Consulting Young Children: Experiences from a Museum

ABSTRACT

Since 1999, the Australian Museum has provided a designated play/learning space for young children aged 0–5 years. A recent redevelopment and redesign of the museum provided a valuable opportunity for a team of museum staff and university researchers to consult with young children about their experiences and expectations about this play space and the museum generally. This article reports the processes of consultation; methods used to consult with children; issues identified by the children involved; and the ways in which children's perspectives influenced the design of the new Kidspace. In particular, the authors noted the importance of children's journals as both a means of constructing data and as a means for reflection on the importance of social spaces in research with children. Underpinning the project was a commitment to recognizing young children as competent social actors, with the right to be consulted on matters that are important to them.

This article focuses on the development of a unique play/learning space for young children in the Australian Museum, in Sydney, Australia. The first space developed specifically for children aged from birth to five years at the museum, Kids’ Island, opened in 1999. As part of a plan for redevelopment of the museum in 2006–2007, this space was replaced by another area for young children, called Kidspace. The article outlines a research project designed to ensure that the voices of young children were included in the development of the new space. After providing some background about the Australian Museum and children's spaces within this museum, we draw on two bodies of research literature to provide background for the project described in this article: research outlining processes of consultation with young children, and research detailing young children's engagement in museums.

The Australian Museum was founded in 1827. It is the oldest museum in Australia and one of the oldest in the world. It is a museum that prides itself on its extensive collection of natural science and cultural artifacts, as well as its commitment to Indigenous research and community engagement.

In 1999, after a period of extensive consultation with parents, educators, academics, and community organizations, the Australian Museum opened a specific area for children aged from birth to 5 years, called Kids’ Island. This space was designed to reflect the roles and purpose of the museum, within the context of a play-based learning environment. A survey of adult visitors to Kids’ Island indicated that the space was regarded as exciting and challenging. It was seen to promote exploration, discovery, and interaction between children and accompanying adults, peers, siblings, and museum staff (Kelly, 2002). Kids’ Island was also seen as a way to introduce children to the museum, providing opportunities for them to engage with museum artifacts in a playful environment. Observations of children in Kids’ Island identified high levels of dramatic play, as well as a regular engagement in exploring elements of the space, gross motor activity, observing, and discussing features of the environment (including museum artifacts) with adults (Main, n.d.).

A demographic study of visitors to the Australian Museum undertaken in 2005 indicated that many families with children under the age of five were regular visitors to Kids’ Island. Families commented on the importance of having a space for young children within the museum that was enjoyable, promoted hands-on learning, stimulated children's curiosity and creativity, and provided a chance to explore and discover. There was recognition that opportunities for play were important, but some parents also indicated that the existing Kids’ Island space was limited in that it had not changed much since its inception (Kelly, 2003, 2005). These comments were taken into consideration as the Australian Museum embarked on a program of revitalizing the museum through a reconfiguration of existing spaces and exhibits, as well as an overall expansion.

Consultation with Young Children

Moves to consult with children and to have them participate in research, as opposed to conducting research on children (Woodhead & Faulkner, 2008) have been guided by changing views of children, and, related to this, the development of a range of methods and approaches suited to engaging with children as researchers. Paradigm shifts in the ways in which children are regarded are exemplified in the move from notions of children as innocent and vulnerable to concepts of children as active participants in a range of social and cultural contexts, experts on their own lives, and competent to share their views and opinions (James & Prout, 1997). In addition, children's rights discourse (Jans, 2004; United Nations, 1989) recognizes all children as citizens with rights to have their voices heard and to be taken seriously. Changing views of children have challenged traditional approaches to research and opened up new ways of conducting research with children. Many of these approaches are qualitative, drawing on the social and cultural contexts of children and those who engage with them (Christensen & James, 2008; Clark & Moss, 2001). These approaches underpinned the research used in this study.

While researching with children has become a feature of the research landscape, it is not without ethical and practical tensions (Dockett, Einarsdottir, & Perry, 2009; Waller, 2006). For example, Jans (2004) noted that even research that conceptualizes children as competent must have regard for issues of protection and care. Further, children themselves are diverse, holding diverse perspectives, drawn from diverse experiences, and with diverse preferences about expressing themselves. Research that recognizes children's competence and rights must also acknowledge this diversity. In particular, it is important to acknowledge children's varied opportunities to demonstrate their competence and exercise their rights (Hill, 2006), as well as diverse responses to these opportunities (Clark & Moss, 2001).

Several researchers have conceptualized children's involvement in research in terms of a series of levels or steps. For example, Hart (1997) has outlined a ladder of participation, consisting of eight rungs. The lowest three levels were considered not to reflect participation at all, as the focus was on children's participation as manipulation, decoration, or tokenism. The following five rungs moved from children being assigned tasks and roles with varying levels of consultation and information, through to the top levels, where research was initiated and directed by children. Critics of this ladder have noted the hierarchical structure and the assumption that lower levels of participation are less desirable than the higher levels. Lansdown (2005) introduced three degrees of participation, noting that all levels can be appropriate, depending on the context and nature of the project. These three degrees encompass:

• Consultative processes: Consultation recognizes that children can make a valuable contribution to issues under consideration. It involves the establishment of mechanisms to facilitate children's contribution of their perspectives, and the use of these perspectives to inform policy or practice.

• Participatory processes: In these processes, there are opportunities for children to be involved in the development, implementation, and evaluation of activities. These opportunities are generated by adults but are genuine in their efforts to promote children's shaping and evaluation of their involvement.

• Self-initiated processes: These occur when children initiate processes and actions, rather than being invited to do so by adults. Self-initiated processes require shared power and decision-making strategies.

The project reported in this article promoted experiences where children were listened to, supported in expressing their views, had their views taken into account, and had some involvement in decision-making related to the project. As the initial project was conceptualized by adults, rather than children, the research is located as an example of participatory processes, using Lansdown's description.

Young Children and Museums

Changing conceptualizations of children and the value and significance of consulting with children have been reflected in the changing approaches within several museum communities around the world (Golding, 2005). This has been particularly evident in efforts to shift from the traditional view of a museum as a place for educating children to a more child-centered view of the power of children learning through play and interaction (Leinhart, Crowley, & Knutson, 2002; Macdonald, 2002). Aligned with this shift is the realization that children's early experiences in a museum are influential in determining future visits, both during childhood and later life (Falk & Dierking, 2000; Kelly, Savage, Griffin, & Tonkin, 2004).

Much of the research connecting children and museums has focused on children of school age, and the educational mission of museums. Investigations of younger children's engagement in museums have often been devoted to examining conceptions about museums (Kindler & Darras, 1997), strategies to attract young children and their parents to museums and galleries (MacRae, 2007) the impact of the physical museum space on children's engagement and learning (Falk & Dierking, 2000) and the interactions of families in museums (Borun & Dristas, 1997; Crowley & Jacobs, 2002).

Several studies involving young children note that the physical spaces of museums can be imposing and intimidating. Despite this, there is consistent evidence that young children can and do engage positively in museums (Piscitelli, 2001; Piscitelli & Anderson, 2002; Piscitelli, Weier, & Everett, 2003), generating imaginative insights and new perspectives (Jeffers, 1999) when they have the opportunity and motivation to do so. Typically, young children engage positively in museum experiences where they can exert choice and control (Falk & Dierking, 2000; Weier, 2004), often through play-based activities and collaborative interactions (Crowley & Jacobs, 2002; Piscitelli et al., 2003).

Children come to museums with a range of background experiences and expectations. Whether or not they participate in repeat visits, young children remember their visits. In particular, they recall large exhibits, such as dinosaurs (Kindler & Darras, 1997), experiences that involved hands-on participation and experiences that incorporated authentic objects or artifacts (Piscitelli & Weier, 2002).

Young children typically visit museums as part of family groups (Piscitelli et al., 2003). These groups generate opportunities to engage in conversations, make personal connections with exhibits, discuss family histories, and develop shared understandings (Crowley & Jacobs, 2002). Children report a preference for visiting museums with family members, as opposed to preschool or school groups, because of the greater levels of control they can exert within family groups (Jensen, 1994).

Within Australia, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Museums Collaborative has undertaken a series of studies investigating children's learning in museums. Using a range of participatory strategies, such as child-led tours, drawing, and in-gallery games (Piscitelli et al., 2003), young children have provided a range of feedback, including their preferences about experiences and interactions in museums. This research team has also highlighted opportunities for children to reflect on their museum experiences, recognizing the potential for post-visit experiences to build on learning and enhance connections with museums.

Children's active participation in museum experiences is identified as both a strategy for increasing their ownership of experiences and a way of helping children become open to new ideas and perspectives (Piscitelli et al., 2003). Given the stated purpose of the Australian Museum—to recognize the tensions that characterize the Australian context—the engagement of children in experiences that encourage questioning and reflection becomes an essential part of the social, cultural, and educational agenda of the museum.

The redesign of a space for young children at the Australian Museum took place in the context of these changing views and expectations of children and drew on the existing research evidence about ways in which museum spaces can promote the active engagement of young children. The research was underpinned by a conceptual view of children as competent meaning-makers, willing to exercise rights of choice and engagement when afforded opportunities to do so. The research questions guiding the project were:

• What strategies and approaches can be used successfully to engage with young children in documenting their experiences, expectations, and perspectives of the Australian Museum?

• What are the experiences, expectations, and perspectives of young children who visit and use the museum?

• How can these be used to assist in the design of new museum spaces for young children and their families?

METHOD

The specific focus of the project was the redevelopment of Kids’ Island. There was commitment among the adult members of the museum community that children's input should be incorporated into the redevelopment of this space, though also awareness that final decisions about the museum redevelopment would be made by adults in various positions of power and authority. The project involved consultation with children, but also moved beyond this to facilitate children having an active role in the research and the power to shape the direction and outcomes of the project.

Participants in this project were 40 children (16 boys, 24 girls), aged between 6 months and 6 years, and their carers (Table 1). The average age of children involved in the project was 3 years and 2 months. Thirty of the children involved in this study attended the museum with an adult (usually their mother) and at least one other child, usually a sibling (Table 2). Very young children were often part of the family groups participating in the project. While their participation was often limited, parents and siblings commented on the preferences they expressed—in whatever ways—when visiting the museum.

Table 1 Ages of participants

Age range	0–1.5 years	1.6–3 years	3–4 years	4–5 years	5 + years	Total
Boys	1	5	5	5	0	16
Girls	2	9	7	4	2	24

Table 2 Group attendance

Group size	Adult and child	Adult and 2 children	Adult and 3 children	Adult and 4 children
Number of children	10	20	6	4

The majority of the groups of children and adults had visited the museum previously. Some were very regular visitors. However, during the period of data collection (April–July, 2006) most participants attended the museum once (Table 3). Participants were recruited through an invitation extended to parents who had previously visited the museum and indicated willingness to be involved in future events. Information was provided to parents and they were asked to talk with their child/ren about the project and to discuss potential involvement. This initial contact meant that family groups who had agreed to participate in the project arrived at the museum already equipped with knowledge about the project and what was involved.

Table 3 Patterns of attendance in the period April–July

Attended	Once	Twice	Three times
Number of children	30	9	1

On arriving at the museum, family/carer groups were afforded opportunities to interact in the play space and to meet members of the research team. At this point, the project was again described and adults and children had time to ask any questions about the project and their own involvement. Informed consent for the children's participation was sought from parents, based on the principles established by the National Health and Medical Research Council (2007).

In addition to parental consent, children were asked to indicate their assent to participation. An assent form was read to all but the youngest children and they were asked to indicate one of three options about participation that reflected their preference: a smiley face indicating willingness to be involved; a face with a down-turned mouth, indicating a desire not to be involved; and a face with a neutral mouth (straight line) to indicate that they had not yet decided. While most children indicated willingness to be involved, some chose not to participate or noted that they had not yet decided. Such decisions were respected by the researchers. In addition, some children chose to participate initially but then indicated a change of mind. There was no pressure from the researchers for these children to continue. Approximately 10 children chose not to participate, or opted out of the research after initially choosing to participate.

A wide range of data generation approaches was used in this project. The different approaches were used in order to provide choices for children, recognizing that not all tasks were attractive to all children. The range of tasks included a focus on both verbal and non-verbal activities, with the intention of providing opportunities for very young children, or children with limited verbal proficiency, to be engaged in the project. The range of tasks drew on previous research strategies reported to be of interest and relevance for young children (Clark & Moss, 2001; Dockett & Perry, 2005; Mayall, 2000; Piscitelli et al., 2003). These were:

• Observation and discussion: This involved periods of observation (usually by the researcher and parent/carer) as children engaged in activities. Where children indicated an interest, researchers initiated discussion about what children liked/did not like at the museum and how they spent their time at the museum. Children generally continued their activity while participating in the discussion.

• Drawing/painting: A range of drawing and/or painting equipment was set up and children were invited to draw/paint what they liked or did not like at the museum and what they did when they visited the museum. Children were asked to discuss this as they drew/painted. These were audio-recorded. When children indicated that they had finished, researchers asked permission to photograph the painting or drawing. Children kept the original.

• Construction: A range of construction materials (small boxes, cardboard tubes, paper, and other miscellaneous craft items) was set up and children were invited to construct representations of their preferred museum experiences. Conversations that occurred as the construction progressed were audiorecorded. As above, on completion researchers sought permission to photograph the construction.

• Role-play, using puppets or dolls: A selection of dolls and puppets were made available for children's use. Researchers prompted discussion by using a doll or puppet to pose questions to children about their museum preferences. Children's comments were audiorecorded.

• Photo tours of the museum: Children and their parent/carer were invited to take the researcher on a guided tour of the museum. Using a digital camera, children took photographs of their preferred places, experiences, and activities within the museum. Conversations were audiorecorded. At the completion of the tour, children were given a complete set of all the photos they had taken.

• Video tours of the museum: As with photo tours, children and parents/carers led the researcher on a tour of the museum. The researcher used a video camera to record.

• Journals: After participation in one or more of the above activities, children were provided with a full set of any data they had generated and invited to collate this into a journal.

An overview of children's participation in these activities is provided in Table 4.

Table 4 Children's participation in activities

Participants	Photos	Video tour	Construct	Journal	Draw/paint	Role play/doll	Observe/Converse
Boys	11	6	7	6	1	1	6
Girls	19	15	6	12	4	4	4
Total	30	21	13	18	5	5	10

Children's Participation

The data generation approaches that involved the digital cameras and video cameras were by far the most popular for children. This may well reflect the attractiveness or novelty of the experience (Punch, 2002) and the pleasure of using the equipment (Hill, 2006), particularly for very young children who indicated that they were not necessarily permitted access to this equipment at home.

While some materials and activities were familiar to children (such as drawing, construction, role plays with puppets or dolls), there was also a sense that children found these boring in that they could use them on other occasions, both in the museums and in other contexts. The cameras and video equipment were novel and engaged children's interest much more than the other tasks. Sometimes, children chose to participate in the drawing or construction tasks, with one aim being to take a photo of the result. Other times, children were keen to be involved in taking photos of the museum, and then sought to return to Kids’ Island to take part in the more familiar activities such as drawing.

Photographic and video tours were often combined, so that children's interactions and touring of the museum when equipped with the digital cameras were videorecorded by a researcher. The major reason for this was to gather data about the contexts in which children took photos and any comments or explanation they provided. This recognizes that a “photograph is not simply a copy of ‘reality,’ or an unproblematic representation of what we observed…photographs have to be seen as social constructions, that is, artefacts of the contexts in which they were constructed” (Fasoli, 2003, p. 36).

One tour, involving Hayden (aged 4) and his brother Henry (aged 2), their mother, and a researcher with the video camera, proceeded as follows:

• The family met the researcher in Kids’ Island.

• After some time to become familiar with the setting and the researcher, the project was explained again and opportunities provided for questions or discussion about the project and what was involved.

• The researcher checked that the adult and the children were willing to be involved.

• Each child was given a digital camera and some time to explore its use. The researcher explained some of the features of the camera.

• The researcher showed children the video camera and explained its function. Some video footage was taken and the children watched as it was replayed.

• Group members (the children and their mother) were reminded that they could choose to cease their involvement at any stage.

• The group (children, mother, and researcher) set off on a tour, guided by the children.

• The children photographed any items they found interesting or that they liked and were encouraged to discuss the significance of the photos they took.

• Once the children had indicated that they had finished the tour, the group returned to Kids’ Island.

There was no time limit for the tour. Each digital camera was equipped with large storage capacity, so there were no limits on the number of photos taken.

Journals

After several tours, and during ongoing reflections about the project, members of the research team noted that the museum was often noisy, with many visitors, including school groups, and that there was often not much in-depth discussion or reflection from the children about the photos they had taken or the things that interested them in the museum. To provide a framework to overcome this, journals were constructed and distributed to families who had participated in the video and photographic tours throughout the project. Twenty-one video tours were conducted by children in the museum, and 18 of these children completed journals.

The journals consisted of a series of A4 pages in a loose-leaf folder, enabling pages to be added or deleted. To prompt recall of the experiences children had engaged in, some headings were included on several of the pages. The headings were:

• My museum journal

• What I like best of all at the museum

• Something funny at the museum

• A special treasure at the museum

• My favorite thing to do at the museum

• What I like to do with my family at the museum

• Imagine if…

• Anything else you would like to share…

Some blank pages were also included.

These headings were drawn from children's comments and interests, as identified in other aspects of the project. As examples, the heading Something funny at the museum… came from children's comments about a dinosaur skeleton that had been wearing a set of pearls (as promotion for an exhibition on pearls) and the heading A special treasure at the museum came from children's comments about the gem gallery and the treasures to be found within.

In addition to the journal, children were given copies of the data they had generated during their participation in the project. They were invited to complete the journals, in their own time in whatever ways were relevant for them, and with the assistance of others. Typically, those who participated in the museum experiences worked collaboratively to complete the journals. For example, both Henry and Hayden completed their own journals, including some, but not all, of the photos they had each taken, and each called upon the help of their mother, who scribed comments for the children. Families were asked to send the journals to the research team for scanning, and the originals were returned to the children.

From the journals, it was evident that children and other family members had engaged positively with the notion of documenting their museum experience. Many journals contained additional pages, sometimes with children's own treasures incorporated. For example, a comment from her mother indicated that Jade (aged 3.11) “used her favourite stickers to decorate this page and the book.” In other journals, drawings children had completed at home since the museum visit were included. In two journals, companion journals were completed by older siblings who had not participated in the project but who were nevertheless familiar with the museum. One older sister, Stephanie (aged 7) added pages to her brother Jacob's (aged 3) journal including the comment, “My brother went to the museum when I was at school. I wish I could go too. I like to see butterflys.” In other journals, pages were omitted or placed in different orders. Several parents added comments on the value of the experience, both in relation to the journal as documentation, and providing an overview of children's comments and questions.

Data Analysis

Each of the journals was constructed from the full set of data generated by 18 children. These children between them undertook 78 activities, an average of 4 each. On the basis that the journals reflected a consolidation of the information that these children chose to share with researchers, the analysis reported in this article focuses on the journals.

Constant comparison of all data generated through the project identified issues that were important to individual children, as well as those that were important across the group of children. Data were analyzed interpretively, using the principles of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In practice, this meant that each member of the research team had access to copies of the journals and was tasked to read, and re-read these data in order to identify patterns or themes. Once this had been undertaken at an individual level, team discussions were used to clarify contextual issues and to share the patterns each had identified. A coding frame was then developed from these identified patterns. Regular review of this coding frame ensured that it was dynamic, responding to the issues raised by children, rather than imposed by researchers.

During analysis, possible themes were compared and the data were analyzed in a range of different ways over different times. For example, data were analyzed in terms of patterns for the whole group of children, for individual children and in relation to social context (who accompanied the children and collaborated with them on the journal). The results reported below reflect the most frequent themes from the journals. Not every comment or item included by every child could be allocated to these themes. It is important to note that the data most likely to be coded included a comment and a visual image. As not all images included in journals were accompanied by comments, we do not claim that these data are representative.

The themes were:

• children's use of imagination, creativity and pretence;

• the importance of ‘real’ objects;

• the social context of the museum;

• children's sense of humor;

• the physical space of the museum;

• connections with children's lives; and

• engaging with the cultural messages of the museum.

These themes were often interconnected with the result that one item of data could be coded in more than one way. For example, several children referred to their imagination, while making a humorous statement about the physical space of the museum. Frequencies of these themes are reported in Table 5.

Table 5 Frequency of themes

Themes	Frequency
Children's use of imagination, creativity, and pretence	33
The importance of real objects	67
The social context of the museum	17
Children's sense of humor	25
The physical space of the museum	25
Connections with children's lives	12
Engaging with the cultural messages of the museum	11

RESULTS

Children's Use of Imagination, Creativity, and Pretence

Many of the children's comments about imagination and pretending refer to the prompt “Imagine if…”. In several of the journals children had placed photographs of animals completing the statement “Imagine if these were alive.” Other comments included “Imagine if a lizard ate me at the museum” (Henry, aged 2.0) and “Imagine if 2 hyenas ate 2 men” (Hayden, aged 4.0). However, children's focus on pretence was not limited to this prompt. Several children, notably girls, commented on the crystals in the gem galley, describing them as fairy homes and explaining how fairies lived in this gallery: “This is where the fairy lives. She flies out in the morning. She goes to sleep in the night time—why isn't she coming out of the rock now?” (Chloe, aged 3.6; see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Chloe photographed a large amethyst and included this in her journal alongside a picture she had drawn. Her comments were “This is where the fairy lives. She flies out in the morning. She goes to sleep in the night time. Why isn't she coming out of this rock now?”

The Importance of Real Objects

In addition to their attention to imagination and pretence, children also sought access to genuine artifacts (see Figure 2). They particularly noted the importance of being able to see, touch, and otherwise sense artifacts and objects. The presence of real artifacts, such as the stuffed animals and skeletons, was also unsettling for some. Liam (aged 4.6) commented, “I like giraffes but this one was scary…maybe you could have some pictures of ones with skin so I can see what it looked like before it died. I don't like bones!”

Figure 2 Andy commented, “I like it when the man showed me the stick insect wing of the female stick insect.”

When noting the importance of real objects children paid particular attention to:

• Seeing animals and objects up close—they wanted to be able to touch exhibits, and explore objects with microscopes and remote controlled cameras. Chloe (aged 3.6) commented on the microscope and how the “spider that we put underneath got really bigger when you looked at it.”

• Objects of varying scales and sizes. In comments about their favorite things at the Museum, several children referred to size: Makayla (aged 3.1 years) liked the “really big cockroaches”; Hayden (aged 4.0) liked the dinosaurs and the giant cicada; Henry (aged 2.0) included a photo of giant burrowing cockroaches.

• The importance of artifacts in context. Jacob (aged 3.2) indicated that he liked “the crocodile—but he is supposed to be in the water.”

The Social Context of the Museum

Seventeen children commented on the importance of involving friends and/or family in experiences. Jade (aged 3.11) took a photo of her mother and baby sister and included the caption, scribed by her mother, “Jade took this picture because she said Lara (her baby sister) is cute. Mama and Lara are my best friends. We are going to Kids’ Island together.” Jacob (aged 3.2) included a photo of his grandmother riding the “skeleton bike,” under the heading of Something funny….

Ava's (aged 2.9) mother noted that Ava “used to visit the museum with her Nona (granny) when she came to stay from Italy last year. Nona always told her about the owls in Italy (one called a scoop owl) and showed Ava these owls. Ava still likes to go back and say hello to the owls when we go to the Museum.”

The importance of grandparents, and other family members, is highlighted by several children in their journals and reflects previous research (Kelly et al., 2004; Sanford, Knutson, & Crowley, 2007). The presence of family members affords opportunities for children and families to make personal connections with exhibits and with their lives and experiences outside the museum.

Children's Sense of Humor

Some exhibits were especially funny for children. Twenty children included in their journals a photograph from the skeleton gallery. Sometimes, the photo was of a human skeleton sitting on a lounge chair, accompanied by skeletons of a dog, a bird in a cage, and a cat skeleton that looked poised to pounce on a mouse. Some of the children noticed that the skeleton appeared to be holding a copy of one of the Harry Potter books. Henry (aged 2.0) commented, “the bones that rock the chair is a funny skeleton.” Skye (aged 3.6) had seen this exhibit before and wanted to know why the chair no longer rocked. During a recent exhibition on pearls, a dinosaur skeleton in the foyer had been adorned with a set of giant pearls. The children commented on how funny this was and then were keen to know why these had been removed. Emma (aged 3.0) asked, “Why is the pearls not on the dinosaur any more?”

The Physical Space of the Museum

In their comments about the physical space of the museum, 18 children indicated that the layout of the museum prevented their engagement in experiences or with artifacts. Of particular note were the frequent comments from children about wanting to ride the skeleton bike, but being unable to do so:

“Imagine if…I could ride the bike in the room with the skeletons—I have to wait till I grow much bigger and bigger and then I might be able to ride it when I go back to the Museum” (Chloe, aged 3.6).

“Can you make a smaller one for me? My legs couldn't reach the pedals” (Liam, aged 4.6).

As well as the physical constraints of the museum and/or exhibits, children described parts of the Museum as exciting (such as the Planet of Minerals exhibition) and as places where there was lots to do (Kids’ Island). They also described deriving pleasure from some of the more mundane aspects of the museum, such as climbing the wide marble stairs, and peeking through the railings in upstairs galleries.

Connections with their Lives

Twelve children made connections between what they saw or experienced in the museum and experiences in other facets of their lives. Ava's connection with her grandmother through the owls is one example. Emma (aged 3.0) provided another example of these connections when she included a photo of a chicken developing in an egg. Her mother added the caption: “They had chicken eggs at Emma's child care. They saw how the chicken hatched. Now Emma knows how they developed in the egg.”

Children also made connections between some of the materials available at the museum, particularly in Kids’ Island, and those available at preschool/child care or home (such as drawing materials, puppets, and books). At least two of the girls connected things in the museum to their favourite colors. Emma (aged 3.0) sought out things that were gold “because gold is my favourite colour” and Skye (aged 3.6) included a photo of a viper's skull in her journal because it was her favorite color—pink.

Engaging with the Cultural Messages of the Museum

The Australian Museum is not a culturally neutral space: It has a clear goal to promote particular approaches to human engagement with the environment over time. Exhibits have been designed to convey implicit and explicit messages about concepts such as conservation, biodiversity, and ecological sustainability. Some of these messages were clear to some of the children, as evidenced in comments such as:

“I wonder why they killed the cockatoo? You're not allowed to kill birds, are you?” (Hayden, aged 4.0).

“Why are there only bones left? Why are all the animals in the museum dead?” (Emma aged 3.0; see Figure 3).

Figure 3 Emma asked, “Why are there only bones left?”

“I love turtles and this shell is amazing. It is so shiny…it's so precious” (Skye, aged 3.6).

DISCUSSION

The use of journals in this project provided a framework for children and families to document their museum experiences in ways that they chose. Children's access to all the data they had been involved in generating afforded choices over what was documented. Involving an adult who had shared the experience with them facilitated ongoing conversation and, according to parental comments in the journals, children's recall and reflection. The time to reflect on experiences and opportunities to do this in their own time and space, added to the appropriateness of journals as a means of documenting their experiences. The use of journals has acknowledged that children's interactions with museums do not begin and end with the actual museum visit.

How the Museum has Changed Through Listening to Children's Voices

The purpose of consulting with children in this project was to facilitate their input into the redesign process. With the children's permission, the design team at the museum had access to copies of the journals as well as other data generated throughout the project. Sharing of information was facilitated by members of the research team who were also members of the design team. Decisions made by the design team were influenced by the research outcomes. However, it is unrealistic to claim that all decisions were based primarily on children's perspectives. Nevertheless, it is evident that in planning Kidspace, attention was paid to incorporating children's preferences. This included locating a range of artifacts within Kidspace and providing both the opportunities and resources to explore and investigate these. Recognizing the importance of imagination, play, and pretence, the range of quality resources in Kidspace was extended. So too were the spaces created to promote a range of social interactions between children and adults, as well as between children and their peers, and children, adults, and ideas. A range of familiar and unfamiliar materials and objects in Kidspace aims to promote connections between children's own lives and the resources encountered in the museum, while also providing opportunities to consider the unexpected or unexplained.

Rather than an open play space, the new Kidspace consists of a combination of open areas and octagonal pods. Children can climb inside these pods to “enter” particular worlds and experiences. For example, rather than pulling out a drawer of butterflies in one of the galleries, children can enter a pod and see a range of butterflies at their own eye level in clear Perspex displays. Some sensory experiences are also located within the pods, as are some props for pretend play. These pods pay attention to children's calls for physical changes to the museum to enable them to participate in a full range of experiences. They promote social interactions between children and between adults and children, in many cases between individuals unknown to one another but brought together by the physical nature of the pod. Unfortunately some social interactions between children and adults can be limited as some adults find it challenging to access the pods through low doorways. However, other more open spaces do provide opportunities for adults and children to interact using a range of real materials and props for play.

Informal observations of children and families in Kidspace note the popularity of microscopes set on low tables and a range of materials that can be studied using these. The inclusion of a wide, and changing, range of museum artifacts, access to information through books and other resources respond to children's calls for access to real things. The materials and information provided have clear connections with the cultural message of the museum.

Children's sense of humor is also accommodated—both in some of the artifacts available—such as a variety of animal feces—and in some of the visual perspectives that can be used to view the space. For example, looking through a window in one of the pods enables children to see other people and objects through a spider's web.

There have been efforts to connect Kidspace with children's lives as well as to extend and challenge children's thinking and understanding. A popular inclusion in the space is an area where children's comments, drawings, paintings, or photographs can be displayed. Lines on the wall mimic a clothesline, and children can choose to hang items to share with others.

One critical change as a result of the children's participation in this project has been a renewed interest on the part of adults connected with the museum relating to the levels of competence and sophistication of young children. The tangible outcomes of the participation, such as the journals, are in forms that are valued and easily accessed by adults. They present images of powerful and competent children actively making meaning out of their experiences and seeking to extend their understandings through access to physical, social, and cultural resources. The inclusion of visuals and text in journals illustrates children's competence and sophistication (e.g., in the nature of photos taken and included as well as in the comments accompanying these). Even when photos are included without comment, the combination of particular photos, their placement on the page, as well as the content of the photos, combine to generate powerful messages about children's competence and the questions and issues they are engaged with.

Finally, the changes in Kidspace have also promoted changes in interactions. The design of the space affords opportunities for children and adults, as well as children and their peers, to interact in a range of ways. In the previous space, Kids' Island, the interaction was around play, mostly pretend play. There were few spaces for parents and children to play together, and one result was that adults tended to sit round and watch children play. In Kidspace, there are many more joint spaces, promoting greater levels of interaction between children and adults. Adults seem comfortable with this, almost as if they know what to do when they can sit nearby their children, watch, and interact as appropriate. These same opportunities for conversation and reflection were features of the research and the journals in particular, highlighting the importance of conversations with family members as children experience new and exciting challenges (Crowley & Jacobs, 2002).

Children's Perspectives

Engaging with children in research can be a complex process. While excited by the levels of engagement that resulted from this project, we are also aware of a number of limitations and challenges—all of which set the scene for continued efforts to consult with young children.

As has been evident in other studies, young children are competent commentators on their experiences and expectations (Christensen & James, 2008; Clark & Moss, 2001; Dockett & Perry, 2005; Piscitelli & Anderson, 2002). When provided with the opportunity to contribute to matters that affect or interest them, and choices about how these contributions can be made, children offer insights that would otherwise be unavailable to adults.

The project sought to promote children's competence in many ways—through their use of equipment and through providing opportunities for children to exercise choice and control. Yet, there were also times when issues of protection predominated. The major instance of this related to the photo and/or video tours of the museum, where children were invited to take researchers to their favorite places in the museum. In all cases, researchers were keen to have a parent/carer participate in the tours, as awareness of child protection issues meant that they were uncomfortable with the notion that they would take children, on their own, to places that may well be inaccessible or out of sight of other adults. This tension—between recognizing children's competence and acknowledging their rights to protection—is reflective of ongoing debates that highlight the ambiguity of childhood (Jans, 2004).

The project also sought to promote children's agency. However, relatively few of the total number of children who have visited the museum participated. As researchers, we are wary of assuming any sense of homogeneity among children (Hill, 2006), yet we are aware that there are several common characteristics among the project participants—including an existing awareness of the museum, families who regard the museum as an important place to visit, and families who can afford the time to visit the museum with their children during the week. Not all young museum visitors share these characteristics. In our analyses and reporting of this project, we are conscious of the importance of interpreting children's contributions in context and wary of assuming that the data or conclusions are representative.

Requests to participate in the research were initially referred to parents. While children's assent was sought throughout the project, we are aware that the challenge of engaging children in ways that facilitate their understanding of informed consent/assent remains.

The use of journals provided opportunities for children and their family/carers not only to generate the data, but also to interpret these in ways that were relevant for them. This is an important element of consulting with children and we aim to explore further ways to engage with children around their interpretation of data. The use of journals proved to be a useful strategy for maintaining connection with the children and families after a visit. However, we are aware that such connections are not necessarily sought by all families.

The impact of children's participation on their everyday lives is an issue identified in the research literature (Hill, 2006). Information provided by both children and families suggests that children's participation in the project was a positive experience with positive outcomes. Children and families were generally very pleased about keeping the data they had generated, and especially happy to have the original journal returned to them to keep. Children's comments, both in the journals and as they participated in different activities, also indicated their willingness and interest in being involved. However, the very action of asking children to reveal their favorite places in the museum means that their private spaces no longer exist solely for them. For example, any spaces children reported climbing into or around, can now be assessed by adults in terms of their safety risk. There is clear evidence that children's perspectives have been listened to by museum staff, with the design of Kidspace reflecting several elements noted by children. There are reports from researchers that children remember exactly what they commented on during the project and have been delighted to see some outcome from this in the new space. Part of the ongoing challenge of responding to children's perspectives remains to continue to seek children's input in ways that respect a diversity of perspectives from children, without turning this into an opportunity for exercising greater control over children's experiences within the museum.

While there were efforts throughout this project to provide opportunities for children to exercise choice and control, the project was essentially designed and orchestrated by adults. The physical construction of the museum can be imposing, and it is quite likely that this physical setting influenced the nature of children's experiences and what, as well as how, they were prepared to share these experiences. The social and cultural practices of the museum are not neutral. They are likely to be familiar and comfortable to some, and less familiar and comfortable for others. Families who participated in this project were all regular museum visitors and so are likely to experience the museum context in positive ways, possibly engaging with the museum agenda of education and inquiry.

It has already been noted that most of children involved in this project usually attended the museum within a family group. The children's journals highlight the importance of intergenerational interaction (whether between parent and child, grandparent and child, or adult carer and child). Children exercised choice and control in compiling these, but also relied on interaction with adults to complete them. For example, adults usually scribed children's comments and sometimes provided a commentary or explanation of children's words. The relationships between children and adults were important to both the participation and the engagement that ensued.

In noting these challenges, we are also identifying an ongoing research agenda which combines seeking children's perspectives with a commitment to act in ways that are responsive to these perspectives. Within this, we continue to explore options for engaging with children as researchers, generating opportunities for children to guide processes of inquiry, and enacting change based on children's perspectives.

CONCLUSION

The redesign of the children's space at the Australian Museum provided a genuine opportunity for consultation with young children, with many of the ideas and issues raised by the children influencing the final design of the Kidspace. Their engagement with the project demonstrated their competence and willingness to engage in consultation about issues of relevance and importance to them. One of the ongoing challenges will be to continue to seek genuine avenues for consultation with children and the opportunities to act on these.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Sue Dockett is Professor of Early Childhood Education at Charles Sturt University, Albury, Australia. Much of her research agenda is focused on engaging with children in research and promoting opportunities for genuine consultation with children.

Sarah Main is the Early Childhood Coordinator at the Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia. She is passionate about providing the Museum's youngest visitors with amazing experiences and has been a pioneer in developing spaces tailored especially for the preschool audience.

Lynda Kelly is currently Head of the Web Unit and Audience Research at the Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia. Lynda has published widely in museum evaluation, museum learning and social media/Web 2.0.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the work of Sarah Heinrich in the practical implementation of this project, and Bob Perry for his input into the theoretical discussions around the project.