‘Having a say’: children and young people talk about consultation

CHILDREN & SOCIETY VOLUME 17 (2003) pp. 361–373Published online 27 February 2003 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/CHI.758

‘Having a Say’: Children and YoungPeople Talk about Consultation

There has been a recent surge of interest in consulting children and

young people about issues affecting them. Research in this area can in

the main be said to have been motivated by adult agenda, with little

attempt to seek the views of children and young people themselves.

This paper is based on what children have said about consultation.

They were critical of some of the more widely used methods, largely

because they saw them as unrepresentative. The main message from

the research is that children want to be consulted if it is done

properly, if it is about issues directly affecting them and if they see it

as likely to yield results that are likely to benefit them or other young

people. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The context

The recent growth of interest in children’s participation in civiclife, partly reflected in and stimulated by the UN Conventionon the Rights of the Child (UNICEF, 1995), has led to concernabout how to facilitate the involvement and participation ofchildren and young people in public life and in the publicpolicy process.

The Scottish Parliament has shared this concern. Built into thefoundation documents of the Scottish Parliament were the pri-nciples of being ‘accessible, open, responsive and develop (ing)procedures which made possible a democratic approach . . . ’(Scottish Office, 1998). Keen to extend these principles tochildren and young people, the Parliament early in its life,commissioned the research upon which this article is based. Itfoccuses on what children and young people themselves sayabout being consulted (Laybourn and others, 2001).

There is also a rapidly expanding academic literature onconsultation, spanning different disciplines. To date, thisresearch can be said to have been largely motivated by adultagenda (Woodhead and Falkner, 2000; Prout, 2000) andstriking by its absence is any attempt to seek the views ofchildren and young people themselves about the relativeeffectiveness of different research methods and approaches toconsulting children (Laybourn and others, 2001). This lack issomething we hope to remedy in this paper.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Anne Stafford,Ann Laybourn andMalcolm HillDepartment of SocialPolicy & Social Work,University of Glasgow

Moira WalkerDepartment of AppliedSocial Science,University of Stirling

Correspondence to: Anne Stafford,

The Glasgow Centre for the Child

and Society, University of Glasgow

Lilybank House, Bute Gardens,

Glasgow G12 8RT. E-mail:

[email protected]

Methodology

We talked to some 200 children and young people aged between three and 18 from acrossScotland. We conducted group interviews, with 12 groups in mainstream education, andto ensure representativeness, a further six from more excluded backgrounds.

Children were from four Scottish local authority areas, including an inner city area withdiverse ethnic population, one prosperous suburban area with a proportion of childrenfrom peripheral estates, one school in a small urban area with some rural pupils and onemainly rural school.

Groups were organised with children in primary 6 (9–10 year olds), second year(11–12 year olds) and fifth year (15–16 year olds). Children and young people werefrom a wide range of backgrounds.

We also talked to:

* One group of very young children* Teenage girls from an Asian Muslim background* A special needs group of ten year olds with learning difficulties* Teenage boys with experience of homelessness* Two groups of young people involved in projects with a participatory, empowerment

ethos

Consent was a key consideration (Morrow and Richards, 1996) and was obtained fromschools, parents, children and young people. Assurances were given that anonymity wouldbe preserved and feedback given to participants and schools (Marchant and others, 1999).

Participants were asked about: what they wanted to be consulted about, how they wouldlike to be consulted and about the advice they would like to give to governments andpolicy makers about consulting children.

Aware that group discussion can inhibit minority viewpoints, we also asked participantsto fill in a short open-ended questionnaire to provide some triangulation with the otherdata.

The setting can also influence dynamics and young people can be inhibited wheninterviewed in school (Green and Hart, 1999). To minimise this, we gave guarantees ofanonymity and negotiated the exclusive use of private, non-classroom space.

Group interaction

In the school sample, interaction varied with age. Primary six pupils were liveliest. Thesewere groups of pupils who knew each other well, were comfortable with each other andconfident in their status as senior primary school pupils. Discussion in secondary groupswas measured with second year groups relatively quiet, needing most encouragement toparticipate.

362 Anne Stafford and Others

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 17, 361–373 (2003)

Generally girls seem more likely to volunteer to take part in consultative research thanboys (Edwards and Alldred, 1999). In our study too, girls tended to be verbally moreassertive, and demonstrated more skill in group discussion.

The pre-school group was engaged using a process of informal conversations about‘deciding things’. Here, the presence of adult workers/carers was essential.

What Do Young People Want to Be Consulted About

There was considerable consensus between groups about what they wanted to beconsulted about.

More say in education This was important for most of the groups. They expressed feelingexcluded from important debates on education and wanted a say in the content of thecurriculum and curriculum development, about examinations, financial decisions aboutschool priorities and about the way school was organised (for example the length of theschool day).

Like Higher Still (Scottish Exam, taken in 6th Year)—no one asked us. And we’re just guinea pigs. /They should have asked us first about changing the exam system/Yeah/no one asked youngpeople . . . they are going to sit the exams, it should be them that are asked what kind of system theywould like to go to.

Instead of asking parents, ask the children . . .They were having this big debate about Section 28 andwhether it should be taught in schools, and they never asked the children whether they wanted it taught ornot/they asked the parents and teachers.

Conditions in school Pupils felt there should be more recognition given to what theywanted from school. This included relaxing uniform policies, improving toilets, lunchtimefacilities and school transport. Older pupils wanted lockers and vending machines.Younger children wanted more play equipment in the playground. Many wanted schoolsto be safer, including smaller class sizes, better playground supervision, anti-bullyingstrategies that really work, truancy investigations that get to the heart of the problem.

Good leisure provision This was another priority. They felt present provision wasinadequate or inappropriate, that lack of provision plays a part in antisocial behaviour.They wanted a say at the decision-making stage, feeling that at present recreation facilitiesare opened and closed without consultation with them. They wanted greater access tosports (informal facilities and specialist coaching), arts opportunities (drama classes, morechildren’s books in libraries), and youth clubs. Some referred to the fact that leisurefacilities tend to be in the city centres and inaccessible to many young people.

Public transport Young people are among the heaviest users of public transport andpupils had strong feelings about this. It was of particular concern to young people in ruralareas. Here buses to and from outlying villages are infrequent and do not run late at night.The cost of transport was also an issue. The need for a safe, reliable pubic transport systemwas of prime importance in helping young people achieve some kind of freedom andaccess to the things they want without having to rely on parents.

‘Having a Say’ 363


Health education and advice Participants wanted campaigns aimed specifically atchildren and young people, particularly on issues such as sex, teenage pregnancy,smoking and drugs, suggesting that campaigns using humour and an understanding ofyoung people’s culture might be effective.

Other topics mentioned included:

* the need for anti-litter campaigns and more recycling facilities* reducing the cost of living* personal safety in the street* job prospects* drugs* police harassment* need for blocks on web-sites* over-restrictive film classification* more interactive TV involving children* tackling the problem of ‘stingy nettles’ in camp sites* improving adult attitudes to young people* stopping housing development in the countryside* protection for historic buildings* more money for the Third World* tackling homelessness* improving young people’s wage levels* building more mosques

Principles for Consulting

Fair and representative

Young people felt strongly that consultation should be fair, representative and inclusive.To this end it should involve fairly large numbers of different kinds of young people. Theysuggested this could be achieved by:

* picking young people for consultation on a random basis rather than at the discretionof adults

* involving whole schools in consultation* rotating consultation round different schools and areas of Scotland so that each gets a turn* encouraging young people to take part, using publicity, for example TV adverts

Consulting with large numbers was seen as providing an accurate reflection of youngpeople’s views as a whole, giving as many as possible the opportunity to take part, not justa selected few.

Genuine

Participants were clear that they were only interested in giving their views to those whogenuinely wanted to hear them. They felt those consulting should be honest and open withyoung people about the process of consultation and should decide in advance whether



they were prepared to change what they did in response to what young people wanted. Ifthey are not, it is better not to consult in the first place:

If they’re not going to do something, don’t ask.

People consulting should not assume young people are going to like adult ideas and give the responsesadults want, but ask for young people’s own ideas.

If the Parliament was asking it would be ‘Do you think this would be a good thing?’, so that’s not actuallyus deciding things—they’re putting it into our heads . . . /We should be asked what our idea is.

Adults should take on board young people’s total views and not simply use those that fittheir own ideas: ‘Consider everything you say and not just the things they think are all right.’ ‘Ifthey ask us what we want [and don’t like it] they shouldn’t change [what we have said].’

Consultation should be a genuine attempt to listen seriously to young people’s views andact on them, not just a window-dressing exercise conducted for the benefit of adults aboutissues already decided.

[Those consulting] want to be seen to be doing something. I know from experience it is/You see in thenewspapers they’ve consulted a certain number of young people—but then where does the report go? Andthen nothing is done about it/It’s just campaigning for the Government to make it seem they’re doingsomething worthwhile.

Purposeful

Young people felt that having listened to their views, something should happen as aresult. However, they were also realistic that this might not always be possible. In that casethey still wanted to be informed:

If they’re not going to use our ideas, they should at least tell us.

They should come back and tell us what happened/They should give you a reason, because it could be that[your idea] wasn’t good enough—as long as they think about it.

They were clear about the form feedback should take:

You would want it to be fair. You would want it to involve, contain, all the different ideas of what thepeople have said. It’s not very nice if you voted and you didn’t get even a hint of what you wanted . . . but if[you saw] your views were put forward, you would accept not getting it, cos at least you did try it.

They suggested a letter about what has been decided; seeing an item in the paper or on TV;being sent a summary of a report. They felt almost any action would be better than none.Young people who have been consulted need to know: ‘That something happens. Something.They sometimes spend thousands and thousands on a report, and it just goes in the bin.’

Respectful

Children and young people were in favour of consultation that was genuine. However,they did not seem to regard the opportunity to be heard as a favour for which they shouldbe grateful. Rather, it was something they regarded as a right, they were willing to engage



in if it served some useful purpose. It was a job to be done to achieve a better deal forthemselves and other young people.

They wanted those consulting to recognise them as having a status in their own right,independent of their parents, and to take them seriously as contributors:

You gave us a letter and you addressed it to the students who are taking part, and not to our parents,which was good, which was different. Because even when we get a school leaflet, it’s to ‘Dear Parent orGuardian’ it’s not ‘Dear Student’. It’s our school, it’s our Parliament.

They wanted it to be recognised that they have their own priorities. There was consensusthat consultation should take place during the school working day, rather than encroachon their leisure time (though some more academic pupils felt this added to the pressuresthey were under). They expected something in return. Mostly this was expressed in termsof something getting done. ‘They could take a part, and then if something was built they couldsay ‘‘I was a member of that [consultation group]’’.’ Getting something extra for theircommunity, or getting recognition by having their name (and photo) in the papers wouldalso be a concrete recompense for their efforts.

The possibility of payment was mentioned, in a half embarrassed way in a number ofgroups. They did not want to seem grasping, and did not feel they should be bribed, butfelt that a slight financial incentive might help ‘because everyone’s always skint’. Theythought this might be successful in drawing in a wide variety of young people, includingthose who are usually reluctant to take part and not interested in politics.

They wanted change to occur, but primarily in relation to their special interests as adistinct group in society. They wanted recognition as experts in their own field, butseemed to accept that outside this field their views would not necessarily be sought. Asone primary school participant put it:

It depends what the matter is, cos if it’s things like what [young people] want to do, like we want a skatepark . . . they should take that kind of stuff into account, but like we wouldn’t be qualified to have a say inlike the hospitals because we wouldn’t know anything about them.

How Should Children and Young People Be Consulted

This is a relatively new field of activity with numerous examples of innovative methods ofconsulting. Comparing and assessing their relative merits is not straightforward (Hill,1999) and there is a paucity of evidence on the comparative effectiveness of variousmethods (Laybourn and others, 2001) with no well tested recipes with formulasguaranteeing success (Christensen and James, 2000). Our participants showed asophisticated understanding of the pros and cons of different methods:

Small group discussions Participants felt it helpful to meet in group because you feel lessshy among other young people. Other people’s ideas make you think of more ideasyourself. Group discussions can be fun, and are very quick and convenient.

However, they were also aware that because numbers are limited, not everyone can takepart, so some views are left out. Those not participating resent that ‘because there are a lot of



people besides us and they didn’t get a chance to join in’. In any group people have lots ofdifferent ideas and it is hard to listen to each one. The researcher/reporter might not passon the group’s ideas accurately.

While school may be the best venue, since ‘everyone is there’, there were strong feelingsthat discussions should take place in private, away from teachers, and led by an outsider:

It’s easier talking to you without [HT] because if [HT] was here, we wouldn’t be able to say half the stuffwe have. . . . [in a previous research study group] when [HT] came over, we just stopped talking.

The view was that groups work best if members know each other—it is easier talking withyour friends. However, a few felt it was easier to be frank and discuss sensitive issues in agroup with people you do not know and will not meet again.

Questionnaires These were popular because they enable many different people to takepart, for example, several whole schools from different areas. A large survey would bemore likely to give an accurate picture of young people’s views. They have advantages forthose who are shy and who might find it easier to voice their opinions: ‘you manage toexpress it better’. ‘Maybe children don’t feel free to speak what they think in groups, and they couldjust write it down’. In surveys everyone gets a full chance to voice their opinions: ‘you’re notgoing to be talked over if you’ve got a survey’. Surveys are confidential/anonymous (noteveryone wants other participants to know what they think), and are easy and convenient.

The disadvantages expressed were that questionnaires can be boring, and sometimes thereare words or questions you don’t understand. It can be hard to put down personalexperiences in writing. If rushed or not properly presented, or if there are too manyquestions, people can’t be bothered, and may give trivial or dishonest answers: ‘If you aregiven it in class, you just put down what your friend’s putting down, or do something for a joke’.When administered by school, they might be censored by teachers if your responses arenot what they want.

Surveys appealed to more reticent participants. In our study, their popularity really onlyemerged fully when the results of our self-completion forms were analysed. The specialneeds group also favoured surveys.

Participants suggested questionnaires should be designed and worded with the help ofyoung people, because ‘you know what questions to ask’. They should be properlypresented, with enough time to complete them. They should be made interesting, not toolong and administered by outsiders, not teachers, to avoid influence and censorship.

Online methods Adult proponents of online methods of consultation often point to youngpeople’s enthusiasm for computers and the Internet and the potential of this as a methodof consulting children and young people. Mann and Stewart (2000) reviewed some of thepossibilities of this. However, reaction to them in our groups was largely negative. Onlythree groups showed enthusiasm for online consultation; two were from the same fairlyaffluent school, the other had a participant who had set up a web-site for fellow pupils.

Young people acknowledged that online consultation could reach a lot of young peoplewho are familiar with the Internet and like using it. In theory it offers privacy, and is



convenient ‘because it saves anybody going anywhere’. However, all groups pointed out thatnot everyone has a computer at home (on average about a third of each group did not).Even if they do, it is not always linked to the Internet. School access to the Internet isdifficult: it is oversubscribed and there is stiff competition to get on, even for school-work.Privacy can be a problem in school, with people looking over your shoulder. Internet cafesare expensive and not locally available.

Experience of using the Internet had left some participants sceptical about thepracticalities of online consultation, for example if used for a voting system, there mightbe multiple votes by individuals ‘as was the case in ‘‘Big Brother’’ ’.

Youth forums and councils Standing forums and councils for young people are growingin popularity. Despite this, from the literature there is no hard evidence of demand forthem from children and young people themselves, and there is little evidence thatparticipatory structures such as the above are more effective than other methods for givingyoung people a say in policy making (Freeman and others, 1996). It is however early in thelife of these developments and difficult to predict their outcome and effectiveness in thelong term.

Despite their rapid growth, children and young people in our groups had mixed feelingsabout them. On the positive side they said they had no problems expressing views; adultstended to make it easy by encouragement, making space for them to speak, and listeningattentively. They also said that in an established forum the participants all get to knoweach other, which makes the experience more comfortable, that it can take in a wider rangeof people than a small group, that it is enjoyable, that you meet other like-minded youngpeople, and that you get a lot out of it.

However, there was also a consensus that not much is achieved. ‘There’s a lot of listening,but not much action’. Ideas and requests can be blocked or the buck is passed. For one groupa meeting with councillors to request transport back to outlying areas on Saturdayevenings resulted only in advice to take it up with bus companies.

Some consultation with youth forums is clearly tokenistic. Young people are aware of thisand resent it. One group was asked by councillors to go along for consultation, but thisturned out to be a photo opportunity ‘just to say ‘‘look we’ve consulted young people’’, but theydidn’t really listen to us that much’.

Young people are critical of these because they involve small numbers. Members do notreally represent young people as a whole. They are selected rather than voted in and haveno real accountability. ‘The people on them don’t necessarily have the same views as other people’.Access to them is difficult out of school for those who live in outlying areas, and so isfinding time to attend. In practice, despite fellow pupils being involved, few participantseven knew of their existence until told about them in groups:

I didn’t know anything about it . . . /the grass roots are not represented, because it’s not publicised withinschool, it’s nothing to do with school—we don’t even know who’s on our local Youth Council.

A split emerged in our study between those who were on forums, who were broadlypositive, and those who were not, who felt strongly negative.



Willow (1997) produced an overview of UK participative structures for increasing youngpeople’s participation and outlined some of the success factors (see also Dorrian, 2000, fora review of Scottish initiatives).

School councils Participants also had strong feelings about their school councils. Again,they were not completely enthusiastic.

One group felt genuinely listened to, that real change had resulted in relation to: schoolcanteen choices, locker provision, and use of playground space.

Generally children felt consultation was in name only, with pupils knowing there was nopoint in asking for certain changes because the school had an inflexible policy on them.

‘Every year they have elections, but then nothing really comes of it’. Others were said to havebecome inactive through lack of staff commitment and time. Pupils have no real power.For example, they have no say in how the school budget is spent.

A further problem arises where the school council includes all year groups. Here it is hardfor younger pupils to express views: ‘You don’t want to make a fool of yourself’. Ideas putforward by senior pupils dominate the agenda ‘If anything gets put forward by a prefect, that’sthe one that gets acted on’.

School councils were often seen as structures set by adults. It was felt that adults oftenassumed members did represent other young people’s views, when they don’t. Themajority who have not had the opportunity to take part resent being excluded:

If it’s in our school, it’s always the same people that get picked for everything/people like [ ] and [ ] getpicked to do lots of things/I’ve never been picked [general agreement]/This is the first time I’ve been pickedfor anything. People think once someone’s done one thing they like them, and they’ll pick them for loads ofother things . . . how do they know other people wouldn’t be good at it?

One-off events such as youth conferences There has been an increase in the use of one offand time limited events set up to involve and consult children and young people. There issome indication that short contact with no or little feedback will receive a mixed responsefrom children and young people (Freeman and others, 1996). They tend to be seen byyoung people as tokenistic although some are seen as producing results (Tisdall andothers, 2000; Dorrian, 2000).

This was also the case in our sample. Older participants were enthusiastic, as were youngpeople from the excluded groups. However, the response from younger pupils was almostentirely negative.

Advantages were that these were seen to be enjoyable; it is good to meet other youngpeople; they involve larger numbers than small groups or forums, and can rotate rounddifferent areas or schools to give a chance to more young people. On the other hand theywere regarded as not representative of young people as a whole.

You’re the only person here who’s been to one of these [Conferences]—no one else had a chance to be putforward/because nobody knows about it. /[Conference participant replies] I didn’t put myself forward—I



got selected from above. /No one at [school] gets told what goes on at these Conferences, and it’s our livesthat are being discussed . . .we don’t elect you, you’re just picked by adults.

The large numbers of people present and limited time available make it hard for everyoneto have a say, particularly those who are shy. They could be difficult to get to, particularlyfor those in outlying areas. They could create resentment among those who are not chosento take part.

Direct contact with politicians Opinion was divided about the desirability of meetingpoliticians. While some groups showed enthusiastic support, others were against it.

The main advantage of direct contact was felt to be the first hand exchange of information.Views expressed would not be changed or blocked by anyone else:

You would get to say your views straight, and not, like, say it through the Head Teacher and he’s passingit through about a hundred people and the story’s changed at least twice before it reaches the MSPs.

Direct meetings would also mean that both sides could ask each other questions andclarify what they meant.

On the other hand some people might feel reluctant to express their views: ‘You wouldn’twant to say ‘‘I think Parliament should do more about’’ —cos you would feel embarrassed about[criticising] their job’. It was also recognised that politicians might be too busy to meet withyou. There was a strong feeling in some groups that the people who would be picked tomeet them would be those who are picked for everything else, and others would not get achance to take part.

Most wanted politicians to come to them, preferably at school. This would show they werereally interested in young people. It would be important that arrangements were kept to,or this would be interpreted as lack of commitment to young people’s issues; even thoughthey are busy ‘we should be their priority’. They wanted a fair way of arranging contact, forexample, rotating visits to different schools so large numbers of young people got a chanceto put their views, and meeting in a school assembly rather than a small group so that asmany pupils as wanted to could take part.: ‘you can’t take just a small part because people havedifferent interests and views’. It also needs to be a two-way exchange, with young people ableto question MSPs as well as giving their opinions.

A voting system for young people This was a theme that had not been planned by theresearchers and arose spontaneously from participants. Young people in some groupsexpressed a wish for direct input into the adult Parliament. This could take several forms:

* Lowering the voting age. For example, young people should be able to vote inparliamentary elections. They pointed out that many young people are just as sensibleas adults and that ‘it’s our future/it’s our lives they are duffing up’.

* Young people’s referenda. These would take the form of a vote, open to all youngpeople in Scotland over a certain age (over ten was suggested): ‘See how adults go to vote,well school would be the main place for kids to vote in, and they could get their wee ballot in classand put it in the box in school somewhere’. As an example of an issue on which they wouldhave liked a referendum they cited the Section 28 debate.



* Young people’s representation in Parliament. This should be a young person, who‘normal’ young people could relate to. S/he would not be appointed by adults (hencenot a Children’s Commissioner), but directly elected to the Parliament by young people,and accountable to them, in a similar way to a president, or to an MSP representing aspecial interest party.

With each of these mechanisms, it was felt that young people would take it seriously: ‘Ifyou give them a chance to vote, they’d act more grown up, cause voting is a grown up thing’.However, they wanted the voting system to be free from traditional campaigningmethods:

[The Parliament] should definitely not try to get children to take sides or anything like that. Theyshouldn’t advertise on TV, like ‘Vote Yes’, or ‘Vote No’, like they do for Labour—‘Vote Tony Blair’, ‘VoteConservative’ and that. They should put up posters saying ‘This is your choice: Yes or No! . . . ’/It shouldbe like ‘If you vote No then this is what will happen, if you vote Yes then this is what’ll happen’.

Conclusion

Children and young people have a strong wish to be consulted, particularly on issuesdirectly affecting their daily lives and activities; their education, school and the schoolenvironment, recreation, public transport, and health.

The majority of primary aged children are enthusiastic about adults taking an interest intheir views. In secondary school, views were more qualified. This is partly because whenyoung people have actually experienced consultation, it is often unsatisfactory. Two keyreasons for disappointment are that it is not representative and that it lacks impact. A badexperience of consultation can result in cynicism about future attempts, a good experiencecan lead to more positive attitudes.

Participants showed considerable understanding of the pros and cons of variousconsultation methods. Small group discussions and questionnaire surveys were the mostpopular; online surveys and participatory structures, least favoured, except by those whohad experienced them. There was a mixed response to the idea of meeting with politicians.A voting system for young people interested some participants.

In children’s research generally there is an increasing trend to use methods in combination(Laybourn and others, 2001). This is partly because each method has pros and cons and acombination can remedy others defects. It is also recognised that no one method cancapture the richness of children’s experiences and indeed can increase children’s activeparticipation in the process (Smith, 2000; Laybourn and others, 2001).

Most of the young people we spoke to did not want to spend large amounts of time beingconsulted, contributing to decisions and actions. Nor did they want to be involved intaking forward the results of consultation. This was seen as an adult responsibility—children and young people have activities of their own to be getting on with!

When children are consulted they expect to see something happen as a result. They wanttheir views taken into account when policies are planned and when decisions are made



that affect them. They want to be informed about the results. Then they were content foradults to make the ultimate decisions. Children and young people were well able torecognise that other considerations, including the views of adults, should be taken intoaccount.

Our research highlights that children and young people are often left disappointed anddisillusioned with consultation. Good preparation and clear information about thepurpose, constraints and limitations of the consultation process and can prevent or reducethis. They may also need information about the decision-making process in general andother influences on decisions. If the purpose of consultation is purely to enhance adultunderstanding, then children should know this from the start.

Care is needed to ensure genuinely open communication rather than seeking confirmationof what adults think or want. This means allowing children to talk about what matters tothem and not dismissing as trivial, children’s priority concerns.

Even if action does not occur or is very slow, it is still better to provide some feedbackrather than none at all. Children may find it particularly hard to understand the long timescales required for some changes in policy or practice.

If consultation is to be done it needs to be done thoughtfully, with sufficient resources tomatch the task, with careful planning and honesty about the likely result. There should beopportunities for feedback built into the process from the beginning. If we are not able orprepared to consult children seriously and respectfully—we should not do it. Consultingpoorly is worse than not consulting at all.

Acknowledgements

Original research was funded by the Scottish Parliament.

References

Christensen P, James A (eds). 2000. Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices. Falmer Press:London.

Dorrian A-M. 2000. The Participation of Children and Young People in Scotland: a Study ofCitizenship, Empowerment and Inclusion. MPhil Dissertation: University of Glasgow.

Edwards R, Alldred P. 1999. Children and young people’s views of social research: the case ofresearch on home–school relations. Childhood 6(2): 261–281.

Freeman I, Morrison A, Lockhart F, Swanson M. 1996. Consulting service users: the views of youngpeople. In Child Welfare Services: Developments in Law, Policy, Practice and Research, Hill M, Aldgate J(eds). Jessica Kingsley: London.

Green J, Hart L. 1999. The impact of context on data. In Developing Focus Group Research: Politics,Theory and Practice, Barbour R, Kitzinger J (eds). Sage: London.

Hill M (ed.). 1999. Effective Ways of Working with Children and Their Families. Jessica Kingsley: London.Laybourn A, Borland M, Stafford A, Hill M. 2001. Improving Consultation with Children and YoungPeople. Scottish Parliament: Edinburgh.

Mann C, Stewart F. 2000. Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for ResearchingOnline. Sage: London.



Marchant R, Jones A, and others. 1999. Listening on All Channels. Triangle Publications: Brighton.Morrow V, Richards M. 1996. The Ethics of Social Research with Children. Children & Society 10:

90–105.Prout A. 2000. Children’s participation: control and self-realisation in British late modernity. Children& Society 14: 304–315.

Scottish Office. 1998. Report of the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament: shapingScotland’s Parliament. The Scottish Office: Edinburgh.

Smith F. 2000. Child-centred after school and holiday childcare. ESRC Children 5–16 ResearchProgramme Briefing 10 http: //www:esrc:ac:uk/curprog:html

Tisdall K, Monaghan B, and others. 2000. Communication, co-operation or collaboration? Voluntaryorganisations’ involvement in the first Scottish children’s services plans. In Child Welfare Policy andPractice, Iwaniec D, Hill M (eds). Jessica Kingsley: London.

UNICEF. 1995. The Convention on the rights of the Child.Willow C. 1997. Hear! Hear! Promoting Children and Young People’s Democratic Participation in LocalGovernment. Local Government Information Unit: London.

Woodhead M, Falkner D. 2000. Subjects, objects or participants? Dilemmas of psychological researchwith children. In Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices, Christensen P, James A (eds).Falmer Press: New York.

Contributors’ details

Dr Anne Stafford is Deputy Director of the Glasgow Centre for the Child and Society in theDepartment of Social Policy and Social Work at the University of Glasgow.

Ann Laybourn was a Research Fellow in the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at theUniversity of Glasgow at the time of the research.

Moira Walker is a Senior Research Fellow in the Social Work Research Centre in the University ofStirling.

Professor Malcolm Hill is Director of the Glasgow Centre for the Child and Society in theDepartment of Social Policy and Social Work at the University of Glasgow.



‘Having a say’: children and young people talk about consultation

Documents

Transcript of ‘Having a say’: children and young people talk about consultation