restrained, we discussed our
own views on this, how they could potentially affect
data collected from the young people, and how we, if
asked by young people, would discuss this with them
(Curtis 2001).
We have found the ‘ground rules’ model useful at
the start of sessions with young people in order to set
boundaries and expectations for behaviour (theirs and
ours). Beyond that, we try to leave ‘control’ over the
group process to the young people themselves. For
example, in order for consent to be meaningful, we
have felt that it needs to be ongoing, and therefore
whether young people stay for the duration of the
session or not we have preferred to leave to them.
However, we also found instances where working with
some young people we needed to set tighter boundaries than with other more compliant groups. For
example, when interviewing children, we have often
introduced the idea of having the session recorded by
encouraging them to play with the recording device
for a short while at the start of the interview. However,
in one case a young person persisted in tapping the
microphone of the tape machine throughout the interview, while in another a young man wanted to keep
on playing with the machine – ‘bugging the room’ as
he put it – for a considerable time after we wanted to
start the interview. We had to take a more controlling
role than we would usually anticipate in asking him
to move onto this stage of the session.
WH A T D O E S T H I S M E A N I N P RA C T I C E ?
Alderson’s (1995) ‘Ten topics in ethical research’ provides an invaluable checklist of things for researchers
to think about when planning research with all children and teenagers. The experiences we have
described underscore the importance, in any research
situation, of considering ahead of time the potential
effects of different aspects of the research process –
recruitment, the style or type of data collection, the
setting, the presence of staff (or not), what type of
reward is offered (if any), and the make-up of the
group. But interviews are negotiated situations. While
it is possible in many, probably most, situations for
interviewers to call the tune, this leaves unanswered
the question of the agency, as well as the preferences,
of those being interviewed. When making decisions in
these areas more recently, we have found it useful to
approach young people directly and ask them for their
preferences. Although this can take up more time and
resources, it is also a political decision that puts par-
173
Child and Family Social Work 2004, 9, pp 167–175
ticipants closer to centre-stage (Trinder 1996) and
goes some way to reducing unequal power relationships between researcher and researched (Morrow
1999). In our current work we are exploring ways of
involving young people in making decisions about and
carrying out other parts of the research process, such
as data collection and analysis. We are still working
towards a reconciliation of the role of facilitator,
into which such an approach necessarily casts the
researcher (Cornwall & Jewkes 1995), with our
responsibilities to funders to deliver, within an agreed
timescale, a range of designated outputs which conform to conventional ideas about reliability and ‘truth’
(Cornwall & Jewkes 1995; Clark et al. 2001).
Currently, there is widespread concern in the polity
as well as researchers about the ways in which some
young people are increasingly distanced and excluded
from democratic life. Just as a good experience of
being interviewed may be a step in engaging young
people, and helping them feel that it is possible to
make a difference, a poor experience may have effects
which go beyond the research process. Above all, we
have found negotiating some aspects of the project
design with young people not only pre-empts some
(though not all) of the problems described here, but
also helps young people to express their ideas and
perceptions in their own terms. This, in turn, gives us
a more valid answer to our original question of what
young people can tell us about how to deliver a good
service in health, education or welfare.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the helpful comments
of the two referees.
REFERENCES
Alderson, P. (1995) Listening to Children: Children, Ethics and
Social Research. Barnardo’s, Barkingside.
Alderson, P. (1999) Disturbed young people: research for what,
research for whom? In: Critical Issues in Social Research: Power
and Prejudice (eds S. Hood, B. Mayall & S. Oliver), pp. 54–
67. Open University Press, Buckingham.
Alderson, P. & Goodey, C. (1998) Enabling Education: Experiences in Special and Ordinary Schools. Tufnell, London.
Bearison, D.J. (1991) ‘They Never Want to Tell You’: Children Talk
about Cancer. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Begley, A. (2000) The educational self-perceptions of children
with Downs Syndrome. In: Researching Children’s Perspectives
(eds A. Lewis & G. Lindsay), pp. 98–111. Open University
Press, Buckingham.
© 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Researching ‘hard to reach’ children and teenagers K Curtis et al.
Bell, C. & Newby, H. (1977) Doing Sociological Research. Allen
& Unwin, London.
Bell, C. & Roberts, H. (1984) Social Researching: Politics, Problems, Practice. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Beresford, B. (1997) Personal Accounts: Involving Children in
Research. SPRU, York.
Berson, L. & Meisburger, D. (1998) Working with avoidant
children: a clinical challenge. Child Welfare, 77, 427–439.
Boyden, J. & Ennew, J. (1997) Children in Focus: A Manual for
Participatory Research with Children. Grafisk Press, Stockholm.
Burgess, R. (1995) Gaining access to pupils’ perspectives. In:
On the Margins: The Educational Experience of ‘Problem’ Pupils
(eds M. Lloyd-Smith & J. Dwyfor Davies), pp. 151–164.
Trentham Books, Chester.
Clark, J., Dyson, J., Neagher, N., Robson, E. & Wootten, M.
(2001) Young People as Researchers: Possibilities, Problems, and
Politics. Youth Work Press, Leicester.
Cooper, P. (1993) Effective Schools for Disaffected Students: Integration and Segregation. Routledge, London.
Cooper, P., Smith, C.J. & Upton, G. (1994) Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties: Theory to Practice. Routledge, London.
Cornwall, A. & Jewkes, R. (1995) What is participatory
research? Social Science and Medicine, 41, 1667–1676.
Costley, D. (2000) Collecting the views of young people with
moderate learning difficulties. In: Researching Children’s Perspectives (eds A. Lewis & G. Lindsay), pp. 163–172. Open
University Press, Buckingham.
Curtis, K. (2001) TCI and the Use of Physical Restraint with
Children. Internal report at Barnardo’s.
Daniels, H. (1999) Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in
Mainstream Schools. DfEE Research report 90, London.
Detheridge, T. (2000) Research involving children with severe
learning difficulties. In: Researching Children’s Perspectives (eds
A. Lewis & G. Lindsay), pp. 112–121. Open University Press,
Buckingham.
Dwivedi, K.N. (1996) Race and the child’s perspective. In: Voice
of the Child: A Handbook for Professionals (eds R. Davie, G.
Upton & V. Varma). Falmer Press, Brighton.
Garner, P. (1995) The views of ‘disruptive’ pupils in mainstream
schools in England and the United States. In: On the Margins:
The Educational Experience of ‘Problem’ Pupils (eds M. LloydSmith & J. Dwyfor Davies), pp. 17–30. Trentham Books,
Chester.
Gersh, I.S. & Nolan, A. (1994) Exclusions: what the children
think. Educational Psychology in Practice, 10, 35–39.
Hill, M. (1997) What children and young people say they want
from social services. Research, Policy and Planning, 15, 17–27.
Hill, R. (1997) Pupil referral units: are they effective in helping
schools work with children who have emotional and behavioural difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 2, 28–
36.
Hurley, N. (1998) Straight Talk: Working with Children and Young
People in Groups. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
Kitzinger, J. (1995) Qualitative research: Introducing focus
groups. British Medical Journal, 311(7000), 299.
Liabo, K., Bolton, A., Copperman, J., Curtis, K., Downie, A.,
174
Child and Family Social Work 2004, 9, pp 167–175
Palmer, T. & Roberts, H. (2000) The Sexual Exploitation of
Children andYoung People in Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham.
Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Action Zone and
Barnardo’s, London and Barkingside.
Liabo, K., Curtis, K., Jenkins, J., Roberts, H., Jaguz, S. &
McNeish, D. (2002) Healthy Futures: A Consultation with Children and Young People in Camden and Islington about their Health
Services. Retrieved June 2003 from http://www.city.ac.uk/
barts/chrpu/projects/healthyfutures/index.htm.
McNeish, D. (1999) From Rhetoric to Reality: Participatory
Approaches to Health Promotion with Young People. Health Education Authority, London.
McNeish, D. (2000) The Participation of Children and Young
People. A report for Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham
Health Action Zone. Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Action Zone and Barnardo’s, London and
Barkingside.
Morris, J. (1998) Don’t Leave Us Out: Involving Disabled Children
and Young People with Communication Difficulties. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
Morrow, V. (1999) ‘It’s cool . . . ‘cos you can’t give us detention
and things, can you?!’ Reflections on research with children.
In: Time to Listen to Children (eds P. Milner & B. Carolin).
Routledge, London.
O’Kane, C. (2000) The development of participatory techniques: facilitating children’s views about decisions which
affect them. In: Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices
(eds P. Christensen & A. James), pp. 136–157. Falmer,
London.
Oakley, A. (1981) Interviewing women: a contradiction in
terms? In: Doing Feminist Research (ed. H. Roberts), pp. 30–
61. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Roberts, H. & Sachdev, D. (1996) Young People’s Social Attitudes.
Barnardo’s, Barkingside.
Russell, P. (1998) Having a Say! Disabled Children and Effective
Partnership in Decision-making. Council for Disabled Children,
National Children’s Bureau, London.
Sanders, D. & Hendry, L. (1997) New Perspectives on Disaffection.
Cassell, London.
Sandiford, P. (1997) A Positive Outlook on Challenging Behaviour:
A Good Practice Guide for Residential Social Workers. National
Children’s Bureau, London.
Shephard, C. & Treseder, P. (2002) Participation – Spice it Up!:
Practical Tools for Engaging Children andYoung People in Planning
and Consultations. Save the Children, Swansea.
Social Research Association (2000) A Code of Practice for the
Safety of Social Researchers. Retrieved June 2003 from http://
www.the-sra.org.uk.
Spalding, B., Kastirke, N. & Jennessen, S. (2001) School
improvement in the context of the special school for children
with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties, 6, 7–17.
Spender, D. (1985) Man Made Language. Routledge and Kegan
Paul, London.
Trinder, L. (1996) Social work research: the state of the art (or
science). Child and Family Social Work, 1, 223–243.
© 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Researching ‘hard to reach’ children and teenagers K Curtis et al.
Turner, C. (2000) A pupil with emotional and behavioural difficulties perspective: does John think his behaviour is affecting
his learning? Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 5, 13–18.
Ward, L. (1997) Seen and Heard: Ethical Projects with Disabled
Children and Young People. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
Wise, S. (2001) Listen to Me! The Voices of Pupils with Emotional
and Behavioural Difficulties. Lucky Duck Publishers Ltd,
Bristol.
175
Child and Family Social Work 2004, 9, pp 167–175
NOTE
Quotations are all from group interviews with young
people about risk-taking behaviour. All our interviewers were women, but one male project worker sat in
on one of our interviews with boys/young men when
we felt that a male presence would be helpful.
© 2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd