Darbyshire, P., MacDougall, C., & Schiller, W. (2005). Multiple methods in qualitative research with children: more insight or just more? Qualitative Research, 5(4), 417–436. doi:10.1177/1468794105056921

Darbyshire, MacDougall, and Schiller investigate whether using multiple methods in qualitative research actually yields more valid data for research or whether it is simply an accumulation more data (2005). The authors rightfully remind us that focus groups by definition have a focus. Too often focus groups are open ended “fishing trips” through which researchers return back to transcripts to conduct a narrative or thematic analysis.  Rather than take this approach, the authors provided children, as well as their parents, child-friendly information sheets to prepare them with an explanation as to what the researchers will be talking to them about.  While this method could be seen as risking steering or biasing children, through careful preparation and writing, these information sheets can give children enough of a background so as to make the conversation guided by a large theme, but provide enough information so as to allow for deeper discussions that allow for sub-themes to emerge through discussions with children.

Darbyshire, MaDougall and Schiller acknowledge that though it is “easy to fall into the intuitive appeal of using a range of methodologies to capture a broader and deeper range of children’s perceptions and experiences than rely on a single technique,” they wanted to investigate whether this was true (2005).  The authors found that by providing multiple methods, children “had the opportunity to choose and have at least partial control on how to contribute and what to say” (Darbyshire, MaDougall & Schiller, 2005).  By employing multiple methods, it acknowledged children’s agentic roles in their lives, as well as in the construction around knowledge and meaning making in their lives.

It has become popular to use visual methods in conducting research with children.  In this study, Darbyshire MacDougall and Schiller employed drawing, mapping, as well as PhotoVoice as a major method in their research (2005).  When considering the use of visual methods, we must ask what these methods privilege?  What do they obscure?  How do we visualize social relations and interpersonal dynamics? What other methods better bring these invisible though critical elements out, especially when researching the role of children in their communities?  How do we produce data on a child’s psychosocial life in a medium we can analyze individually or collectively?  Can such a method that allows for collaborative rather than individual analysis still feel free and safe for children?

In reflecting on the research method and implementation, the authors highlighted that when working in school settings, Darbyshire MacDougall and Schiller felt that they needed to work with and around school-based norms, especially in regards to classroom behavior.  They also reiterated that having a non-participant note-taker or recorder was preferred over taping the interviews as the notes and observations of the dynamics and interactions with the group were important contributions for subsequent data analysis.  Darbyshire MacDougall and Schiller lamented that they had not allowed sufficient time, and hence did give children the opportunity, to describe the social, cultural, and geographical context of the activities that they took photos of.  As it is generally important for researchers to put their data into context, if we are to respect children as co-constructors of knowledge through participatory research, then we should allow children to put their data in context as they understand it.

Considering the participatory orientation that the authors seem to ascribe to, acknowledging the agentic role of children in the co-construction of knowledge, it is surprising to me that on page 427 they would say “the multiple methods used in this study had practical value, in helping children to provide ‘data’ that was deemed authentic, important, and credible” (Darbyshire, MaDougall & Schiller, 2005). I find it surprising that the word data would be put in quotes considering that this is authentic, important, and credible to children to whom they are studying their perceptions.  Whether it is deemed to be authentic, important, or credible by government decision-makers, planners, and service providers and other influential adults places far too much authority on the those gatekeepers rather than the children to whom those perceptions are real.  Especially considering that the finding that ‘play’ is a far more engaging concept than the adult-favored ‘physical activity’ and was subsequently used in the city’s campaign for healthy activity, it ultimately was deemed valid enough that these authors should not need to put the word data in quotes.

In sum, Darbyshire, MacDougall and Schiller found that by using multiple approaches to gather data, it was more successful in fully depicting children’s worlds with the addendum that it was in ways that influential adults ultimately deemed to be credible and valuable.  By the authors’ qualifying that it was credible and valuable by influential adults makes me feel as if adult judgment of children’s data affirms adults as the ultimate arbiters of reality.  This forces me to challenge whether our notions of validity will always be pinned to the perception of the gatekeepers of knowledge, and reify the perspectives of those who yield power over what is legitimate knowledge.