1.1 Overview of Subsequent Sections

This Element has three main objectives. First, it locates early childhood research from a children’s rights perspective, recognising children as active agents and experts in their own lives. A universally accepted definition of listening to children’s voices does not exist. As a result, children’s voices may be ignored or partially addressed. Here, voices refer to children’s hopes, fears, intentions, and expectations; whereas agency implies the way children express their voices. Ultimately, children’s agency and voices are interconnected. Second, this Element provides an understanding of why and how children’s voices can be elicited in research using a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods, as well as mixed methods, involving young children as co-researchers. Third, this Element addresses ethical considerations that might emerge during the research process.

Consequently, the diverse paradigms and philosophical stances commonly adopted in early childhood education and research are explored. To that end, the major methods of conducting early childhood research are presented. Together, these methods encapsulate the powerful notion of children’s agency that has direct importance to children’s lives. They respect children’s participation in research by giving them the right to express their views and opinions on all matters that affect their lives. The aim is to capture the richness of children’s ideas and experiences while engaging with them, to enable them to communicate their lived experiences using an approach to data collection, analysis, and dissemination that gives researchers the opportunity to access knowledge and experiences as presented by children. All of this can be achieved while still conducting rigorous research that generates new understanding and allows researchers to encounter the nuances that are part of the children’s daily lives. To make this Element more relevant, its contents draw on various examples of early childhood literature to help the readers understand the logic and mode of inquiry in early childhood research, thus highlighting interesting work conducted in the field. The promises, challenges, and pitfalls of early childhood research are explored to support the readers to critically decide for themselves which methodological paradigm to follow.

In brief, this Element renews the debate around high-quality research (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods) with young children and makes the case that these research methodologies offer special ways of generating new knowledge that is essential going forward. Not only that, but it also illustrates the challenges associated with the research methods used so that researchers can make informed decisions about their choice of methods when conducting research.

Finally, throughout this Element, and particularly in this last section, future directions are offered, reflecting the central argument of this Element, which places children’s voices at the centre of policy, curricula, and pedagogy in the early years. This Element will be of benefit to early childhood researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, and will be a good resource for courses concerning research in the field.

2.1 What Is Early Childhood Education?

Internationally, early childhood is recognised for its potential to lay the foundations for human development (UNESCO, 2023; UNICEF, 2019). Early childhood is thought to be the most significant period of human development that sets the foundation for cognitive, social, and emotional development that lasts a lifetime (OECD, 2018; UNICEF, 2019). From a pedagogical standpoint, a child’s ability to learn during the early years is central to their development, learning, and well-being (OECD, 2018, 2022a). Over the years, international concerns for early learning helped pave the way for the United Nations to recognise for the first time the transformative potential of early childhood education, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children (United Nations, 2015). The unequivocal message here is that education, as a fundamental human right, is of utmost importance for human development (UNESCO, 2017, 2020). Influenced by the policies of supranational organisations, such as those proposed by the OECD, United Nations, UNESCO, and the World Bank, early childhood education has thus become a global phenomenon and a site where social expectations of child development that meet the social and political needs of a country, are established. The international focus on early childhood education aligns with its role in supporting early learning and for laying the foundations for children’s success and achievements throughout a lifetime.

Practices in early childhood education have been largely influenced by the historical, social, and cultural norms that helped shape the dominant political, philosophical, and ideological stances and paradigms of thought. Consequently, our beliefs about what early childhood education and early childhood research are have changed over time and will continue to evolve. Over the past two decades, young children’s participation in early childhood education programmes has significantly increased worldwide (OECD, 2022b). Yet access to early childhood education is largely influenced by the socio-economic orientations of countries. In the global North (rich and high-income), early childhood education is recognised as a ‘public good’, aimed at promoting social change and social mobility (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020, p. 12). Therefore, children living in economically wealthy countries in the global North have wider access to, and are more likely to participate in, early childhood education than children living in economically poorer countries in the global South (low-to middle-income).

Starting in early childhood, good-quality education is important for children’s development and future employment prospects (European Commission, 2021; OECD, 2018). Even though quality in early childhood education is a contested term, the aim of good-quality education is to improve children’s well-being and development (Reference EdwardsEdwards, 2021; Reference Fleer and van OersFleer & van Oers, 2018; Reference SlotSlot, 2018). The benefits of good-quality early childhood education depend on two observational instruments that allow for international comparison between early childhood provisions worldwide – the measurable structural characteristics (staff-to-child ratio, group size, staff training, minimum space requirements and resources) and the process quality (social, emotional, physical interactions, and instructional quality) (Reference EdwardsEdwards, 2021; OECD, 2018, 2022a; Reference SlotSlot, 2018).

The international focus on early childhood education led to the emergence of a wide range of national and international research with and about children, learning, and education, significantly increasing our understanding of the multifaceted nature of contemporary early childhood experiences, highlighting the long-term benefits of good-quality early childhood education for children’s cognitive development and well-being, especially for those from disadvantaged background (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Yet existing empirical research indicates an ongoing need for robust empirical early childhood research that challenges us to rethink our understanding of children and childhood, and the paradigm shifts that occurred over time in early childhood research. This compels us to take a historical look at the contextualisation of ‘the child’, ‘children’, and ‘childhood’.

2.2 The Child, Children, and Childhood

Childhood is a social construct that focuses on positioning children within a social context, often in relation to adults (Reference James and ProutJames & Prout, 2015). The dominant narratives that concern childhood focus on the biological, physiological, and chronological factors that constrain and shape children’s lives. Consequently, conceptualisations of the child, children, and childhood draw from different scientific disciplines, including sociology, developmental psychology, behavioural biology, neuroscience, and early childhood education to create theoretical and empirical research approaches. Our understanding of the child, children, and childhood is the result of a process defined by social and cultural beliefs, practices, and experiences, making notions of the child and childhood socially and culturally constructed within a particular context.

2.3 Concluding Comments

Taking the aforementioned into consideration, this Element recognises that as a social construct, a child, and childhood can be viewed differently across contexts and cultures, and that the chronological age is not a universal marker of the transition into adulthood. Additionally, this Element draws on approaches in psychology, sociology, and anthropology to understand the dominant narratives concerning children and childhood, and education. Consequently, it recognises that children have a right to a voice, a recognition that has given rise to a new discourse around children and childhood and an increase in participatory research with children.

3.1 The UNCRC and the New Sociology of Childhood

There have been a number of declarations recognising the rights that all human beings are entitled to. One of the declarations recognising children’s rights for protection, freedom, voices, and participation is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [UNCRC] (United Nations, 1989). The UNCRC is the world’s most widely ratified treaty related to children’s rights, regardless of their age, abilities, gender, religion, language, or ethnicity. The UNCRC is ratified by all countries worldwide, except the United States of America. Since 1989, the UNCRC has promoted global action upon which local and international legislations are based, and has strongly influenced the ways in which children are consulted and listened to. The UNCRC provides the context in which this Element is based. Respecting children’s voices and agency is at the heart of what this Element seeks to achieve with and for children. Such an approach requires the adoption of a vision that places children’s voices and agency at the core of its endeavour.

With the advent of the UNCRC, children’s participatory rights have become central, affording children opportunities to communicate their views in a variety of ways in accordance with their age and maturity (Reference Templeton, Cuevas-Parra and LundyTempleton et al., 2023), recognising their agency and capabilities (Reference Coyne, Mallon and ChubbCoyne et al., 2021; UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009). Current sociological perspectives focus on the concept of children’s agency and socialisation as a theoretical perspective introduced by the New Sociology of Childhood studies (Reference ProutProut, 2011; Reference Tisdall and PunchTisdall & Punch, 2012). As an alternative paradigm, the New Sociology of Childhood positions children as capable individuals within the research process (Reference Koller and MurphyKoller & Murphy, 2022). The New Sociology of Childhood focuses on the understanding of children and childhood in diverse cultures and contexts, encouraging the emergence of new research methods in early childhood research. Together, the emergence of the New Sociology of Childhood (Reference TisdallTisdall, 2010; Reference Tisdall and PunchTisdall & Punch, 2012) and the UNCRC (United Nations, 1989) set the stage for new opportunities to research involving young children that require the use of diverse methods. In turn, the New Sociology of Childhood led to a re-evaluation of children’s role in research, with researchers viewing children as active (rather than passive) participants and co-constructors of the research process.

In the last three decades, there has been growing interest by early childhood researchers to recognise children’s knowledge, experience, and values, thus recognising children as experts in their own lives, and supporting their participation right in research (Reference Flewitt, Kumpulainen, Kajamaa and ErstadFlewitt, 2022; Reference Tisdall and Cuevas-ParraTisdall & Cuevas-Parra, 2022; United Nations, 1989). Furthermore, the international children’s rights movement asserts children’s rights in voicing their opinions in matters that concern them (Reference Koller and MurphyKoller & Murphy, 2022; United Nations, 1989). As a result, researchers moved from conducting research on children toward conducting research with children, positioning children as interpreters of their own experiences rather than as informants in research (Reference Barratt Hacking, Cutter-Mackenzie, Barratt, Stevenson, Brody, Dillon and WalsBarratt Hacking et al., 2013; Reference Dockett, Einarsdottir and PerryDockett et al., 2017). The philosophical shift towards viewing children as social agents in their own lives and their active participation in early childhood education and care programmes has increased the importance of listening to children’s voices in research, particularly about issues that matter to them. In this context, children are viewed as contributing members of society and as experts on their own lives. Their competence as capable of holding and sharing their own views and opinions is also recognised, and children’s views are given serious consideration in research.

As a framework, the UNCRC (United Nations, 1989) is not without its limitations. The UNCRC is considered to be radical and innovative in that it recognises children as social actors and has brought about changes in legislation, policy, and research, yet challenges to children’s participation in research remain (Reference Tisdall and Cuevas-ParraTisdall & Cuevas-Parra, 2022). The UNCRC has been criticised for its lack of consideration of cultural diversity and for allowing governments to cherry-pick specific articles to include in policies, while ignoring others (Reference Urbina-Garcia, Jindal-Snape and LindsayUrbina-Garcia et al., 2021).

Nowadays, children are more involved in the decision-making of the research process, including deciding upon the objectives, research questions, methods, and analysis of the data, and the evaluation of the dissemination process. Consequently, child-centred research methods that are sensitive to children’s needs and contexts, and that recognise the diversity of childhoods in different countries and sociocultural contexts, help children’s voices to emerge in meaningful ways.

3.2 Voice

In order to understand what voice means in the context of early childhood, it is important to be cognisant of the notions of children’s voices. The UNCRC is often discussed in terms of its focus on the protection, provision, and participation of children (United Nations, 1989). The elements of protection and provision are related to adults’ responsibilities towards children; whereas children’s participation is related to their voice. Voice is a political act that implies engagement and participation. As clearly stated in Article 12, the UNCRC gives children a right to a voice in matters that affect them (United Nations, 1989). This right is both provocative and problematic because participation is wide in scope and political in nature, and many issues concern children. As such, it is important that children are introduced to the practices of participation early on in order that they may participate in a society as human beings, now and in the future.

The UNCRC does not specifically mention the terms ‘voice’ or ‘voices’, but speaks about children’s right to be able to express their opinions freely. ‘Voice’ may be narrowly interpreted as referring only to the spoken voice, but children unable to speak through words can still express their views and, therefore, their voices. Here, ‘voices’ deliberately refer to the different perspectives of children, an idea derived from the Reggio Emilia Approach with its proposal of the ‘hundred languages of children’ (Reference Edwards, Gandini and FormanEdwards et al., 2011). Therefore, the understanding of children’s voices in this Element goes beyond the articulation of words, phrases, or sentences. This is not to suggest that young children have opinions about complex issues that may be beyond them. Rather, it suggests that children have opinions about issues that are of concern to them and that matter to them the most, such as the early childhood contexts they attend and friendship, and adults need to listen to children’s voices and act on these appropriately. Given their tender age, children have had fewer experiences of participation than adults, but they are still capable and competent to think for themselves, particularly in matters affecting them. Article 12 recognises that not all children may have similar experiences and capabilities to participate; therefore, it proposes that children’s voices be ‘given due weight according to the age and maturity of the child’ (United Nations, 1989, p. 5). Yet, without proper testing, identifying children’s maturity of thought can also be problematic. Perhaps, this is why very young children and non-verbal children are sometimes denied opportunities to express their voices.

3.3 Capacity

In contrast to early childhood education and care, the field of early childhood research has a relatively shorter history that started to emerge slightly over a century ago, but it has changed considerably over time. In this Element, I explain early childhood research as storytelling (Reference File, Mueller, Wisneski and StremmelFile et al., 2017). My intention here is not to draw analogies between research and stories, but to encourage the readers to think about the value of comprehensible stories in an attempt to make the research more meaningful and comprehensible to the audience. Stories offer this potential. Hence, early childhood research tells a story about children’s voices about an issue that matters to them.

Traditional sociological perspectives examined childhood as children internalising the world of adulthood. Consequently, research was conducted on children, who were considered as passive participants in adult-led research. As a result of the political, theoretical, and methodological diversity that emerged following the publication of the UNCRC (United Nations, 1989), children’s participation in research flourished. Internationally, the UNCRC is regarded as the foundation for children’s relationships with adults, granting them rights across a range of areas that matter to them, including a right to education, healthy environment, healthcare, play, protection from harm, and privacy. Within this international framework of children’s rights, Article 12 states that (a) States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the children being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child; and (b), for this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

The recommendations of Article 12 apply to both the individual and the collective, that is, the individual child and groups of children. In sum, Article 12 has given children a right to express their views, have a voice in research and in matters that concern them, and have these taken seriously (United Nations, 1989). This historical moment has uprooted children’s dependence on adults for protection and guidance and created a re-conceptualisation of children as social agents, capable of making informed decisions about political, social, and economic issues that affect them (Reference ProutProut, 2005).

Since the publication of the UNCRC, there has been a large volume of published studies describing children as active agents or actors in their own lives (Reference James, Jenks and ProutJames et al., 1998; Reference QvortrupQvortrup, 2006). Viewing children as having agency acknowledges that they are capable of voicing their opinions. Yet, children’s agency is not synonymous to parents or caregivers. The imbalance of power between children and adults should not diminish children’s visibility and participation (Reference DalyDaly, 2020). Rather, the recognition of children as actors in society acknowledges their agency. Such recognition requires adults to relinquish some of their power to children, an act some adults may find challenging particularly in a context where adults are also gatekeepers, such as parents and teachers. Caution needs to be exercised when considering the binary view of adult–child power imbalances as it may imply that children’s agency is only afforded in relation to adult agency, therefore failing to recognise the complexities involved in power relationships. Rather than focusing on a binary view, this Elements highlights the idea of children as interacting with others (e.g., researchers). Therefore, this Element provides insights into the diverse research methods currently used in early childhood research to listen to young children’s voices and acknowledge their agency.

3.4 Participation

Young children are active agents and contributors of their world. The steady growth of research into young children’s lives reveals that when children are given the opportunity to voice their opinions and perspectives, they are capable of doing so as long as researchers use the appropriate research methods. For a number of years, the implementation of the agency theory in research involving children’s experiences and perspectives has been questioned, particularly in relation to how children can participate in research as competent actors. In recent years, studies have demonstrated that young children are capable of voicing valuable opinions and they are increasingly listened to (Reference Sun, Blewitt and EdwardsSun et al., 2023). Yet, they are still not represented in many arenas of life (Reference LundyLundy, 2007), and further effort to promote their participation is required (Reference Sun, Blewitt and EdwardsSun et al., 2023). The term ‘participation’ is used in conjunction with Article 12 of the UNCRC to indicate children’s rights and the mutual dialogue and respect between children and adults (Reference Tisdall and Cuevas-ParraTisdall & Cuevas-Parra, 2022). Even though the term ‘participation’ is not included in the UNCRC, the overarching premise of the framework is children’s participation rights in research, policy, legislations, and practices that include and matter to them (Reference Blaisdell, McNair, Addison and DavisBlaisdell et al., 2022).

Listening to children’s voices is an iterative and continuous process that goes beyond individual utterances. Rather, children’s meaningful participation in research is a way of listening to their voices. Participation in research is far from perfect and issues with children’s participation in research remain nonetheless. Despite the advancements in early childhood research towards conceptualising children as competent social actors and experts in their own lives, there is still the tendency for researchers to view childhood from an adult perspective, ‘from a “looking down” standpoint’ (Reference Flewitt, Kumpulainen, Kajamaa and ErstadFlewitt, 2022, p. 209). Sometimes young children’s voices continue to have limited influence on decision-making and policy, especially since adults are the guardians of this right, ultimately judging children based on their age and maturity levels (Reference Templeton, Cuevas-Parra and LundyTempleton et al., 2023).

In an attempt to overcome issues with children’s participation in research, Reference LundyLundy (2007) proposes a model for children’s participation. Lundy’s participation model asserts that voice is not enough for meaningful participation. She adds that for meaningful engagement with Article 12 of the UNCRC, children also need ‘space’, ‘influence’, and ‘audience’. Children require suitable information to support the uninhibited expression of their voices, opinions, and perspectives; space where they are safely given the opportunity to express their opinions and views; an audience that actively listens to their ideas and acts upon them; and influence to ensure that adults take children’s views seriously and act upon them, where appropriate. These four elements of the Lundy model of children’s participation ensure that children’s voices are heard within diverse sociocultural contexts. Lundy’s model also implies commitment from adults to children’s empowerment, a view that entails a political stance from adults who acknowledge their desire to share power with children and make room for children to communicate their ideas. Lundy’s model is flexible and fluid, and can be applied to any form of participation for all children in research and other areas of decision-making. Thus far, this model has contributed to ensuring that children are involved in meaningful ways in research and decision-making that affect their lives.

Acknowledgement of children’s participation in research requires that adults pay attention to where power lies in relation to children’s voices, how that power is enacted, by whom that power is enacted, and what happens to children’s voices once expressed. The issue draws on discussion about the power dynamics between children and adults, and entails serious considerations as to how power in adult–child relationships is mediated, and whose voices may be dominant at different times. Listening to children’s voices requires adults to be open to new ideas and suggestions from children. In the democratic spirit of children’s rights, listening to children’s voices also requires that adults are transparent, open, and honest in that they acknowledge the power imbalances that exist at different times during a research process. Power dynamics may change as children grow and their ideas change. To allow children to grow and flourish requires that their voices are nurtured and acted upon.

Set against the backdrop of children’s rights, research approaches to listening to children’s voices as opposed to regarding them as mini adults have become mainstream, leading to the development of a new discourse influenced by a broad range of research methods (Reference Bradbury-Jones, Isham and TaylorBradbury-Jones et al., 2018). The concept of giving children a voice in research is described as a social and cultural construct, with arguments by Reference Urbina-Garcia, Jindal-Snape and LindsayUrbina-Garcia et al. (2021) suggesting that the term ‘voices’ can occasionally imply ‘tokenistic attempts’ (p. 2). The difficulties associated with tokenistic participation, such as children having minimal influence on decision-making, the inclusion of select groups while excluding others, and the absence of sustainability, continuity, and accountability, are elucidated by some scholars as well (Reference LundyLundy, 2007; Reference Tisdall and Cuevas-ParraTisdall & Cuevas-Parra, 2022). Yet children’s participation in research is not a gift from adults to children; rather, it is the right of children (Reference LundyLundy, 2007). Tokenism can be avoided by ensuring children’s meaningful engagement in research, even when adults feel uncomfortable to seek children’s views (Reference LundyLundy, 2007). Tokenism can also be avoided by not treating children as a homogenous group, an action which could potentially further undermine and oppress children, but rather seeking children’s voices in ways that empower them. These are significant issues that call for a better understanding of children’s agency in research, ethics, relationships, consent, and assent.

3.5 Ethics

Ethics is a central dimension to all research involving children. Ethical research is guided by ethical goals and values that ‘are integrated with the efforts undertaken out of respect, interest and appreciation of the diverse others who are our research participants and audiences’ (Reference Gilliat-Ray, Jacobs, Gregg, Engler and StausbergGilliat-Ray et al., 2022, p. 90). In early childhood research in particular, researchers are expected to uphold high ethical standards. Formal ethical guidelines such as the British Research Association Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research [BERA] (2018), the European Early Childhood Educational Research Association [EECERA] (Reference Bertam, Formosinho, Gray, Pascal and WhalleyBertam et al., 2015), and the WMA Declaration of Helsinki (2022) are often referred to as the gold standard of guiding ethical behaviour and decision-making for researchers. Further legal ethical requirements may be in place to protect participants and researchers during the research process in specific contexts. One such example is the General Data Protection Regulation [GDPR] (European Union, 2016), which is a legal requirement designed to ensure data privacy across Europe and to protect citizens’ rights to know who, why and when their personal data are being stored, accessed, and used.

Regardless of how rigorous ethical guidelines may be, researchers will almost inevitably face ethical challenges throughout the research process. Universal ethical guidelines are helpful, however, when researchers need to manage certain ethical dilemmas in practice; such guidelines may turn out to be challenging because of the multiple influences that shape both participants and researchers. Dealing with ethical dilemmas requires researchers to weigh the pros and cons of each outcome before applying ethical principles in practice. Nevertheless, it is paramount that researchers develop a clear understanding of the ethical principles that guide early childhood research and then engage in critical reflection to respond appropriately to any ethical challenges that may arise at all stages during the research process. The aim is to listen to children’s voices in inclusive and positive ways, where children feel respected, safe, and confident to participate in the research. Researchers need to strike a balance between ethical design of the research and their values and the safety and well-being of the children they will be working with. The key is to develop an ethical framework that enables the researchers to address the research questions while eliminating the risk of harm to the participants. A robust and well-grounded ethical framework is likely to help guide the researchers in the decision-making process.

Yet research ethics is complex, and multiple factors shape ethically planned research and decision-making. One of the complexities lies in the fact that research is largely influenced by local culture, politics, and traditions, and therefore, there are variations between ethical guidelines and the way these are enacted in different contexts, and the way children are conceptualised as knowledgeable individuals. Irrespective of these differences, the UNCRC remains the most recognised set of established international guiding principles for children’s rights to a voice.

Critiques of universal codes of ethics remain. Ethical guidelines are open to interpretation, and therefore, they can be misinterpreted or misused at international, national, or local levels. Regardless, ethical guidelines remain necessary and their review processes ensure that such ethics create space for fair decision-making for all (children and researchers) during the research process.

3.6 Relationships

Given the fast growth of the research base with children as co-researchers in the past three decades, children’s perspectives have been foregrounded. Early childhood research is underpinned by the belief that adult–child relationships are reciprocal and equally important. Relationships, respect, and reciprocity are key to gaining access to children’s insights. Trusting and respectful relationships develop over time via listening with all the senses (Reference RinaldiRinaldi, 2021). Establishing trusting relationships when conducting research with young children takes time so that children understand what the research is about and what it entails (Reference Fleet, Harcourt, Fleer and van OersFleet & Harcourt, 2018). Strong and healthy relationships based on trust and mutual respect can profoundly impact the outcomes of the research process. This is the case in all kinds of research but is particularly so in early childhood research where researchers often build close associations with child participants and their communities, often for an extended period of time. Establishing trust is a time-consuming effort, yet it is important that the research process is built on trust between children and researchers. As adults, researchers are responsible to safeguard children by learning about, and developing respect for, the children’s community, culture, interests, and needs, and protect their privacy. The time invested in building trusting relationships will reap benefits for the well-being of all involved.

In early childhood research, the asymmetry in the power relations between adult researchers and children cannot be completely eliminated (Reference Fleet, Harcourt, Fleer and van OersFleet & Harcourt, 2018). The relationship between the researchers and the children, and respect for children’s voices, may present ethical challenges. Protecting privacy can be particularly challenging when research is conducted in small and tight-knit communities. In such circumstances, when researchers feel that there is a conflict of interest in place, researchers must adhere to ethical standards and take ethical decisions that respect the participants’ rights and interests before their own. Several ethical challenges are involved when addressing power imbalances between adults and children in research. For a start, recognising that power differences could exist when conducting research with children already signifies an understanding of children’s agency. Issues of assent and/or consent from children, children’s age, collaboration, cooperation, and co-research may present several challenges to researchers. Over time, a number of these challenges have generated an ongoing debate around their perplexity.

Another challenge faced by researchers when conducting research with young children is due to the fact that some children may find it difficult to convey their ideas in words. Therefore, in such situations, researchers use methodologies that empower children’s authentic and active participation, where the imbalance of power between adult researchers and child participants can be minimised.

3.7 Consent and Assent

When conducting research, children, parents, and caregivers need to be informed about the intent of the research before they agree to participate. Ensuring that participants are given appropriate information about the research at every stage of the research process is a crucial part of the research design (Reference BishopBishop, 2014; Reference Bradbury-Jones, Isham and TaylorBradbury-Jones et al., 2018; Reference Fleet, Harcourt, Fleer and van OersFleet & Harcourt, 2018; Reference Sun, Blewitt and EdwardsSun et al., 2023). Since adults hold the legal right to make decisions about children’s participation in research, parental or caregiver consent should always be sought to ensure the participants’ willingness to be involved in the research continues.

It is common practice for researchers to seek permissions from several education authorities before being allowed to conduct research with children. Seeking formal institutional consent is the first step. Gaining signed consent from parents or caregivers, followed by the children’s assent is the next step in the research process. As gatekeepers, parents, teachers, and administrators are likely to seek reassurance about the research to make sure that young children are not exposed to harm. Researchers hold a moral responsibility to effectively communicate the research procedures as participants frequently base their understanding of consent on the information provided about the research process.

Consent falls within the jurisdiction of adults, and there is no legal foundation for ensuring that children are adequately informed (Reference O’Farrelly and Tatlow-GoldenO’Farrelly & Tatlow-Golden, 2022). Establishing children’s informed consent is generally framed as assent (Reference LahmanLahman, 2018; Reference LundyLundy, 2007). Assent refers to the agreement of individuals lacking legal capacity to provide consent for engagement in an activity (Reference O’Farrelly and Tatlow-GoldenO’Farrelly & Tatlow-Golden, 2022). Assent is a form of verbal consent and is not as legally binding as adult consent, but it demonstrates respect for the child as a person. In contexts involving children or adults lacking decision-making capacity, consent from a parent or legal guardian alongside assent from the individual is necessary for participation. Assent cannot be solely relied upon to safeguard the child; parental consent or permission serves as the primary protective measure. Therefore, it is crucial to interpret assent only in conjunction with parental/caregiver consent (Reference Miller and NelsonMiller & Nelson, 2006). In this Element, assent is positioned as a process of involving children in decision-making about their participation in research, therefore recognising their competencies and agency.

Gaining informed consent from very young children can be problematic as they may not have a clear understanding of what research is and how their assent may impact them. When granting assent, children should not be subjected to identical informal and decision-making criteria as adults providing informed consent (Reference Roth-Cline and NelsonRoth-Cline & Nelson, 2013). Researchers may benefit from tools to support children’s assent in research about their lives (Reference O’Farrelly and Tatlow-GoldenO’Farrelly & Tatlow-Golden, 2022). Employing a process of documentation to secure children’s informed consent not only respects their autonomy but also serves to enhance their communicative abilities (Reference Fleet, Harcourt, Fleer and van OersFleet & Harcourt, 2018). When conducting research with young children, researchers may start by exploring the concept of ‘research’ with children – asking children what research means to them, showing them recording equipment and how it is used in research, and how the research is presented in the form of an illustrated book (Reference SpiteriSpiteri, 2016). Young children are encouraged to handle the illustrated book and other research materials presented to them. Researchers may even plan activities with the children in which children try out research methods together before they are asked for their assent. Once researchers are sure that the children have understood what the research process entails, they can seek initial assent. Assent is often sought in the presence of a witness (an adult) and the participant verbally agrees to participate in the study. The witness is often chosen by the children rather than the researchers (Reference LahmanLahman, 2018).

Children’s right to assent in research allows them the right to withhold assent, that is, the right to withdraw from the study without declaring why (Reference LahmanLahman, 2018; Reference O’Farrelly and Tatlow-GoldenO’Farrelly & Tatlow-Golden, 2022; Reference SpiteriSpiteri, 2016). Seeking children’s assent is an ongoing process in that children’s participation in research is constantly negotiated and re-negotiated. Children’s understanding of assent is frequently revisited during the research process, not only to support children’s memories but also to help them understand what happened before and what will happen next, and to remind them that they can opt in or out of the research at any time without any consequences. It is suggested that when conducting research with young children, researchers are mindful of children’s non-verbal cues, indicating their (un)willingness to continue as participants throughout the study. This means that children have a right refuse to participate in research even if their parents/caregivers have consented to their participation, particularly in instances when they show discomfort during the research process.

An emphasis on children’s right to agency is addressed via assent and an understanding of the role and responsibilities of the researchers (Reference O’Farrelly and Tatlow-GoldenO’Farrelly & Tatlow-Golden, 2022), which requires a reflexive stance. Researchers have the moral responsibility to ensure that children have a clear understanding of what the research process entails, what will happen to the information that researchers gather about them, and reassure children that it is fine to withdraw from the research altogether. Researchers bring their past experiences to the research process and learning during the research process happens based on their past experiences. Reflexivity, or what is sometimes referred to as intersubjectivity, requires a process of self-reflection of the ways in which the researchers and their role, intentions, and methods can influence the participants and the researchers’ own assumptions (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020; Reference LahmanLahman, 2018). In early childhood research, reflexivity entails an examination of the intersubjective relationships between the researchers and the children, and how meaning is co-constructed through dialogue as a result of these relationships (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020).

3.8 Anonymity and Confidentiality

Issues around anonymity and confidentiality pervade all stages of the research process. Researchers are to negotiate with the children the degree of anonymity required, which may vary depending on the population, research aims and questions and the intended avenues of the findings. Some participants may prefer complete anonymity; others may prefer to be identified. Each of these scenarios presents researchers with different ethical dilemmas. Solutions to issues of anonymity and confidentiality will depend on the ethical requirements of the legal and institutional requirements involved in the research process, the kind of data collected and the population involved.

Ensuring anonymity in audio-recorded data, for example, is relatively easy because the identity of the participants can be concealed, especially since audio-recorded data are often presented as transcribed extracts. The transcripts are sent to participants for verification before the data are analysed. At this stage, participants are free to make changes to their data. Visual data such as photographs can be more challenging to anonymise because while certain images can be blurred/smudged, the technical equivalent of anonymising written text, others cannot. The process of anonymising visual data can be time-consuming and costly. For this reason, visual data such as drawings are often used in research with young children to protect children’s privacy and identity. Drawings carry the advantage of participant anonymity, yet they may be difficult for researchers to ‘read’. Therefore, children’s drawings are often accompanied by an interview, during which the children explain the significance of their drawing to the researchers (Reference SpiteriSpiteri, 2020).

Participant anonymity and confidentiality are important to uphold in any research. Yet, occasionally, researchers are legally obliged to pass on information acquired during the research process, for example, for child protection purposes. It is, therefore, advisable to include a clause in the consent sheet given to adults and older children to let them know that reporting of child safety may be required.

3.9 Concluding Comments

Children’s rights to meaningful participation in research raise important questions about how adults who conduct research with children prioritise children’s well-being in the research process. Research ethics are paramount in research that listens to children’s voices and acknowledges their agency. Ethics are influenced by multiple factors such as international, national, and local ethical guidelines, and these may differ between countries. Regardless of how different the ethical requirements may be, it is almost certain the researchers will need to negotiate and re-negotiate the ethical dilemmas that may arise throughout the research process. The key here is to develop a robust and well-grounded ethical framework that enables researchers to engage in ethical research practices and guide their decision-making, and one in which the risk of harm to children is eliminated.

4.1 Quantitative Research with Young Children

Rooted in the positivist paradigm, quantitative research follows the scientific method, and uses a deductive approach to testing theories and hypotheses (Reference Bryman and BellBryman & Bell, 2019). A quantitative approach to research is used to seek an explanation of the natural world through observation and/or experimentation, and a collection of empirical/measurable data. Traditionally, early childhood research has been characterised as being objective in nature and it primarily focused on quantitative methods to collect data, including experimental designs, observations, and questionnaires. Current quantitative research tends to align with the post-positivist paradigm (Reference Harrison, Wang, Fleer and van OersHarrison & Wang, 2018). Post-positivism acknowledges the idea of objective truth. Post-positivism also acknowledges that the discovery of reality is limited to certain probability, and accepts the fact that the positionality of the researchers can influence what is being observed and measured (Reference Bryman and BellBryman & Bell, 2019).

There is growing recognition that young children express their views in a variety of ways, not limited to drawings or verbal communication only. In fact, high-quality, large-scale quantitative research using deductive approaches to test theories and hypotheses is increasing in early childhood research. Indeed, in recent years, there has been a demand for high-quality, large-scale quantitative studies in research in relation to the effects of early childhood education, the impact of intervention programmes, and children’s learning and development (Reference Harrison, Wang, Fleer and van OersHarrison & Wang, 2018). Such studies have been used to design and justify policy, curricula and provision in the early years (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Nevertheless, how children express their voices in quantitative research is limited. The questions remain as to whether we can use scientific methods to conduct research with children, and if so, how we can listen to children in such a way that their voices and agency are asserted in research, and are taken seriously by adults.

4.2 Experimental Research

Experimental research, rooted in the positivist paradigm and the natural sciences, emerged during the European Renaissance and Enlightenment. It emphasises empirical evidence, rigorous experimentation, and control of variables to establish causality, and aims to establish causality by deliberately controlling and manipulating conditions to observe the effects on variables. It typically begins with a hypothesis, followed by designing and conducting experiments, evaluating results, and accepting or rejecting the hypothesis. Experimental research focuses on distinguishing between facts, describing ‘what is’, and values, which involve moral judgements about ‘what ought to be’.

Researchers manipulate the independent variable and observe changes in the dependent variable. In laboratory settings, variables can be tightly controlled, but in naturalistic environments, quasi-experimental methods are often used due to limitations in control. Experimental research emphasises systematic processes and statistical methods to ensure precision and minimise bias. Researchers aim to isolate the effects of the independent variable by controlling other variables and randomly assigning participants to groups. Through systematic observation and measurement in scientific experiments, the truth or validity of phenomena can be tested, leading to the development of theories based on observable facts. This approach enhances internal validity by attributing any differences between groups to the independent variable, rather than external factors or biases. Experimental research asserts that truth can be reliably known through experimentation and measurement, with objectivity characterising the research process to avoid subjective bias (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020).

Experimental research in early childhood education has a rich history dating back to the late nineteenth century, marked by the development of child psychology. Early researchers advocated for meticulous experimental methods to study child behaviour and development (Reference ThorpeThorpe, 1946). These methods, including controlled experiments and objective tests, were seen as pioneering despite their challenges. Throughout history, experimental techniques have been used to predict, monitor, and assess various aspects of child development, emotional development, and behaviours. Experimental research has also played a significant role in evaluating early childhood education programmes and interventions, such as the ‘Lasting Effects of Early Education’ (Reference Lazar, Darlington and MurrayLazar et al., 1982), in the United States, and the ‘Sure Start’, in the UK (Reference Melhuish, Belsky, Leyland and BarnesMelhuish et al., 2008). Overall, experimental research in early childhood education continues to provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of interventions and programmes, helping to improve the educational experiences and outcomes of young children worldwide (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020).

Even though experimental methods have yielded significant advances in the natural sciences, most policymakers and empirical scientists acknowledge limitations to the conclusions that can be drawn from the approach but do not agree with efforts to curtail its use.

4.3 Variable-Oriented and Person-Oriented Approaches

Quantitative research tests hypotheses by controlling and modifying variables. Quantitative research is described as the study of the relation between variables represented in numeric forms (Reference Harrison, Wang, Fleer and van OersHarrison & Wang, 2018), where the relation between variables is tested through statistical analysis (Reference File, Mueller, Wisneski and StremmelFile et al., 2017). There are two types of variable-centred analysis: parametric (used to examine the relation among variables) and non-parametric tests (used for the examination of nominal or ordinal data). In quantitative research, variables that, when measured, indicate an equivalent or increased measurable value, thus being more precise, are called continuous or interval variables (e.g., age, income, education). Continuous variables are created from questionnaires and surveys. A variable-centred approach to early childhood research can explain the differences between groups of children. Here, the focus is on an ‘average’ population for which findings are generalised. The focus on an average population is a limitation of variable-oriented approach in quantitative research.

In the literature, a person-oriented analysis is presented as an alternative approach to a variable-oriented approach. In a person-oriented approach, the focus is on the relationship between participants rather than on the relation between variables. A person-oriented methodological approach to quantitative research takes into account the complexity of human behaviour (Reference Harrison, Wang, Fleer and van OersHarrison & Wang, 2018). Person-oriented approaches include cluster analysis, latent class analysis, and growth mixture modelling. A person-oriented approach has been criticised for its lack of appeal and endorsement by developmental scholars, and for the confusion it creates (Reference LaursenLaursen, 2015). There are two types of confusions that characterise a person-oriented approach (Reference LaursenLaursen, 2015). The first confusion is a semantic one, and lies in the overlap and incorrect use of the term. Some use the terms ‘person-centred’ to mean ‘person-oriented’ concurrently and interchangeably. Both terms (person-centred and person-oriented) focus on the individual, but a person-oriented approach emphasises the holistic understanding of the individual. A person-centred approach is interactional. The second confusion stems from the false assertion that qualitative research is person-oriented research, which is not the case. Other challenges included lack of software to analyse person-oriented research. As a developmental scholar, Reference LaursenLaursen (2015) suggests that rather than viewing the person-oriented and variable-oriented approaches as opposites, it is more beneficial for empirical research to join the two techniques. In early childhood research, person-oriented approaches to research are used more often and they help to acknowledge children’s voices and agency in research by listening to children’s ideas about matters that are significant to them, such as friendships. Still, more research is required in the field particularly with very young children such as infants and toddlers.

4.4 Randomised Control Trials

Randomised controlled trials are a form of experimental research where participants are randomly assigned to different groups to test interventions. Randomised controlled trials and experimental and quasi-experimental studies are often considered the ‘gold-standard’ methodologies by policymakers for enhancing policy development, especially in education and the broader social sciences (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Random assignment of participants is crucial but can be challenging in naturalistic settings (see Section 4.5). Following the random assignment of participants, pre-tests and post-tests are used to assess the effects of interventions on experimental groups compared to control groups.

There is debate over the hierarchy of evidence, with RCTs being strong in internal validity but weaker in external validity compared to quasi-experimental methods. Critics argue against conceptualising methodologies in a hierarchy, advocating for matching research questions to specific types of research instead (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Yet policymakers are likely to favour experimental designs because they provide evidence-based research and practice, and are driven by a contemporary neoliberal quest for accountability (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Despite debates in the field, most scholars advocate the use of RCT and quasi-experimental designs jointly, as a way of developing converging evidence and taking advantages of the strengths of each approach (Reference Gerholm, Kallioinen and TonerGerholm Kallioinen et al., 2019; Reference White and SabarwalWhite & Sabarwal, 2014). These methodologies are preferred for their robustness and trustworthiness in establishing causal findings (Reference Gopalan, Rosinger and Bin AhnGopalan et al., 2020; Reference White and SabarwalWhite & Sabarwal, 2014).

4.5 Identification and Enrolment of Participants

Quantitative research is used to generalise the results to a larger population of participants, leading to a large sample size. Statistical analyses usually require a large number of participants in order to ensure strong statistical analysis of the data. Quantitative studies recruit more participants than qualitative studies. In theory, the large sample size is representative of a larger population of participants. For the results to stand, a carefully chosen and accurate representative sample of the population is studied. A large-enough representative sample can be challenging to achieve because participation in research is based on the participants’ willingness to voluntarily participate in a study. As such, locating a large number of participants for a study for sample sizes to be formed as desired by researchers can be difficult. In such instances, researchers rely on convenience sampling that is reflective of the most suitable arrangements possible for any given population, at any given time (Reference File, Mueller, Wisneski and StremmelFile et al., 2017).

An important aspect of early childhood research is the identification and description of naturalistic groups and subgroups of children in terms of specific characteristics. The identification of these characteristics is important as it helps researchers in designing more targeted interventions (Reference Harrison, Wang, Fleer and van OersHarrison & Wang, 2018). Groups and subgroups of children can be identified in a variety of ways. For example, they could be identified by gender and language(s) spoken. Identification methods may include direct testing of children’s abilities, such as language skills. Based on these outcomes, children are then grouped into categories, for example, gifted or typical development.

4.6 Ways of Listening to Young Children’s Voices in Experimental Research

In the past, proxy reporting of children’s subjective viewpoints was employed in quantitative research with children, who were rarely included in surveys and questionnaires because young children were often considered incapable of providing reliable and valid data. Nowadays, early childhood research has moved towards a more agentic view of children. In fact, children are now considered to be the best respondents for their own subjective opinions. Accordingly, attention in quantitative research has shifted towards acknowledging children’s rights to a voice.

In experimental research, researchers measure an interesting phenomenon they study via numerical data, highlighting the importance of the instruments and measures chosen to collect data – a complex and important part of the research study. In the following section, we will delve into various quantitative methods that researchers can employ to listen to the voices of young children and recognise their agency within quantitative research methodologies.

4.7 Critiques of Experimental Research

New approaches to data collection and improvements in analytical tools and techniques are moving the field forward. Quantitative research, with its emphasis on numerical data and statistical analyses, inherently benefits from the rigorous scrutiny facilitated by replication. Indeed, replication is the gold standard for evaluating empirical evidence (Reference Plucker and MakelPlucker & Makel, 2021). The ability to replicate findings allows for the verification of results across multiple studies, thereby enhancing the robustness and validity of quantitative research outcomes. Together with a strong theoretical foundation, replication not only underscores the reliability of empirical data but also serves as a cornerstone for establishing the credibility and generalisability of research findings across various contexts and populations (Reference Plucker and MakelPlucker & Makel, 2021).

Yet experimental research in early childhood education has its own limitations and faces critiques regarding validity, politicisation, and ethical considerations (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Some limitations of experimental research in early childhood include the availability of a large enough sample to meet the requirements of the study and the appropriateness of quantitative methods for collecting data with young children in diverse sociocultural settings (Reference File, Mueller, Wisneski and StremmelFile et al., 2017; Reference Harrison, Wang, Fleer and van OersHarrison & Wang, 2018). Validity concerns arise due to the complexity of social behaviours and the inability to fully control variables in natural settings, like classrooms (Reference Scott and UsherScott & Usher, 2011), making the measurement of outcomes or cause-and-effect relationships problematic (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020).

Children are not a homogenous group, and they behave in ways that may be difficult to isolate by variables alone. As a result, critics argue that experimental designs produce inconsistent and unreliable results, undermining their suitability for social sciences (Reference Scott and UsherScott & Usher, 2011). Some researchers advocate for the objectivity of experimental research, whereas others warn against overlooking the perspectives of education professionals (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Issues of internal and external validity further complicate the interpretation of research findings. Nevertheless, critics caution against overgeneralising results and emphasise the importance of robust research design and implementation (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020; Reference Scott and UsherScott & Usher, 2011).

With its focus on deductive methods to test theories, experimental research has been aligned with cost-benefit models in policy making; however, its funding priorities are also criticised for perpetuating social inequalities (Reference Fleer and van OersFleer & van Oers, 2018; Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Critics argue that experimental methods may overlook the unequal opportunities for learning experienced by disadvantaged populations (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Such criticism calls for ethical responsibility in research. Researchers need to consider the broader social implications of their work and advocate for a combination of experimental and qualitative approaches to provide comprehensive insights into educational phenomena. Ultimately, experimental research should be viewed as one component of a broader research landscape, contributing to a collective understanding of educational issues.

4.8 Concluding Comments

This section detailed quantitative research in early childhood research. Debates persist regarding the nature and methods of experimental research in early childhood education and social sciences. It is crucial for researchers to recognise and appreciate the diversity of methodologies and research practices in early childhood research. Each approach has its strengths and limitations, and the success of research hinges on its application. The reliability of research findings should be based on their relevance to the specific context and their ability to address the intended problem. Ultimately, the suitability of experimental research, RCTs, or any other method depends on the research objectives, the research questions being addressed, the robustness of the research design, and the context in which the findings are applied.

5.1 Qualitative Research with Young Children

Qualitative research is often related to language and text, and is characterised by inductive approaches to data collection. Here, the use of word-based and visual data is highlighted, reminding us of the importance of the different modes of communication as socio-constructivist tools. Qualitative research methods in early childhood research can be varied, and they align well with sociocultural theories, making them very relevant to early childhood research. Within the qualitative paradigm, data are embedded in naturalistic research and are generated rather than collected, requiring constant and detailed attention to ethical decision-making during the research process.

Historically, children have not been credited by adults as competent individuals. Rather, children have been considered as being ‘too innocent and/or immature to participate meaningfully’ in research (Reference MacNaughton, Hughes and SmithMacNaughton et al., 2008, p. 164). Since the early 1990s, there has been an increased interest in securing children’s rights. As a result, initiatives to engage children as active contributors to their own development and their community in research have gained momentum, notably in Western countries (Reference Yamaguchi, Bentayeb and HoltomYamaguchi et al., 2022). Consequently, our awareness of children’s participation rights in research has increased, creating a paradigm shift in the use of qualitative methodologies that listen to children’s voices and acknowledge their agency.

5.2 Participatory Research

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the field of qualitative research regarding the use of participatory research approaches. Qualitative research is defined as participatory because ‘researchers bring data into being: we make them. Making data involves inventing, imagining, encountering, and embracing lived experience and material documentation as methodological praxis. Making requires resourcefulness and participation’ (Reference Ellingson and SotirinEllingson & Sotirin, 2020, p. 5). Of interest to this Element is qualitative research conducted with young children, with a special focus on participatory research, where children play a significant and equivalent role to adult researchers, and have a right to be involved in some or all stages of the research process – from conception to dissemination (Reference BishopBishop, 2014; Reference Blaisdell, McNair, Addison and DavisBlaisdell et al., 2022; Reference Bradbury-Jones, Isham and TaylorBradbury-Jones et al., 2018).

Participation is an ongoing process, which includes ‘information-sharing and dialogue between children and adults based on mutual respect, in which children can learn how their views and those of adults are taken into account and shape the outcome of such processes’ (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009, p. 3). Participatory research stems from critical theorists like Freire and Giroux, who collaborated with marginalised communities to research their own lives and instigate collective change. Participatory research, akin to action research, aims for transformative change through active participant engagement. However, it often carries a political agenda, seeking to empower underrepresented groups such as young children, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, and those facing social or economic challenges.

Participatory research shifts the focus from researching children to conducting research with and by children. It emphasises the use of practical and dialogic approaches that generate knowledge collaboratively with children rather than extracting knowledge from them. This process fosters self-awareness and serves as a catalyst for positive change. Participatory research, typically qualitative, prioritises involving participants as equal partners in knowledge production, valuing their unique perspectives. Its defining feature lies in the depth and nature of participant engagement rather than specific research methods. In participatory research, each study design is flexible and tailored through dialogue with research partners.

However, participatory research with young children is a recent development, influenced by evolving theories of childhood and the recognition of children’s rights, as articulated in the UNCRC (United Nations, 1989). This shift emphasises children’s right to express their own worldviews directly in research, rather than through adult proxies. In recent years, perspectives related to young children’s rights have been increasingly integrated into early childhood research, an idea influenced by the New Sociology of Childhood paradigm that emphasises valuing children for who they are and acknowledging their future potential, highlighting the importance of respecting children’s perspectives in research.

The concept of children as both ‘beings’ and ‘becomings’ emphasises children’s right to shape both their present and future lives (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). This perspective expands on the idea of agency presented by the ‘being’ discourse, portraying children as active social actors who construct their everyday lives and surroundings, both presently and in the future. It encourages researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to consider children’s voices in relation to their roles as agents in society. The UNCRC not only emphasises the importance of respecting children’s views across various aspects of their lives but also imposes a legal obligation to do so (United Nations, 1989). Recently, children’s rights to equality and empowerment have been further acknowledged in the UN 2030 agenda for sustainable development, positioning children as agents of change in societal transformation towards sustainability (United Nations, 2015). The recognition of children as active, agentic, and knowledgeable individuals has reshaped their role in research and society.

5.3 Participatory Approaches to Listening to Children’s Voices

In the field of early childhood, there are several examples of approaches to pedagogy and research that are aimed at listening to young children’s voices by relying on different modes of communication – verbal, non-verbal, and sensory. Indeed, the importance of listening to, and recognising young children’s multiple voices, in research on matters that are relevant to them is recognised in the educational practice of the Reggio Emilia Approach to early childhood education (Reference RinaldiRinaldi, 2021) and in the Mosaic Approach (Reference Clark and MossClark & Moss, 2011).

As an innovative approach to involving young children in research, the Reggio Emilia Approach is an example of how researchers can listen and speak to children in research by employing a variety of methods that enable children to express their views freely in multiple ways – verbally and non-verbally. Specifically, the idea of the Hundred Languages of Children (Reference Edwards, Gandini and FormanEdwards et al., 2011), as proposed by the Reggio Emilia Approach, points out the numerous ways children can communicate their perspectives to others, sometimes without engaging in verbal communication. In Reggio Emilia settings, documentation plays a crucial role in the educational approach. It involves observing, interpreting, and reflecting on children’s learning experiences to better understand their development and interests (Reference Dahlberg, Moss and PenceDahlberg et al., 2013). This process is integral to the Reggio Emilia philosophy as it helps educators tailor learning experiences to meet the unique needs of each child. Documentation in Reggio Emilia settings encompasses various forms, including written narratives, visual documentation such as photographs, videos, and children’s artwork, oral storytelling, collaborative dialogue, and other artefacts that capture children’s interactions, expressions, and learning journeys (Reference Dahlberg, Moss and PenceDahlberg et al., 2013).

Another innovative approach designed within the philosophical perspective of listening to children’s voices is the Mosaic Approach, which is designed as a set of methods to gather and reflect upon the perspectives and experiences of young children (aged three to five years) in early childhood settings (Reference Clark, Clark, Kjørholt and MossClark, 2005; Reference Clark and MossClark & Moss, 2011). The Mosaic Approach is a qualitative and multi-method participatory approach to data collection that enables participants (adults and children) to share their perspectives and experiences through multiple languages (Reference Clark and MossClark & Moss, 2011). The Mosaic Approach is particularly prominent in early childhood education research. It advocates for the integration of various qualitative research methods, including observations, child interviewing/conferencing, photography, book making, map making, interviews with different participants (e.g., parents and teachers), magic carpet guided tours by children, artefact sharing, and dialogical encounters, to create a comprehensive ‘mosaic’ of understanding (Reference Clark and MossClark & Moss, 2011).

Like the Reggio Emilia Approach to early childhood education, the Mosaic Approach acknowledges adults and children as co-constructors of meaning. Such meaning is created via verbal as well as visual means, thus offering a deeper understanding of the participants’ lived experiences in one or more settings. The Reggio Emilia Approach and the Mosaic Approach are participatory approaches in that they view all participants as experts and active agents in their own lives; therefore, participants are involved in the decision-making process of the type of data that would be most important to share their experiences. Both approaches are also reflexive as they provide children with opportunities to engage in multiple ways of communicating their ideas to researchers while they also contribute to the methods being employed, particularly through group dialogic encounters. Both approaches are adaptable to the participant sites and practices and do not require researchers to set up special contexts for data collection. Rather, the timing of data collection is unique to each research site. Essentially, the focus is on the participants’ lived experiences, and researchers try to understand the individual experiences within a context.

The Reggio Emilia Approach and the Mosaic Approach are also embedded into early childhood practice, where the research methods used are connected to the everyday practices of the research site. Throughout the research process, researchers strive to develop a credible and collaborative relationship with participants to inform the design and development of methods to be used. More importantly, both the Reggio Emilia Approach and the Mosaic Approach respect children’s agency in making decisions about their participation in research and their right to voice their opinions (Reference Clark and MossClark & Moss, 2011).

5.4 Ways of Listening to Young Children’s Voices in Qualitative Research

In qualitative research, children are seen as social actors, capable of offering unique and valuable insights into their experiences and perspectives on the diverse worlds they inhabit (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Participatory research approaches with young children are characterised by multiplicity of terms, such as ‘co-production’, ‘co-design’, and ‘co-construction’ (Reference Bradbury-Jones, Isham and TaylorBradbury-Jones et al., 2018, p. 81). A listening-to-children approach is tied to children’s participation rights, which afford children a voice and agency in research. Consequently, the development of research that involves listening to and engaging children directly in the research process often uses creative and often child-centred research methods.

Participatory research acknowledges children’s right to perspectives and ideas. In research, children can bring a fresh perspective, asking questions and contributing to knowledge in ways that adults may not consider. Therefore, participatory research methods have the potential to provide us with a snapshot into the world through the children’s eyes, and make children feel heard and valued. In return, participatory research methods enhance children’s sense of belonging and well-being and empower them to feel that they are listened to, and their ideas and experiences matter to the research process.

Researchers combine a range of participatory research tools to listen to children, in which levels of participation can vary (Reference Vaughn and JacquezVaughn & Jacquez, 2020). There exists a distinction drawn by some scholars between methodologies guided by adults and those led by children for the purpose of listening to children’s perspectives (Reference Urbina-Garcia, Jindal-Snape and LindsayUrbina-Garcia et al., 2021). Adult-guided research methods include observations, structured and semi-structured interviews, group interviews, and focus groups, during which children have some degree of control but nonetheless reflect the adult interpretation of children’s perspectives. Child-directed research methods include young children taking photos, drawings, draw-and-tell methods, informal discussions about children’s drawings, art as a means of expressing their views, child-led tours, storytelling using props (images, cards, videos, books, or dolls), and film-based discussions. Child-directed research methods are designed to mirror the perspectives and worldviews of the children involved.

In the rest of this section, we will we will delve into various adult-guided participatory research methods available for researchers to engage with the perspectives of young children and recognise their active role in qualitative research. Following this exploration, Section 5.5 will undertake an examination of child-directed research methods.

5.5 Visual and Arts-based Techniques

Lately, many educational researchers have directed their attention to topics within early childhood education, employing a child-centred methodology in their research endeavours. A notable emphasis has been placed on utilising visual arts as potent research instruments to actively engage young children in the research process, frequently integrating play as a mode of involvement. Such tools often intersect with creative, arts-based, game-based, and audio-visual research methodologies to facilitate dialogic co-enquiry with child participants (Reference Ellingson and SotirinEllingson & Sotirin, 2020). Arts-based techniques enable children to express ideas, thoughts, and feelings in a playful setting, therefore, eliminating the need for the use of language. This is particularly important for young children who have not mastered the necessary language skills yet to enable them to voice their perspectives and experiences in ways that are meaningful to them and that do not necessarily rely on verbal competencies (Reference Koller and MurphyKoller & Murphy, 2022). Additionally, arts-based techniques are useful to acknowledge children’s voices when the language used is uncomfortable to express, and such data can be open to multiple interpretations (Reference Ellingson and SotirinEllingson & Sotirin, 2020). Such techniques also help shift the power imbalance between children and researchers, encourage dialogues between researchers and children in a way that are fun, and promote children’s participation, agency, and competencies (Reference Coyne, Mallon and ChubbCoyne et al., 2021). Using a range of arts-based techniques can help researchers understand the diversity in communication adopted by children, particularly children under age eight who may have limited language abilities (Reference ClarkClark, 2010). A variety of the arts-based tools commonly used in early childhood education research are discussed next.

5.6 The Challenges of Research Participation by Young Children

Even though creative and participatory research methods are used to encourage young children to participate in the research process, it is essential to recognise the challenges associated with these approaches. For a start, participatory techniques with young children are not a quick way of collecting data with young children. Rather such techniques require careful planning and preparation, and are time-consuming. Researchers are advised to engage in a critical evaluation and reflection process concerning the utilisation of participatory research methods with children, with the objective of comprehensively examining both the benefits and drawbacks associated with such approaches (Reference PunchPunch, 2002).

Children’s participation challenges the dominant discourse around children’s vulnerability, dependence, and development, and eliminates many of the power structures present between children and adults (Reference Tisdall, Vandenhole, Desmet, Reynaert and LembrechtsTisdall, 2015). Yet conducting research with children presents notable practical and methodological hurdles, which advocates of participatory research may sometimes overlook (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). The process has been described by some as ‘Pollyanna-ish’, suggesting that participatory approaches still fail to challenge the very power relations they aim to disrupt (Reference Blaisdell, McNair, Addison and DavisBlaisdell et al., 2022). The question remains as to which participatory, age-appropriate, and child-friendly research methods can be used when conducting research with young children. The widespread misinterpretation regarding children’s involvement in research arises from researchers frequently claiming to conduct participatory research, yet resorting to tokenistic practices instead (Reference Morrow, Invernizzi and WilliamsMorrow, 2008). Tokenism results in children’s involvement being passive rather than active. Over time, efforts have been made to distinguish between tokenistic participation and genuinely empowering roles for children in research.

Participatory research calls for children to be involved in the research process right from the beginning, as enshrined in the UNCRC (United Nations, 1989). Yet, in reality, this decision-making process remains a challenge to implement. In research with young children, careful attention to the design of the research methods is required, ensuring that potential threats to children are eliminated. More than this, the complexity involved in the child-researcher relationship has increased the focus on adopting participatory methods in research involving children. Hence, young children’s ability to participate in, and contribute towards, the research process is not to be underestimated.

Researchers bear the responsibility of devising research methodologies conducive to meaningful engagement by children. The ‘ladder of children’s participation’ (Reference HartHart, 1992) delineates eight levels of involvement, with each level describing different levels of children’s involvement and empowerment in the research process. The initial three levels are characterised as non-participation (manipulation, decoration and tokenism), while subsequent levels denote increasing degrees of engagement, spanning from assigned but informed roles to shared decision-making initiated by the child alongside adults. Many researchers employ Hart’s framework to evaluate the authenticity of children’s involvement in participatory research, acknowledging the limitations associated with lower levels of engagement. Nevertheless, criticism has been levied against Hart’s ladder for its hierarchical structure, which may imply that full participation holds superiority over other forms of engagement, despite the potential challenges in achieving or appropriateness of full participation in all contexts.

An alternative model consisting of five stages is presented by Reference ShierShier (2001), emphasising the dedication of adults to empowering children, with each stage including specific objectives aimed at assessing the level of child participation. Shier’s participation model includes stages where children are involved in decision-making processes, and share power and responsibility for decision-making. Similar to Reference HartHart’s (1992) model, Reference ShierShier’s (2001) framework has been both praised and criticised. Some appreciate its utility in guiding participatory research design, while others critique its failure to acknowledge the dynamic nature of power negotiation in research decision-making (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Additionally, Shier’s model has been criticised for focusing on what happens to children in research rather than emphasising their active role and status, and for lacking adequate theorisation of children’s participation (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). To support the design of participatory research, Reference StephensonStephenson (2009) developed a set of ‘checking questions’ aimed at prioritising children’s perspectives. These questions encompass considerations such as initiating with children’s thoughts, integrating their ideas throughout each stage, refraining from suggestive questioning, and remaining receptive to following the children’s direction. Despite their shortcomings, together, these models can help researchers consider the varying degrees of children’s participation in the research process based on the research aims and context, preventing participation from becoming overly prescriptive or restrictive.

The defining feature of participatory research is recognising children as experts in their own lives, empowering them to express their views in their preferred manner, and prioritising their perspectives. This shift in approach requires a fundamental re-evaluation of relationships within the research process, and challenges the traditional roles of academic researchers and child participants in participatory research. Researchers dedicated to promoting children’s full participation in research have the responsibility not only to involve children in disseminating research findings but also to engage them in deciding the impact of their work (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). However, it is observed that children are not consistently included in research write-ups and impact events. During the early planning and research design phases, researchers can use research questions and models to consider the varying degrees of children’s participation (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). This spectrum ranges from children taking the leading role in all research stages, to children informing the research designed that is conducted by adults. Even though most participatory research falls between these two extremes, the choice of participation depends on the research objectives. Therefore, it is important that researchers ensure that whenever young children are involved as researchers in participatory research, they understand the realistic potential impact of their work to prevent feelings of neglect or dismissal.

Even if researchers follow ethical guidelines carefully, their research methods can still be problematic. In relation to knowing what to research and with whom, the researchers’ effects are possible. Conducting research with young children requires training, skill, and practice. Typically, participatory research involves mentorship, where experienced researchers train new researchers in data collection techniques and ethics, enabling new participants to experiment with and discuss various approaches. At every stage of the research process, researchers also need to keep in mind how their presence may be influencing children’s responses and the type of communication that happens when children and researchers engage in dialogues. During this process, researchers can learn about participants’ interests and communication styles.

Conducting research with children involves communication. Participatory research requires researchers to build a rapport with the children. As a result, a relationship between the adult researchers and the child participant is often developed. In early childhood research, attention is given to how children convey thoughts, views, and intentions through language, actions, and social interactions. In this relationship, dialogue plays a key role in helping researchers understand the child’s point of view. By understanding children’s communication styles, researchers can engage in meaningful dialogue, fostering trust and developing innovative research methods that align with children’s perspectives. However, language competence and cognitive overload can make dialogues challenging and may create a power imbalance between the adult researchers and child participants, and these can impact the authenticity of any communication between the two (Reference SpiteriSpiteri, 2020). Consequently, researchers need to be mindful of their critical role when conducting qualitative research with young children. For research with young children to be ethical, researchers need to have a good understanding of what a researcher is and what its role is. Therefore, it is worth considering the role of the researcher and the relationships of power that emerge during the research process. The first imbalance in the relationship is created by the fact that the researcher is an adult. Since children are in the least powerful position in the research (Reference Barratt Hacking, Cutter-Mackenzie, Barratt, Stevenson, Brody, Dillon and WalsBarratt Hacking et al., 2013), the presence of an adult researcher, or possibly more than one researcher, puts children in a subordinate position and could potentially also make them vulnerable to abuse (Reference Gallagher, Tisdall, Davis and GallegherGallagher, 2009). Issues of power could easily subordinate children (Reference MacNaughtonMacNaughton, 2005) in the sense that some children may believe that they are expected to fully participate in the research process because subordination has always been demanded from the adults around them (Reference Aubrey and DahlAubrey & Dahl, 2005). Although power relations cannot be totally eliminated, children’s welfare should always be prioritised by researchers during the entire research process. Lastly, if academic research is to be published, such intentions are to be communicated and explained honestly and responsibly to the participants before the research process begins (Reference Gilliat-Ray, Jacobs, Gregg, Engler and StausbergGilliat-Ray et al., 2022).

5.7 Critiques of Qualitative Research

Despite its goals towards children’s full and meaningful participation in research, qualitative research has faced its fair share of criticism. Critiques of qualitative research in early childhood encompass a broad spectrum of perspectives and considerations that are continuously evolving (Reference Scott and UsherScott & Usher, 2011). Indeed, scholars are actively engaged in ongoing critical dialogue aimed at refining methodological approaches and addressing inherent limitations (Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018).

Qualitative research has been criticised for being anecdotal or illustrative, and that it is practised in casual and unsystematic ways (Reference MasonMason, 2018). Such critique is based on a misunderstanding of the logic of qualitative enquiry, and fails to see the strategic significance of context and the development of our understandings and explanations of the social world (Reference MasonMason, 2018). Given its focus on the in-depth exploration within specific contexts, qualitative research has also been criticised for its lack of generalisability and transferability of findings to broader populations or settings, limiting the applicability of the findings (Reference StakeStake, 2006). Qualitative research conceptualises generalisability in a distinct manner compared to quantitative research. Quantitative research employs a large random sample that mirrors the broader population to minimise individual differences and facilitate statistical inference applicable to the entire population. In contrast, qualitative research prioritises obtaining individual insights rather than striving for a representative sample.Top of Form Qualitative research seldom relies on random sampling, making it unsuitable for making references to broader populations as done in surveys conducted for quantitative analysis.

Since qualitative research prioritises depth and richness of data, traditional criteria for validity and reliability may be perceived as less applicable. As a result, critics argue that ensuring the trustworthiness of qualitative findings can be challenging, particularly regarding issues of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Reference Guba, Lincoln, Denzin and LincolnGuba & Lincoln, 2018). To overcome these challenges, researchers need to employ rigorous methods to enhance the trustworthiness of their work (Reference Guba, Lincoln, Denzin and LincolnGuba & Lincoln, 2018; Reference StakeStake, 2006).

Another key concern regarding qualitative research is its vulnerability to researcher bias and subjectivity. Reflexivity serves as a response to this critique (Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018; Reference MasonMason, 2018). Through a critical reflexive approach, qualitative researchers actively acknowledge and address their own subjectivity and potential biases throughout the research process, enhancing the credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative findings by minimising the impact of researcher bias (Reference MasonMason, 2018; Reference StakeStake, 2006).

Qualitative research frequently involves close and prolonged interaction with participants that may uncover sensitive or personal information about young children. In early childhood research, it is crucial to uphold ethical standards, including ensuring informed consent from adults, assent from children, the protection of privacy and confidentiality, and the management of power dynamics between researchers and participants (Reference LundyLundy, 2007). This highlights the necessity for researchers to engage in ethical reflexivity and adhere closely to established guidelines to uphold the rights and well-being of all participants, particularly young children (Reference Ellingson and SotirinEllingson & Sotirin, 2020; Reference Gallagher, Tisdall, Davis and GallegherGallagher, 2009).

Employing participatory research methods that empower young children as active participants in the research process may offer a pathway to addressing entrenched power imbalances in early childhood research. However, participatory research methods have been criticised for falling short of achieving the objectives of qualitative research to effect change, underestimating power imbalances between researchers and child participants, lacking clear methods of data collection and analysis, and being under-theorised. Concerns also exist regarding the impact of participatory research methods on children’s lives and the underrepresentation of certain groups, such as children with disabilities. Critics point out the paradox that initiating participatory research often requires researchers from privileged, educated backgrounds, raising questions about its democratic nature (Reference Bergold and ThomasBergold & Thomas, 2012). Another common criticism of participatory research methods is that not all children may enjoy or find it easy to engage with the research process (Reference SpiteriSpiteri, 2020). Participatory research methods are still marked by uncertainty and the recognition that the effectiveness of research methods depends on how such methods are applied and the effectiveness of the attitudes guiding their use. Therefore, a key aspect of participatory research involves understanding children’s communication styles, fostering dialogue, and building trust with them, which can also positively impact relationships between children and caregivers in their communities. Remaining open, flexible, and responsive to children’s perspectives throughout the research process is essential for its success.

The intricate nature of qualitative data analysis can pose challenges concerning transparency, reliability, and validity in analysis, especially in large-scale studies. To mitigate these concerns, researchers need to adopt transparent and systematic methodologies for coding, categorising, and interpreting qualitative data, to ensure reliability, transparency, rigour, and trustworthiness (Reference Creswell and PothCresswell & Poth, 2018).

While these critiques raise important considerations for qualitative researchers, they also underscore the ongoing efforts within the field to address methodological challenges, enhance rigour, and advance ethical practice. By engaging in reflexive inquiry, methodological innovation, and interdisciplinary collaboration, qualitative researchers can continue to strengthen the credibility and impact of their work.

5.8 Concluding Comments

Participatory research with children is still evolving. This section has shown the wide range of methods, from dialogic approaches to full involvement of children in all research stages that encompass participatory research. Despite this diversity, participatory methods share the common goal of amplifying children’s voices and empowering children to voice their opinion and assert their agency in research. Participatory research is a democratic, empowering, and ethical way of conducting early childhood research. Here, children are often considered as co-researchers during part of, or the entire, research process. As the field progresses, there’s a need for deeper reflection and alignment between theory, methodology, and research methods, with ongoing scrutiny of the concept of ‘children’s voices and agency’. Despite the challenge of fully understanding children’s perspectives, participatory research enables researchers to demonstrate their competences and address the prevailing power imbalances between adults and children in both research and broader society.

6.1 The Qualitative and Quantitative Divide

Historically, qualitative and quantitative methods were perceived as conflicting paradigms. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, debates between proponents of experimental and interpretive methodologies led to a paradigmatic divide, with qualitative methods gaining legitimacy for studying complex social phenomena. However, in recent decades there has been a shift towards bridging the gap between the two paradigms, collaboration between experimental and interpretive research, recognising the complementary insights each approach offers, leading to the emergence of mixed methods research as a distinct methodology (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020).

Over time, mixed methods research design has gained popularity, particularly in the social sciences like education and sociology (Reference PearcePearce, 2012). The term ‘mixed methods’ encompasses the integration of both quantitative and qualitative methods, or data within a single study or design. Quantitative research addresses questions of ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘when’, and ‘how much’, whereas qualitative research delves into ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions. By combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches, researchers can design studies that provide comprehensive insights into educational experiences and opportunities for young children, leveraging the strengths of each methodology.

Various definitions highlight this integration, emphasising the collection, analysis, and integration of data from both approaches. In mixed methods research, researchers collect and analyse data, integrate findings, and draw inferences using both quantitative and qualitative approaches in a single study (Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018; Reference Corr, Snodgrass, Greene, Meadan and SantosCorr et al., 2020; Reference MertensMertens, 2015; Reference Tashakkori and CreswellTashakkori & Creswell, 2007). Mixed methods research is described as ‘better suited to developing theoretical and practical models of information behaviour … [they] are vital to allow deeper insights to emerge by placing methods in conversation with each other’ (Reference Gooding, Schuster and StuartGooding, 2021, p. 146). Broadly speaking, mixed methods research can capture a diverse range of perspectives not possible in traditional quantitative or qualitative methods alone (Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018; Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020; Reference MertensMertens, 2015). By combining quantitative and qualitative methods, researchers can obtain a richer perspective, ultimately enhancing our knowledge of early childhood education and informing educational practices on a broader scale.

Mixed methods research has evolved into a distinct methodology with its own worldview and techniques, providing researchers with a comprehensive approach to investigating complex phenomena and yielding new discoveries and understandings. In recent years, mixed methods research has expanded into various fields, including health and medical sciences, nursing, family medicine, mental health, pharmacy, and other related life sciences disciplines (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Over the past thirty years, numerous authors have highlighted the versatility, applicability, and utility of using a mixed methods approach to early childhood research too (Reference Corr, Snodgrass, Greene, Meadan and SantosCorr et al., 2020; Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020; Reference Gooding, Schuster and StuartGooding, 2021; Reference Liebenberg, Ungar and SarachoLiebenberg & Ungar, 2015). Mixed methods research offers opportunities for generating new research questions, designs, and insights, ultimately contributing to enhanced research rigour and validity.

Mixed methods research has been called the ‘third methodological movement’ (Reference Teddlie and TashakkoriTeddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Some critics argue that mixed methods research can become overly focused on methodology at the expense of theory; however, proponents emphasise its capacity to capture complexity and diversity within a subject area (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). As a paradigm, mixed methods research asserts that the research does not necessarily need to be conducted exclusively via quantitative or qualitative research, but rather a mixture of both (Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018). With theoretical roots in pragmatism, claims made from mixed methods research go beyond the data types to include its own paradigm, ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodologies which inform the design and conduct of research studies (Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018). However, some argue that pragmatists consider the research questions to be the most important factor for determining the choice of methodology, rejecting the postpositivist and the constructive paradigms (Reference Teddlie and TashakkoriTeddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Despite such debates, the central premise of mixed methods research is that the collection, analyses, and mixing of both quantitative and qualitative data in one study or in a series of studies provide a better understanding of the research problem than single methods approach, and answer complex research questions with generality, thus providing richer and more robust studies compared to single method approaches (Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018).

6.2 Mixed Methods in Early Childhood Research

In early childhood research, mixed methods can be particularly valuable in trying to solve complex social questions that could not be answered in any other way (Reference MertensMertens, 2015); however, doing so necessitates meticulous research design (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Like in other sectors of educational research, in early childhood research, a mixed methods approach bridges the divide between qualitative and quantitative research, in which diverse approaches, designs, and interpretations are integrated (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Such integration involves creatively sequencing and implementing qualitative and quantitative methods across different phases or strands of the research. However, this bridge metaphor is not a true representation of the full range of possibilities that mixed methods approach can offer to early childhood research (Reference Corr, Snodgrass, Greene, Meadan and SantosCorr et al., 2020). In a mixed methods approach, researchers mix methods, methodologies, theories, standpoints, and paradigm assumptions from qualitative and quantitative approaches (Reference Corr, Snodgrass, Greene, Meadan and SantosCorr et al., 2020). From this perspective, as a methodological approach, mixed methods offer new ways of cultivating new and creative ways of thinking and new ways of researching an issue, possibly leading to unexpected findings (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020).

As a methodological approach, mixed methods are increasingly used in early childhood research, including early childhood special education research (Reference Corr, Snodgrass, Greene, Meadan and SantosCorr et al., 2020). In the literature, mixed methods research has been effectively utilised for exploring programme outcomes, investigating research questions, and evaluating large-scale research projects (Reference Doyle, Edwards and HaddowDoyle et al., 2022). The suitability of a mixed methods approach to capturing young children’s voices and agency in early childhood research depends on several factors, including the phenomenon under investigation, the research questions, the sociocultural context in which the study is conducted, and the funding agency’s requirements. Since mixed methods research can refer to the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods to answer the research questions in one study, the researchers need to either be experts in both, or to employ a group of experts to assist with the study design and analysis of the data (Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018; Reference MertensMertens, 2015).

6.3 Mixed Methods Research as a Way of Listening to Young Children’s Voices

Mixed methods design can fit within a transformative framework, making the design suitable for advocacy purposes (Reference MertensMertens, 2009, Reference Mertens2015). As a framework, a mixed methods design aligns well with the advocacy for children’s rights as promoted by the UNCRC (United Nations, 1989). More broadly, in early childhood education research, mixed methods approaches have been popular and useful in providing opportunities for listening to children.

The Reggio Emilia Approach (Reference RinaldiRinaldi, 2021) and the Mosaic Approach (Reference Clark and MossClark & Moss, 2011) (see Section 5.3) adopt mixed methods approach to generating data with children, making these approaches transformative in nature by empowering children to express their ideas about their experiences, using verbal and non-verbal communication. Multiple ways of listening offer an opportunity for adults and children to listen to each other and to reflect on each other’s worldviews (Reference RinaldiRinaldi, 2021). Similarly, mixed methods research adopts multiple data collection methods to listen to children’s voices, which requires adults to relearn other ways that would enable them to communicate with young children (Reference Clark, Clark, Kjørholt and MossClark, 2005; Reference Edwards, Gandini and FormanEdwards et al., 2011). In this regard, multiple ways of listening place emphasis on listening as an ethical issue (Reference Clark, Clark, Kjørholt and MossClark, 2005). Taken together, the Reggio Emilia Approach and the Mosaic Approach provide support for the benefits of using mixed methods designs in early childhood research in order to listen to young children and acknowledge their agency. Furthermore, the different methods adopted in these two approaches enable researchers to gain different understandings of the different dimensions of listening to children. From this perspective, mixed methods research offers a powerful case for listening to young children’s voices.

Developed in the context of early childhood research, multi-method approaches to listening to children recognise the different voices of young children and adults (parents and educators), acknowledging the contributions each could make to the research process (Reference Clark and MossClark & Moss, 2011). Using diverse methods to make children’s voices visible, such as observations, interviews, photography, and book making, a mixed methods approach brings together a range of qualitative and quantitative methods to listen to children’s ideas about their lives (Reference Clark, Clark, Kjørholt and MossClark, 2005). By adopting a mixed methods design, data are collected via a combination of techniques to create a multifaceted framework that facilitates the process of listening to young children’s voices.

Even though strong evidence suggests the utility of a mixed methods approach in effectively exploring young children’s voices about their lives in the early years, there remains little evidence of methodological innovation within the field to make mixed methods research more mainstream (Reference Corr, Snodgrass, Greene, Meadan and SantosCorr et al., 2020; Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020; Reference Liebenberg, Ungar and SarachoLiebenberg & Ungar, 2015). Perhaps this is because a mixed methods design requires careful planning of how the diverse methods can work together in synergy (Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018).

6.4 Designing Mixed Methods Research

The design of mixed methods research uses techniques from qualitative and quantitative research traditions, simultaneously or sequentially (Reference MertensMertens, 2015). Four approaches to mixed methods research design are commonly adopted in early childhood research (Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018; Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). The first three designs follow a sequential pattern of investigation; the fourth design occurs concurrently and is integrated in both qualitative and quantitative methods.

Qualitative-Quantitative Sequential Exploration: Involves a sequential approach, where qualitative exploration precedes a larger quantitative survey, using identified themes from the qualitative phase as a foundation for quantitative analysis. In a mixed methods study about food safety knowledge in Hispanic families with young children, Reference Stenger, Ritter-Gooder, Perry and AlberchtStenger et al. (2014) began their study with a qualitative inquiry using focus groups, followed by a quantitative survey. Similarly, qualitative methods can be utilised by researchers to gain access to young children’s specific knowledge about patterning skills in order to develop theoretical concepts; these findings can then be used to inform the quantitative sub-study (Reference Luken and SauzetLuken & Sauzet, 2021). Here, the quantitative methods can be used to provide the researchers with an overview of the domain under study and describe its heterogeneity.

Questionnaire-Driven Qualitative Exploration: Also sequential, beginning with a questionnaire to uncover issues, followed by qualitative exploration of identified topics with a purposively chosen sample. A mixed methods approach can be employed to explore young children’s participation in diverse educational settings, utilising a demographic questionnaire followed by a narrative data collection strategy (Reference Benjamin, Lucas-Thompson, Little, Davies and KhetaniBenjamin et al., 2017). Similarly, in a mixed methods investigation, the researchers can begin with a questionnaire to explore the effects of education provision on preschool children’s attainment, social, and behavioural development upon school entry and even later, followed by observational data and interviews with in-depth case studies (Reference Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford and SylvaSammons et al., 2005).

Multi-Phase Sequential Mixed Methods Analysis: Utilises a sequential pattern with multiple phases, alternating between questionnaire, qualitative exploration, and experimental testing, aimed at building a conceptual understanding and conducting statistical analysis. In a large cohort mixed methods study, the researchers initiated their study with a large questionnaire, followed by an in-depth qualitative investigation and finishing their study with a statistical analysis about novel situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Reference Nguyen, Stuart and ShahNguyen et al., 2023).

Concurrent Mixed Methods Inquiry: Employs concurrent quantitative and qualitative methods within a single study, allowing for demographic analysis, statistical assessment of ratings responses, and qualitative coding of open-ended questions, facilitating comprehensive data interpretation. In their study about risky play in early childhood, Reference LeMasters and Vandermaas-PeelerLeMasters and Vandermaas-Peeler (2023) initiated their study by conducting a survey that concluded with five open-ended questions, followed by observations, focus groups and semi-structured interviews. In an iterative mixed methods study, Reference Liebenberg, Ungar and SarachoLiebenberg and Ungar (2015) worked with marginalised populations initiating the study with a quantitative approach and simultaneously integrated a qualitative design to collect relevant data simultaneously. Here, children were involved as co-researchers, where a photo-elicitation approach to data collection was used, thus demonstrating that young children are capable of participating in various stages of a mixed methods study design and data analysis. The researchers conclude that they were able to ensure internal validity and generalisability of the resilience construct, and improve the research design.

Together, these studies showcase the versatility of mixed methods research and highlight the importance of tailoring designs to research questions and aims. Careful consideration of mixed methods dimensions allows for new theoretical and paradigmatic reflections, offering researchers opportunities for comprehensive investigation and insight generation (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020).

6.5 Triangulation, Reliability, and Validity

Mixed methods research can help address concerns related to the internal validity and generalisability currently present in early childhood research, across cultures. Combining quantitative and qualitative data collection methods offers greater opportunities for triangulation and may strengthen the validity, reliability, dependability, credibility, and accuracy of the findings (Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018). Different data sources are validated via different methods, which in turn provide multiple perspectives, improving the validity and reliability of the findings and conclusions (Reference Liebenberg, Ungar and SarachoLiebenberg & Ungar, 2015).

Triangulation of the data, or the validation of research findings by comparing different data sources, is at the core of a mixed methods research design (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020; Reference Gooding, Schuster and StuartGooding, 2021; Reference Luken and SauzetLuken & Suazet, 2021). Triangulation involves corroborating findings from qualitative and quantitative data to assess the credibility of inferences. Beyond methods, respondent validation, engaging with participants’ perspectives, is crucial for ensuring validity across research approaches. Since mixed methods research integrates multiple research methods, triangulation promises greater rigour of the study design and the research process (Reference Liebenberg, Ungar and SarachoLiebenberg & Ungar, 2015). Through triangulation of the data from multiple methods or lenses simultaneously, alternative perspectives could be obtained because findings from quantitative data can be compared with findings from quantitative data (Reference MertensMertens, 2015).

In mixed methods research, quantitative and qualitative techniques are seen as complementary perspectives, seeking to answer the research questions in intuitive and expansive ways, while meeting the needs of multiple audiences for results. However, Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al. (2018) argue that the claim of mixed methods research being complementary is not justifiable in that it is up to the researchers to decide whether a method is complementary or whether it supplements the study. When deciding whether to choose a mixed methods approach, researchers should assess whether the method itself can adequately address the research questions independently, rather than emphasising how the methods might mutually enhance each other (complementary) or provide additional support or insights (supplementary). Ultimately, a strong mixed methods study asks what could be gained and/or lost by using mixed methods research; how the method deals with the objectivity and the subjectivity of the study; and how would the study turn out by not using mixed methods research.

6.6 Critiques of Mixed Methods

Mixed methods research has gained traction in early childhood educational research due to its ability to provide a comprehensive understanding of complex social phenomena (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Indeed, many researchers acknowledge the benefits of mixed methods research in effectively managing the interplay between qualitative and quantitative methods (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Yet mixed methods research is not the answer for every research project (Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018; Reference Creswell and Plano ClarkCreswell & Plano Clark, 2018). The process and degree of integration, known as mixing and assimilation of data, present major challenges. In fact, the recent developments in mixed methods research have generated an array of insightful critiques regarding the theoretical development and methodological practices of this research approach (Reference Corr, Snodgrass, Greene, Meadan and SantosCorr et al., 2020; Reference Fàbregues, Escalante-Barrios, Molina-Azorin, Hong and VerdFàbregues et al., 2021).

Most criticism in the field is related to the definition of mixed methods, as well as its philosophy, procedures, and politics (Reference Creswell and Plano ClarkCreswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Reference Fàbregues, Escalante-Barrios, Molina-Azorin, Hong and VerdFàbregues et al., 2021). Combining quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis in one study may be difficult as both methodologies follow different ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies, axiologies, data types, and so on (Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018). Specifically, the different epistemological and philosophical frameworks guiding mixed methods research make it difficult for many researchers to ensure its suitability for the research design, as well as its robustness and reliability of the research findings (Reference Dawadi, Shrestha and GiriDawadi et al., 2021). As a result, some critics question whether a mixed methods approach is even a paradigm, and numerous questions remain unanswered (Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018).

Mixed methods research aims to produce an outcome that surpasses the mere combination of qualitative and quantitative components. Yet the feasibility of integrating qualitative and quantitative methods is questioned due to the conflicting nature of data generated from incompatible methods (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Consequently, mixed methods research requires researchers to acquire the skills of both quantitative and qualitative research approaches, in addition to a solid grounding in mixed methods methodology before designing mixed methods research (Reference Creswell and Plano ClarkCreswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Achieving this outcome requires striking a balance between the two datasets without marginalising either method.

Mixed methods research poses increasing demands on researchers because it is time-consuming and requires a variety of resources to meet the needs of both qualitative and quantitative data collection, integration, and analysis (Reference Creswell and Plano ClarkCreswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Reference Dawadi, Shrestha and GiriDawadi et al., 2021). Other challenges of mixed methods research include verifying inferences from convergent data, interpreting discrepancies, and explicitly reporting insights gained from both approaches (Reference Corr, Snodgrass, Greene, Meadan and SantosCorr et al., 2020; Reference Plano Clark and IvankovaPlano Clark & Ivankova, 2016). As a result, data collection can be lengthy, and considering the amount of data generated, data analysis can be difficult to integrate (Reference Barata, Yoshikawa, Ben-Arieh, Casas, Frønes and KorbinBarata & Yosikawa, 2014). In fact, there is ongoing debate about the status of qualitative research within mixed methods, with concerns that it may be relegated to a supporting role. Therefore, it’s crucial for both qualitative and quantitative data to be treated with equal rigour to ensure credible inferences (Reference Creswell and Plano ClarkCreswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Reference Cohen, Manion and MorrisonCohen et al., 2018).

The researchers’ alignment with diverse communities of practice seems to influence the way the divergent methodological approaches are applied in mixed methods research (Reference Fàbregues, Escalante-Barrios, Molina-Azorin, Hong and VerdFàbregues et al., 2021). Some scholars argue for a more extensive qualitative approach driven by a social justice agenda within mixed methods designs, emphasising the importance of diversity and transformative social justice projects (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). In mixed methods research, researchers are to recognise and explain the underlying frameworks guiding their design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation processes, thus enhancing the rigour and quality of mixed methods research (Reference Corr, Snodgrass, Greene, Meadan and SantosCorr et al., 2020).

6.7 Concluding Comments

This section examined mixed methods research as a way of looking at the social world of young children from different perspectives. Employing a mixed methods design demands thoughtful consideration and sophistication beyond simply combining methods. Rather, researchers need to carefully assess the appropriateness of a mixed methods approach and establish a clear purpose for their study. Important decisions regarding research questions, paradigms, and data collection methods need to be made to effectively address the research objectives.

This section also raised some challenges of the use of mixed methods in early childhood research. Understanding the variations in mixed methods research helps researchers weigh the strengths and limitations to determine if it aligns with their study’s goals. When well planned and executed, mixed methods studies can contribute to generating innovative research agendas in early childhood education, and provide insights into complex social phenomena, enhancing the validity and reliability of findings, and reconciling contradictions between quantitative and qualitative results (Reference Flewitt and AngFlewitt & Ang, 2020). Finally, a well-designed mixed methods study can uncover new knowledge in early childhood education by allowing methodologies to inform each other effectively.

7.1 What Next?

This Element provides the theoretical and practical tools to undertake research in early childhood. Yet there is important work ahead for early childhood researchers. Further research into understanding young children’s worlds through diverse methods is still required. The diverse research methods discussed in this Element could be used to explore complex issues that young children might find difficult to talk about in diverse sociocultural settings.

Further implementation of diverse research methods that are culturally sensitive to the children’s needs offers potential opportunities to increase the impact of early childhood research and enhance young children’s voices and agency in research about issues that matter to them. This is an important endeavour because unless children’s voices are listened to and understood, it is unlikely that their voices will be taken seriously. When children’s voices are taken seriously in policy and practice, the resultant outcome will be more socially and culturally relevant to children’s lives and experiences, therefore enhancing their rights and agency more broadly.

7.2 Ethical Dissemination

The temporal aspect of children’s participation in research is worth taking into consideration, especially since such a process is built on trust, and the level of influence and interdependence in the child–adult relationship. Children’s participation in research presents researchers with ethical, methodological, and practical dilemmas (Reference BishopBishop, 2014; Reference Bradbury-Jones, Isham and TaylorBradbury-Jones et al., 2018). In research that is still overwhelmingly interpreted and disseminated by adults, how can children’s voices be equally and ethically disseminated?

The main aim of dissemination is to create change, for example, by influencing policy or teacher training programmes. Multiple modes of dissemination exist. Some modes of dissemination are more accessible to children than others. These can include online sources such as blogs, policy papers, and public presentations. It is increasingly common in educational research to include a number of stakeholders and/or participants, ranging from children, teachers, parents, professionals, researchers, and policymakers, as part of the dissemination process.

With the rise of digital media, the dissemination of research findings via video material shared online is becoming more mainstream. However, tracing the material can become almost impossible to control especially when there is a breach of participant confidentiality. Ethical dissemination of early childhood research includes (a) seeking the consent of children and their families prior to making the material public; (b) conducting a final feedback interview to help children select which data they want to share; and (c) seeking the approval of transcription and analysis of audio and visual data prior to dissemination (Reference Johnson, Colwell and HartJohnson et al., 2014). Therefore, early childhood researchers have ethical responsibilities to share research findings in ways that protect children’s anonymity while simultaneously honouring their voices. In conclusion, it is my greatest hope that these approaches will help create new research stories that will improve the field of early childhood research and put children’s voices at the forefront of cutting-edge research.