Co-participatory approaches to research with children and young people

There has been something of a research paradigm shift over the past twenty years: from a predominance of research practices where something is done to children and young people (such as the administering of a survey questionnaire to measure incidence of a pastoral concern); to something that is conducted with them (having given consent); to the emergence of an increasing range of contemporary pastoral practices which are co-participatory i.e. which see children and young people as co-constructors of knowledge but also as co-designers and co-facilitators of research (Spears & Kofoed, 2013). In this special issue, we present five original research articles based on research across Europe and Australia. Although widely divergent in terms of location, research focus and sample, all of the articles address the challenges and opportunities presented by co-participatory approaches to research on pastoral issues with children and young people. A number of key themes emerge from the collection and are summarised below:

First, it is clear that researchers planning co-participatory research with children and young people often face the challenge of securing ethical permission from risk-averse institutional ethics committees unfamiliar with the iterative nature of participatory design and the inevitable element of the unknown (Collin et al., 2020) and preoccupied with the risk of reputational damage at an institutional level (Johnson et al., 2019). Contesting risk-averse mindsets of institutional ethics committees is challenging (in this special issue see Johnson et al.; O’Brien & Dadswell) and can impose constraints on the open-endedness and unpredictability of authentic co-participatory research. Working within the realm of unknowability is fundamental to the co-participatory approach, but imposes an even greater duty on researchers to adhere to ethical principles when navigating risky uncharted waters, beyond what could have been foreseen by adults working alone or pre-conceived in a regulation-laden institutional ethics application. For instance, co-participatory research can involve challenging ethical conventions of parental consent for young people’s participation in research (O’Brien & Dadswell; Stehlik et al.), using financial incentives to reward young people engaged as co-researchers (Stehlik et al.) and working to encourage disadvantaged or marginalised young people to engage voluntarily in research project activities (Hamilton et al.; O’Brien & Dadswell).

Second, the articles highlight the importance of power dynamics. In each of the articles, despite differences in degrees and stages of participation, we see that co-participatory research is inherently concerned with a shift in power. While power resides traditionally with adult researchers (themselves under the governance of institutional ethics committees), co-participatory approaches require (generally university-based) adult researchers to cede power and control to participants (e.g., children and young people or teachers – see Ey & Spears). This can be unsettling at first for researchers and participants unaccustomed to the re-balancing of traditional roles. The projects in this special issue also illustrate the different stages at which participation is possible, each of which is fraught with challenges: at the research planning stage (O’Brien & Dadswell; Ey & Spears), co-construction of research instruments such as interview protocols (Stehlik et al.; Johnson et al.), co-creation of resources (Hamilton et al.; Johnson et al.; Ey & Spears), data collection (Johnson et al.; Stehlik et al.), member checking/data analysis (O’Brien & Dadswell), and presentation to peers or adults (Hamilton et al.).

The third emergent theme from this collection of studies relates to the need for flexibility when employing co-participatory and co-design research practices: flexibility of approach and responses; flexibility by the researchers themselves; and flexibility in relation to working closely with children and young people. Ethics committees, as noted above, can require changes to the design if they do not fully comprehend that, conceptually, co-participatory practices deliberately set out to facilitate the co-creation and co-design of the tools, artefacts, measures, processes and outputs of the study with the participants. Researchers must be flexible enough to respond to and articulate why it is important that these should not be pre-ordained, and that the very nature of a co-participatory study is about the trust and relationship which develops between the parties, which is enabling and empowering enough for the participants to take their place alongside the adult researchers (Johnson et al.; O’Brien & Dadswell; Ey & Spears; Stehlik et al.; Hamilton et al.). Because researchers are often working directly with school staff and students, flexibility is a necessary trait of the researchers themselves, as these are naturally complex and ‘messy’ places with lots of constraints and interruptions (Hamilton et al.). This is especially important for those who are unfamiliar with working in school settings, who may be more used to highly structured, replicable research procedures. Accommodating recalcitrant and uncooperative students also requires flexibility (Hamilton et al.), at least until mutual trust and respect have been established and developed, facilitating some exchange of power across the relationship (O'Brien & Dadswell), so that the participants can sit alongside the researchers as equal partners (Stehlik et al.): for what is most significant here, in contrast to traditional research, is that the process of co-participatory research enquiry is equally as important as the product, findings, outputs or outcomes. This flexibility requirement means that researchers themselves pass through a process of adjustment to the issue, modification of their own behaviours in response and shifts in power.

The practical challenges of time, resources, funding and navigating the school management architecture, with its gatekeepers, and adult/child hierarchies are also evident in these studies, referred to by Johnson et al. as the ‘grammar of schooling’. Of note, was the strategy for establishing relationships with key personnel (‘adult allies’), building trust, reliability and commitment to the project, through and alongside them (Hamilton et al.). Two of the studies (O’Brien & Dadswell; Stehlik et al.) also explore the less familiar challenges of co-participatory research beyond traditional school contexts.

Replicability remains a constant benchmark for researchers, and co-participatory approaches are not always predictable, nor do they follow a precise pattern, simply because they are immersed in the individual lives, realities and voices of the participants who take on the responsibility of being co-researchers at different rates and with varying levels of success.

However, it is this diversity which is its collective strength. These studies demonstrate that there is not one research voice, but many; not one way of undertaking co-participatory design, but many, and what it does indicate is that these key learnings emerging from the studies are central, key themes and not subjective, isolated perspectives. In this way, the articles presented in this special issue represent an example of what Patton (1990) refers to as ‘maximum variation sampling’, where uniquely within the context of co-participatory research, the apparent weakness of the heterogeneity of the samples becomes its very strength: highlighting common themes, challenges and opportunities amid considerable variation in sample, design, degrees and stages of co-participation, experiences and outcomes.

The divergent cases presented in this special issue highlight that co-participatory pastoral care research with children, young people or teachers is potentially radically democratising, inclusive and empowering while at the same time potentially disruptive, uncomfortable and ‘bumpy’. This can be disconcerting for researchers less familiar with the approach, not least within the context of pastoral care in education, where sensitive issues are often being discussed. Notwithstanding the many challenges, however, the articles in this special issue provide an important evidence base both for teachers and researchers committed to developing participatory approaches. In adopting such co-participatory approaches, surrendering traditional adult-centric hierarchies of power and knowledge and putting children and young people at the centre of our enquiry, we believe that we come closer to gaining authentic insights into their experiences and to making a positive impact on their lives.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.