This article was downloaded by: [University of Tehran]On: 21 September 2013, At: 01:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of SocialResearch MethodologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsrm20

Giving children a ‘voice’: arts-basedparticipatory research activities andrepresentationKanwal Mand aa School of Applied Social Sciences, Mayfield House, University ofBrighton, Brighton, BN1 9PH, UKPublished online: 24 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Kanwal Mand (2012) Giving children a ‘voice’: arts-based participatory researchactivities and representation, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15:2, 149-160,DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2012.649409

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2012.649409

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Giving children a ‘voice’: arts-based participatory researchactivities and representation

Kanwal Mand*

School of Applied Social Sciences, Mayfield House, University of Brighton, BrightonBN1 9PH, UK

(Received 20 October 2010; final version received 30 September 2011)

This paper looks at the use of participatory arts-based methods with pre-teen chil-dren, of Bangladeshi heritage, within a school context. The paper addresses therelationship between how childhood is conceptualised and the methodologicalissues arising. In particular, the paper focuses on the use of participatory and crea-tive child-centred practices that seek to include children’s ‘voices’. Through anaccount of producing artwork for an exhibition, based on the research, the paperaddresses issues concerning power in the representation of children’s ‘voices’.

Keywords: migration; participatory; voice; representation; children; power

Introduction

Research on children in migratory circumstances is growing as an area of research inthe social sciences (see various contributions to Gardner & Mand, 2012; NíLaoire,Méndez, Tyrrell, & White, 2010). Additionally, inquiries into children’s experiencesof migration are using a diversity of approaches such as visual and participatory prac-tices alongside other qualitative approaches involving interviews and observation(White, Bushin, Méndez, & NíLaoire, 2010; Zeitlyn & Mand, 2012). This paperdraws from a research project ‘Home and Away’,1 which explored the experiences ofSouth Asian children (of Bangladeshi heritage), who are transnationally mobile to andfrom London and Bangladesh (Sylhet), as members of families. We were interested inhow children, who have been marginal in the literature on South Asian transnational-ism, experience and represent their mobility across places.

As well as seeking to bring children to the fore in migration research, one ofthe broader aims of the study was to develop innovative methods in migrationresearch. Questions concerning how, where and to what effect we conduct researchon mobility (migrants), as opposed to sedentary lives, have led (in anthropology) tocalls for methodological innovations and reflexivity (Mand, 2011; Olwig-Fog &Hastrup, 1997). Gardner’s (2002) work on elderly Bangladeshi migrants’ narratives,that are told and retold across places, has shown how narratives intersect with thelife course. A cursory glance at the literature on ‘childhood’ within the social sci-ences raised the significance of research practices when working with children sug-gesting terms such as ‘child centred’, participatory and creative methodologies.

*Email: k.mand@brighton.ac.uk

International Journal of Social Research MethodologyVol. 15, No. 2, March 2012, 149–160

ISSN 1364-5579 print/ISSN 1464-5300 online� 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2012.649409http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

ehra

n] a

t 01:

25 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Therefore, the research proposal and design drew inspiration from the debatesvoiced by childhood researchers concerning methods, ethics and power relationsinherent in working with children.

In this paper, I look back at the experiences of conducting research with chil-dren (between 9 and 10 years of age during the data collection phase), using partici-patory arts-based activities in two schools in the London borough of TowerHamlets. In both schools, I conducted workshops involving participatory activitiesand sought to work in collaboration with non-academics. From the onset, we identi-fied the V&A Museum of Childhood as collaborators and proposed to work withartists to hang an exhibition of children’s representations of transnational lives.

The paper starts by outlining concepts surrounding childhood and the methodo-logical implications. Following this, I give a description of the contexts and produc-tion of children’s artwork at the two schools. The final section focuses on thepolitics of arts-based research in the move from participation to representation.

Conceptualising childhood and research practices

Traditionally, children have been deemed irrelevant to the major concerns of anthro-pology and hence, according to Hirschfield, a failure to understanding the ways inwhich they ‘create and inhabit cultures of their own making’ (Hirschfeld, 2002, p.612). Whilst he laments the omission of children as active agents, the methodologi-cal and ethical concerns that arise in researching children remain peripheral. ForHirschfield, researching children is seen as being the same as adults, an issue ofconsiderable ethical and methodological debate amongst childhood researchers. Onecritique posed of aligning children as being the same as adults centres on powerimbalances between adult researchers and children (i.e. Punch, 2002a). In addition,as James’ et al. (1998) work indicates, how we conceptualise children influencesthe methods and she outlines a typology which includes the ‘adult-child’ (Hirsch-feld, 2002); the ‘tribal’ child; the ‘developing child’ and the ‘social child’.

The notion of children moving through stages of development, studied throughexperimentation and observation has been seen as less central by some social scien-tists (e.g. Morrow & Richards, 1996). One of the criticisms of conceptualisingchildhood along the lines of developmental stages is the assumption of childhoodas a universal experience devoid of social, political and economic structures withinwhich children are emplaced (Katz, 2004). For others, children are seen as distinctfrom adults, whereby they constitute a ‘tribe’ of their own, proposing a methodol-ogy based around ethnographic observation. Proponents argue that ethnographicapproaches allow a ‘dialogue’ with children and do not gloss over issues of power,voice and representation (Christensen 2004). Indeed, during the early stages of thisresearch, observation was possible in the classroom during lessons although withvery limited opportunities of interaction. Although opportunities to be more partici-pative were there, namely during lunch times and play times, overall there was alack of spaces where participant observation could occur owing to children’s posi-tion in the school structure (Olwig-Fog & Gullov, 2003). The limitations of partici-pant observation are further notable as ‘adults are unable to be full participants inchildren’s social worlds because they can never truly be children again’ (Punch,2002a, p. 322). Nevertheless, the research used a combination of methods, includingethnographic methods, such as participant observation and interviews using props(tool kit) which stimulated discussion and captured children’s attention (Punch,

150 K. Mand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

ehra

n] a

t 01:

25 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

2002b). The approach of using multiple methods and modifying them follows con-ceptualising children along the fourth typology outlined by James (1993) as the‘social child’. This position recognises that childhood is relational to adulthood andthat children have different capabilities; accordingly, research practices need modi-fying to work with children’s own capacities (Morrow & Richards, 1996). Theseideas were adopted in the research design, whereby alongside interviews and partic-ipant observation, activities were planned involving drawings, writing and role play.The activities were piloted with a separate year group in one of the schools, a pro-cess which allowed for the refinement of the methods as well as bringing to theresearcher’s attention the themes not considered in the original design.

Participatory research practices

What is considered participatory research and the modes of practice and resultanteffects require disentangling. Participatory techniques were first developed in thefield of development studies, within which techniques were developed and utilisedto engage with people who are on the margins of society (i.e. women, the elderly)in the developing world. Participatory techniques were fostered to be more inclusiveand an important mechanism through which this was achieved involved a shift froman overt focus on the scribal towards representation by placing accessible materialsuch as stones and sticks onto available surfaces. Underlying the use of participa-tory activities is a commitment to ‘access voices’ and to create a space where these‘voices’ can be heard. Additionally, given the context of development within whichparticipatory research practices were founded, the expectation is to highlight prob-lems and seek solutions leading to change (McTaggart, 1997). Closely aligned tothese principles, participation refers to taking on concerns from the bottom up andcan translate to the research agenda being driven by the participants. This wouldinvolve, for example, children setting up the agenda for research, working alongsideresearchers in data collection, analysis and dissemination.

Nevertheless, commonly there is a distinction in participatory research between‘emancipatory’ research, where participants control the research process, and ‘par-ticipatory’ research that involves participants (children) as generators of data(Punch, 2002a, p. 322). Thomson (2008) argues that participatory research is notabout methods; rather it is a research arena involving social interaction. She goesonto highlight, that amongst child researchers using participatory methods, there isa ‘tendency to employ a meta-narrative of “children” that is based on the polarised,fixed and separated identities of child and adult’. This ‘meta-narrative’, whichimplies a top-down approach is, as Thomson indicates, at odds with the ethos ofparticipatory approaches that are bottom-up (Thomson, 2008, p. 207).

Participatory practices are underlined with a political commitment to give‘voice’ to those who are marginal and, according to James (2007), dovetails with aparticular construction of childhood in western society. As James argues, the focuson children’s ‘voice’, bolstered through global level declarations (i.e. United NationConventions) suggests a homogenous experience of childhood and hence a singular‘voice’ which, by extension, is equally valued and heard. James (2007) draws fromfeminism to suggest that listening to children’s voices is not enough; rather there isa need to explore the ramifications of what children are telling us and how we usethis knowledge. Furthermore, drawing from the field of anthropology, she suggeststhat there are pitfalls behind the notion of ‘voice’, particularly in ‘presenting

International Journal of Social Research Methodology 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

ehra

n] a

t 01:

25 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

children’s accounts of the world as a new kind of “truth”’. For James, there is aneed to ‘challenge the new “text positivism” and “dispersed authorship” thatassumes research done with or by children – including “what children say” – is anauthentic (and hence unproblematic) representation of children’s voices’ (James,2007, p. 263). I will return to these issues in the final discussion. However, for nowwe need to know more about the context of research.

The schools and wider context of artwork

The research took place in two schools2 in the London borough of Tower Hamletswhere large numbers of Bangladeshi families live and is reflected in the ethnic com-position of the schools (Gardner, 2002; Mand, 2010). There were key differencesbetween the two schools; at Victoria Primary School in the year, there were 60 stu-dents, of which 54 were of Bangladeshi heritage. In contrast, at Shetley, in theequivalent year, all 15 children were of Bangladeshi background. My activities inthe two sites differed. At Victoria school, I spent over 18months conducting differ-ent participatory activities, interviews and observation as well as art workshops.The participatory activities included amongst other things, ranking and mapping(people, places and practices), drawing family trees that located members sociallyand spatially, fictional writing and role play. At Shetley, however, participatoryworkshops were limited towards the production of artwork around the theme ofjourneys.

One of the proposed outputs for the research was an exhibition, at the V&AMuseum of Childhood, of art produced by the children working alongside practis-ing artists. Recommendations for artists came through a variety of sources, i.e. localcultural organisations, councils, school teachers and through the museum’s commu-nity participation officer. The museum’s role in the research was specified in thefunding application; they would provide contacts, space and skills necessary forhanging the exhibition. Additionally, the museum sought to fulfil one of their ownobjectives, namely to draw in ‘non-traditional audiences’ (in this case the local Ban-gladeshi community) into the museum.

Victoria Primary School

During the first six months at Victoria Primary School, I spent my time observingan identified year group of children aged between seven and eight in the classroomduring break times and I regularly took my lunch with them. Simultaneously, a pilotphase of the research practices was under way with a separate year group (aged 9–10) with whom some key themes were identified and methods were tested. Overthe course of time, the children took part in a series of art workshops alongside anartist, Sarah, who was employed as part of the research project. In a few cases, Ideveloped relationships with individual children and their family members outsidethe school context. Nevertheless, the bulk of the activities took place when the chil-dren were in their penultimate year (five) at Victoria Primary School.

Through a series of meetings with Sarah, a plan was drawn up regarding the art-work to be produced at Victoria Primary School. We considered what we might askthe children to do, in consideration with activities listed in the national curriculumand the themes of the research. I explained to Sarah, the adoption of the terms‘home’ and ‘away’ as they pertained to elderly Bangladeshis (the parents or grand-

152 K. Mand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

ehra

n] a

t 01:

25 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

parents of the children). For elderly Bangladeshi migrants desh (home) and bidesh(away) are an expression of belonging, associated with different forms of symbolicand material capital and mediated by gender identities and the life course (Gardner,2002). Although Sarah had not worked specifically with children, she had workedwith elderly South Asian migrants in London. Despite the pre-defined themes of theresearch, I was keen to stress the artwork be flexible for children to express them-selves and the possibility of new themes.

Sarah was introduced to the children at Victoria, and we explained the purposeof her working with them towards the exhibition. The year group was divided intotwo groups, all of whom were given a sketch book, and asked to sketch images thatthey related to ‘home’ and separate sketches connected to being ‘away’. They weregiven a list of the following choices to inform their sketches: a decoration/pattern;something natural/organic (a plant and tree); personal item (jewellery and phone); apiece of clothing; a sign/word (name); something man-made (washing machine); aspecial thing; a person or living thing and a flag, map, monument.

The children transformed their sketches to produce impressions to form prints aswell as drawings and embroidery.3 They began by outlining (impressing upon) theirchosen image of ‘home’ and ‘away’ onto triangular pieces of polystyrene. Thesewere then covered in red or blue printing ink and then rolled out onto brown paper.Using permanent crayons, children drew images on plastic triangular pieces andembroidered images onto cloth pieces. The choice of image that represented ‘home’and ‘away’ was left entirely up to the children’s discretion and collectively speakingthere was considerable variety in the images produced. However, there was a ten-dency of girls to draw items such as jewellery, clothing and teddy bears, whilstboys were drawing aeroplanes and or the emblems of football teams. Certainobjects, however, cut across gender such as mobile phones, electronic games suchas ‘Play Station’ and ‘Kamagotchi’. Working with children in the context of theclassroom has an impact on what the children produce, particularly the spatial lay-out within which children worked influenced the depiction. For example, closeproximity to one another on shared tables in groups meant that a similar set ofimages were produced (White et al., 2010).

Sarah and I had agreed that asking the children to produce images onto a trian-gular image would go towards producing bunting. The bunting was to be hungaround the space given for the exhibition by the museum.4 Furthermore, buntingensured that all the children’s representations would be part of the exhibition, andthe activities undertaken introduced new skills whilst others centred on buildingupon children’s prior experiences. For example, print making had not been under-taken by the year group while embroidery potentially developed their techniques inneedle work, as a year earlier they had made cloth purses. Whilst there was anoverarching framework given to the children, fairly early into the print-making pro-cess, we realised the distinction we made, between ‘home’ and ‘away’ representedin blue and red ink (colours chosen as they are bold), did not necessarily stand inchildren’s representations. So, whilst images of ponds made up of blue prints(depicting away) were readily identifiable and spoken of by the children as experi-ences when in Bangladesh, there was not always a neat translation between ‘home’and ‘away’ (places). One such example is Figure 1, depicted in blue ink of the Brit-ish flag, the Bangladeshi flag and one of a football team supported by the child.

International Journal of Social Research Methodology 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

ehra

n] a

t 01:

25 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Shetley Primary School

My time at Shetley Primary School was comparatively brief owing to a change ofplan by the head teacher. As a result, I worked with the 15 children over the courseof three afternoons and a daylong workshop with another artist. The artist whoworked with the children at Shetley Primary School identified himself as an urbanspiritual artist, is of Bangladeshi background and in his mid-30s. He had an extensiveexperience of working with children and young people and I found his detailsthrough a database of Muslim artists held by a cultural organisation, ‘Rich Mix’, inEast London. The decision to use graffiti as a mode of expression was mine, basedon observations of the locality, where the children live, and through discussions withthem at Victoria school. The motivation to employ an artist of a similar backgroundto children was to give an opportunity for the children to meet a practising artist,whom they could relate to ethnically5 and in a medium that would be fun. Duringour initial conversations, the artist indicated how his life experiences resonated withthose of the children. He spoke about his wife coming from East London and thepresence of graffiti in the localities where the children live. The affinity he felt withthe research project extended to him lending a piece of artwork that captured hischildhood to be hung as part of the exhibition. Such a personal investment was poi-gnant alluding to a sense of shared identity with the children as a Muslim and, part ofcommunity who maintained (transnational) connections across places.

The theme of journeys, made across places, the life course and spiritual onescame to the fore through the activities with children at Victoria. Alongside literaljourneys taken to and from Bangladesh, children spoke about ‘spiritual’ journeysthat they were undertaking involving attending lessons for the majority on a dailybasis after school. During these lessons, children learn the Arabic alphabet to be

Figure 1. Image produced by a participant at ‘Victoria Primary School’, depicting theBritish and Bangladeshi flags (right of triangle), and the participants’ football team emblem.

154 K. Mand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

ehra

n] a

t 01:

25 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

able to read the Koran which occurs through stages (chapters). For children, theability of moving through the stages of learning to recite the Koran was intertwinedwith notions of ‘growing up’. Furthermore, for some of the girls wearing a headscarf was a sign of taking responsibility and growing spirituality. The passage oftime (life course) was often spoken as what was once practised and no longerengaged with, for example playing or being interested in particular television pro-grammes or toys. The notion of leaving ‘childish’ things behind and embracingbeing a Muslim was repeatedly narrated during interviews.

The flexibility to incorporate themes arising from the children’s participation atVictoria made it feasible to include children’s ‘voices’ within the research and art-work. The first workshop at Sheltley involved the children and I discussing whatwas meant by terms such as spiritual. I sought to elicit responses from them asopposed to directing them, give a definition so as not to have an impact on theirsketches. Following several accounts of spirits and ghosts as the possible meaningfor spiritual – one child shouted ‘oh like religion’ prompting the tone of the discus-sion to move to what the children deemed as religious and their understandings ofthis. Key to the discussion were the five pillars of Islam and some of the childrenwent on to draw some of these, for example of a figure ‘giving charity’, the prayermat and Mecca. Other children wrote quotations from the Koran, drew sketches ofhow to pray, depicting where hands are placed (in accordance to gender) and theTaweez (amulet containing Koranic verses) (see Figure 2).

These sketches were the raw material for three 8 by 4 feet graffiti boards. I tookthe sketches, produced by the children, to the artist to discuss the translation of thesketches into graffiti and how the children would be engaged in the production of

Figure 2. Image of the ‘Taweez’ (an amulet containing Koranic verses), produced by aparticipant at ‘Shetley Primary School’.

International Journal of Social Research Methodology 155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

ehra

n] a

t 01:

25 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

the boards on the day of the workshop. The artist looked at all the sketches andsuggested that he would form tentative outlines and these would be sprayed in bythe children. This process was a surprise to me as I had thought that the childrenwould produce the outlines too. On reflection, I understand that I had not thoughtthrough the nature of graffiti work which requires an overall coherence. Therefore,rather than have each child do graffiti work individually, the artist would sketch anoutline based on children’s journey sketches. However, the sketches proved to behighly controversial, as the artist felt some of the representations of the spiritualjourney were not ‘Islamic’. I was taken aback by his suggestion, for although Iknew that drawing human beings is considered unfitting, by some Muslims, I hadnot expected particular practices to be so. The artist singled out particular images,for example that featuring postures during prayer, the drawing of a character com-plete with a face asking for charity and the image of the Taweez. For the artist,these images presented ‘culture’ and were not religious. He claimed that those whowere ‘backward and from the village [Bangladesh]’ performed such practices andthat the depiction of faces is forbidden in Islam. I felt that this process of selectingimages, in itself, stifled children’s ‘voices’ and during our discussions I began tofeel that the agenda was now shifting away from children to that of the artist. Inmany ways, this process felt like the antithesis of participatory practices as I feltunable to challenge the artist over and beyond our discussion about what would beincorporated.

Giving children a ‘voice’: from arts-based participatory research to representation

Participatory research practices and visual methods

There is a small yet growing literature about the use of visual methods as participa-tory practices when researching children. White et al. (2010) illustrate the necessityof focusing on children’s drawing as product for data analysis and on the process ofthese productions. The way they focused on the process was through a ‘draw andtalk’ approach, involving a dialogue with the children about the drawing as itoccurred (White et al., 2010, pp. 146–147). Nevertheless, ‘draw and talk’ as a prac-tice has limitations. For example, owing to the large number of children at Victoriaschool asking (all) children (individually) about their drawings as they producedthem was not feasible, although drawings were reflected upon during interviews.However, I was able to observe and engage on a one-to-one basis, with the childrenat Shetley, as they drew sketches concerning journeys given that there were 15 ofthem.

Visual methods, such as drawings, have been attributed as being child centredfor they enable children to participate through an activity they enjoy, which is saidto be in line with their capabilities (Mitchell, 2006). Furthermore, visual methodsare a way through which children are able to represent experiences unconfined bylanguage and literacy (White et al., 2010). Reflecting on their research, White et al.(2010) suggest that; ‘participative techniques did facilitate, to a point, communica-tion in children’s own terms’ (Ibid. 153). In many ways, visual methods take on theideals of a participatory framework. They are interpreted as giving a ‘voice’, a wayof releasing control of the research and enabling the diversity of experiences thatmake up children’s lives to be represented (White et al., 2010). Indeed, through thedrawings produced by children at Victoria primary, the research agenda opened up

156 K. Mand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

ehra

n] a

t 01:

25 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

to include new themes for investigation such as journeys, which became a focus atShetley. However, as we have seen children’s voices became muted in the processof transformation from sketches to graffiti boards.

The graffiti boards were produced in a daylong workshop within the schoolplayground. Before the activity, the artist spoke to the children in the class aboutIslam and his experiences as a child and as a practising artist. He stressed thatgraffiti artwork differs from ‘vandalism’ and began sketching the images that wouldmake up the boards. The children enjoyed the experience of producing the graffitias they all were given protective clothing, glasses as well as masks, and workedoutside alongside the artist. As the images came together many exclaims of wonderwere made by the children.

The space to represent children’s voices

A space for hanging the exhibition was decided early on in the research project inliaison with the museum staff. However, over the course of time there was an alter-ation owing to the decision made by the authorities to place a (museum) shop atthe site earmarked for our project. We were given another site, this time close tothe museum entrance. This new space meant that the artwork, which had been con-structed with the (original) space in mind, had to be reconsidered. For example, therationale behind producing red and blue prints at Victoria was to create bunting,however, owing to the logistics of the space allocated by the museum, these printswere constructed (by the exhibition design artist) into triangular banners. Thesewere hung above stairwells, due to the space available, and in line with museumguidelines had to be beyond the grasp of children. The height at which these weredisplayed and the structure of the banners made it difficult to see the intricacies ofchildren’s representations.

The design of the exhibition began six months before launch day and involvedintricate planning, in line with the spatial dimensions available and, the availableprints and objects6 to display. For example, along with the exhibition designer allthe artwork produced by the children were scrutinised for visual impact. Therefore,not all of the children’s representations (voices) were part of the exhibition due tospatial restrictions and, the necessity to have a visual effect that drove the agenda.Like other exhibitions hung at the museum, the ‘Home and Away’ exhibition wasaccompanied by text, which described the artwork and told the story of the researchproject and its findings. This was written by the researchers under strict criteriafrom the museum concerning language (it needed to be accessible to children), thefont, the material used to exhibit the text and where the textual information islocated. Therefore, in the space of the exhibition, children’s representations, albeitvisual, are modified by the structure of the museum and overridden through thetextual narrative provided by the researchers.

Children’s voices and authority

Along with the work produced at Victoria school comprising two and three dimen-sional pieces that were suspended from the roof or fixed onto the walls, the exhibi-tion included three boards of graffiti from Shetley School. The boards representingthe journey across the life course were made up of mobile phones, a teddy bear anda woman (wearing a headscarf) with no facial features with a background image of

International Journal of Social Research Methodology 157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

ehra

n] a

t 01:

25 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

tower blocks and road signs stating Tower Hamlets. At the very bottom was a quotegiven by a child concerning parenting, drawn from the Koran. The board represent-ing spiritual journeys contained images sketched by the children, of the KaabinMecca, Allah written in Arabic and a prayer mat. The journey across places boardhoned in on movement. On the right side of the board was a London black cab, inthe middle an aeroplane and on the left a rickshaw and boat. A signpost stood inthe middle of the board signalled ‘home’ to the left (pointing to images of the rick-shaw suggestive of Bangladesh) and to the right (image of the black cab suggestiveof London). None of the boards depicted the image of the placing of hands duringprayers, nor the cartoon character invoking charity or of the Taweez.

James’ (2007) critique concerning where the child’s ‘voice’ enters the researchframe and to what effect are highly pertinent given the experiences of this researchproject. Although the activities at Victoria gave opportunities to incorporate chil-dren’s perspectives into future artwork, the process of representation (especially thegraffiti boards) and the context (the museum) played a significant role. Furthermore,whilst James speaks about the dangers of assuming children’s voices as ‘authentic’,the experience at Shetley demonstrates how children’s voices are deemed inauthen-tic, demonstrating the need to underline power in the context of research with chil-dren (Christensen, 2004). Meanwhile, although White et al. (2010) indicate theneed to look at the process through which drawings are produced, there remains anassumption of drawing as an apolitical activity. Rather, as the artist working withthe children at Shetley indicated, a particular version of Islam forbids drawing liv-ing organisms. The need to focus on the ‘cultural contexts of the production [ofchildren’s voices]’ becomes all the more pertinent if we are to move away fromapolitical and ethnocentric assumptions regarding children (James, 2007, p. 265).

The boards hung at the exhibition made a startling impression; they were pol-ished pieces of work and highly vibrant due to the mode of expression (graffiti wasproduced using bright colours) and in content (the image of the veiled woman, theKaab). Nevertheless, what occurred through the process of working alongside theartist and the resultant exhibition was a silencing of children’s ‘controversial’ per-spectives notably in their ideas of spiritual practices. These perspectives were firstdiscredited by the artist, who held a particular position, and instead moulded to fit aparticular version of Islam based on an ‘adult’ perspective. A further process ofsilencing occurred from participation to representation owing to the textual normsof the exhibitions. Therefore, whilst visual methods are ways through which chil-dren can express themselves and are enjoyable, as it undoubtedly was for majorityat Victoria and Shetley, the presentational norms of the museum re-insert the author-ity of the researcher through the narrative accompanying the images. The suggestionof taking on board lessons from anthropology, involving the ‘deconstruction of eth-nographic authority from participant observation’ is insightful and relevant (James,2007, p. 265). Despite our participatory frameworks and the deployment of child-centred methods, including visual methodologies, the lessons from Shetley and Vic-toria demonstrate a need to problematise the notion of children’s voices and theways and contexts within which these are represented.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have reflected on the use of participatory research practices, and inparticular the use of visual methods, in two schools with a majority of Bangladeshi

158 K. Mand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

ehra

n] a

t 01:

25 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

children. The research involved collaborations with the V&A Museum of Childhoodas well as artists, two of whom worked directly with the children towards a majorexhibition at the museum. The overarching position taken on the research was childcentred, whereby children were conceptualised as social actors who neverthelesshad particular competencies. However, despite the participatory ideals of theresearch, activities were structured to fit into dedicated periods of time and agendaswere pre-determined by the researcher, the artist, and in turn were governed by therespective funding (proposal).

The paper draws attention to how participatory research practices are a waythrough which children’s agendas can be integrated into the research, as the themeof journeys illustrates, and lead to the ‘democratisation of research’.7 At the sametime, the paper demonstrates the ‘muting’ of children’s voices in spite of the partici-patory agenda and in particular at the point of representation in the public space ofthe museum. The exhibition entailed weeding out particular perspectives in accountof the ‘quality’ of artwork; hence not all children’s representations were included.At the same time, the norms and practice of hanging exhibitions at the museummeant that an authorised ‘adult’ text that narrated the exhibition accompanied therepresentations made by the children. The omission of children’s ideas about spiri-tual practices is the most telling manner in which children’s voices were ‘muted’.This indicated a need to interrogate the process of working with children and howthis is represented returning to issues of voice, power and authority (Christensen,2004; James, 2007).

Notes1. ‘Home and Away: South Asian children’s representations and experiences of transnation-

alism’ was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council under the Diasporas,Migration and Identities programme (2006–2010). The research involved me workingalongside Katy Gardner.

2. The schools and one of the artists have been given pseudonyms. I have not used theactual name of the artist who worked at Shetley.

3. Owing to the limitation of space, I am describing one group’s output. The other groupwas given the same brief and produced three dimensional representations.

4. The final exhibition did not have bunting in the conventional sense as changes weremade, by the museum authorities, where the exhibition would be hung.

5. During this period, I was attending ‘Brick Lane Circle’ meetings where there was a dis-cussion about a diversity of role models for the children.

6. There were other art pieces on display alongside the prints.7. Andrew Dewdney suggested the possibility of collaborative and participatory research

for ‘democratising research’ at a meeting hosted by Kim Knott (Arts and HumanitiesResearch Council, Diaspora Migration and Identities programme director on the 26 Janu-ary 2011) at Royal Institute of British Architects, London.

Notes on contributorKanwal Mand is a lecturer in Sociology in the School of Applied Social Sciences atBrighton University. Her research interests centre on South Asian familial practices, genderand the life course within a transnational context. She has worked as a research fellow inthe Families & Social Capital (ESRC) Research Group at London South Bank Universityand at Sussex University (on an AHRC funded research project).

International Journal of Social Research Methodology 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

ehra

n] a

t 01:

25 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

References

Christensen, P.H. (2004). Children’s participation in ethnographic research: Issues of powerand representation. Children and Society, 18, 165–176. doi: 101002/chi-823.

Gardner, K. (2002). Age, narrative, migration. London: Berg.Gardner, K., & Mand, K. (Eds.). (2012). Through children’s eyes: Transnational migration

reconsidered. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.Hirschfeld, L.A. (2002). Why don’t anthropologist like children? American Anthropologist,

104(2), 611–627. doi: 10.1525/aa.2002.104.2.611.James, A. (2007). Giving voice to children’s voices: Practices and problems, pitfalls and

potentials. American Anthropologist, 109(2), 261–272. doi: 10.1525/aa.2007.109.261.James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.Katz, C. (2004). Growing up global: Economic restructuring and children’s everyday lives.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.Mand, K. (2010). ‘I’ve got two houses. One in Bangladesh and one in London . . . every-

body has’: Home, locality and belonging(s). Childhood, 17, 273–287. doi: 10.1177/0907568210365754.

Mand, K. (2011). Researching lives in motion. In S. Coleman & P. Von Hellerman (Eds.),Multi-sited ethnography: Problems and possibilities in the translocation of researchmethods (pp. 41–53). London: Routledge.

McTaggart, R. (Ed.). (1997). Participatory action research: International contexts and con-sequences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Mitchell, L.M. (2006). Child-centred? Thinking critically about children’s drawings as avisual research method. Visual Anthropology Review, 22(1), 60–73. doi: 10.1525/var.2006.22.1.60.

Morrow, V., & Richards, M. (1996). The ethics of social research with children. Childrenand Society(10), 90–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.1996.tb00461.x.

NíLaoire, C., Méndez, F.C., Tyrrell, N., & White, A. (2010). Introduction: Childhood andmigration-mobilities, homes and belongings’. Childhood, 17, 155–162. doi: 10.1177/0907568210365463.

Olwig-Fog, K., & Gullov, E. (Eds.). (2003). Children’s places. London: Routledge.Olwig-Fog, K., & Hastrup, K. (1997). Introduction. In K. Fog-Olwig & K. Hastrup (Eds.),

Siting culture: The shifting anthropological object (pp. 1–16). London: Routledge.Punch, S. (2002a). Research with children: The same or different from research with adults?

Childhood, 9(3), 321–341. doi: 10.1177/0907568202009003044.Punch, S. (2002b). Interviewing strategies with young people: The ‘Secret Box’, stimulus

material and task based activities. Children and Society, 16(1), 45–56. doi: 10.1002/chi.685.

Thomson, F. (2008). Are methodologies for children keeping them in their place? Children’sGeographies, 5(3), 207–218. doi: 10.108/1473328001445762.

White, A., Bushin, N., Méndez, F.C., & NíLaoire, C. (2010). Using visual methodologies toexplore contemporary Irish childhoods. Qualitative Research, 10(2), 143–158. doi:10.1177/1468794109356735.

Zeitlyn, B., & Mand, K. (2012). Researching transnational childhoods, in through children’seyes: Transnational migration reconsidered. A special issue of Journal of Ethnic andMigration Studies.

160 K. Mand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

ehra

n] a

t 01:

25 2

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013