The least adult role or a playful researcher? Considering an adult’s role when researching with children

Abstract

This paper aims to interrogate the concept of Mandell's ‘least adult role’ and its suitability when co-researching with children in contemporary contexts, particularly children from the Global South. The concept is interrogated in its use in a study in a Non-Governmental School in India. Methodological decisions are productively undone and plugged in to multiple theories, in order to seek a more equitable and ethical way of coresearching with young children. I offer the concept of ‘playful researcher’ and discuss how adult researchers can use playfulness as a disposition when co-researching with children.

Introduction

Researching children’s lives alongside or with children has experienced exponential growth with the publication of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1989 (Harcourt, 2011; Reynaert et al., 2009; Stokes, 2020). Articles 12.1 and 13.1 state that children have a right to express their views freely, that those views be given ‘due weight’, and that children have a right to ‘freedom of expression’ (United Nations, 1989) using many different mediums, including artistically and bodily – utilising the one hundred languages of children as described by Lori Malaguzzi (1981). Disciplines such as Education, Early Childhood Education and Care, Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, Development Studies, and Children’s Geographies have taken a keen interest in researching with children (Dockett and Perry, 2005; Pinter and Zandian, 2014; Tisdall et al., 2009; Woodhead, 1998). A new discipline emerged from this transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary interest that is heavily weighted in Sociology - that of Children’s Studies or Childhood Studies (Lenzer, 2001). This new discipline is perhaps the greatest employer of co-researching with children, particularly when using a children’s rights lens (Harcourt, 2011). Much has been made of how to research with children as co-researchers (Chesworth, 2018; Clark and Moss, 2001, 2011; Punch, 2002; Stokes, 2020), and what is considered an appropriate or meaningful level of engagement (Hart, 1992; Lundy, 2007; Shier, 2001; Stokes, 2020), but children’s rights now play a central role in discussions. For the purposes of this study, children as co-researchers are seen as agentic and competent (Fraser and Robinson, 2004), interdependent, rights-holding, co-constructors of their worlds (James and Prout, 2015), and as such research with the adult instead of being subjects of the research. Their ideas, thoughts, and opinions are valued and carry weight, and their everyday activities have been recognised as compatible with adult research methodologies accepted by the academy (Murray, 2017).

In this paper, I interrogate Mandell’s (1988) concept of ‘the least-adult role’ to consider how and when this concept was conceived. I then examine the ethical implications of embodying this role in contemporary research, particularly when researching with children in the Majority World ¹ (commonly referred to as the Global South) who are labeled as ‘marginalised’ or ‘vulnerable’ by the academy. Examples from a research study conducted by me, a researcher from the Minority World, that took place in an NGO school in India are utilised. Considerations of how adults should co-research with children are explored, questioning if mannerisms, character traits, dispositions, and authenticity play just as an important role as skillsets and methodologies before offering an alternative role; that of a ‘playful researcher’.

Researching with children

Much has been written about researching with children (Greene and Hogan, 2005; Hart, 1992; Lundy, 2007; Shier, 2001; Tisdall, 2009). Discussions include the purposes of researching with children; developing frameworks of participation in order to move from what can be seen as tokenistic or non-participation to meaningful participation (Hart, 1992; Lundy, 2007; Shier, 2001); empowering children through research methodologies of eliciting voice, capturing voice, listening to, or dialoging with children in order to ensure their rights and their participation is enabled in an age appropriate way (Clark, 2005; Clark and Moss, 2001; Dockett et al., 2009); learning about children’s lives in and of themselves (Corsaro, 1997) as beings not becomings in order to stave off outcomes driven research and give weight to children’s current lived experiences and voice (Alderson, 2005; Alderson and Morrow, 2004); and the purposes of learning how to complete ethical research with children in order to realise their rights under the UNCRC (Hammersley, 2015; Lundy, 2007; Lundy and O’Donnell, 2021). While there is a growing discussion on the skills needed by an adult researcher to co-research with children in terms of ability to share power, be flexible (O’Brien and Dadswell, 2020), and being reflexive (Collin et al., 2020), there has been little discussion about other aspects of this role. It is argued in this paper that the researcher’s disposition, mannerisms, and characteristics are just as important to create an ethical, trusting, authentic relationship with children with whom they research and that it is that relationship which ultimately creates the embodied, emotional environment which they inhabit during the research process. Ethical, trusting, and authentic relationships are conceptualised in this study as when both parties can be open and honest (Theran, 2018) that is, reciprocal relationships based on trust, where adult(s) and child(ren) can reveal their true selves, be vulnerable, and have genuine interactions.

The research study and methodology

The research study had two phases: (1) the original research study carried out over almost 4 years, and (2) a year-long meta-study of the original. The original study used a qualitative case study approach and was carried out in an NGO school, Emmanuel Public School (EPS), ² in Pune, India. I sought to develop a rich, contextual understanding of children’s play and early learning in the early childhood education classes whilst simultaneously problematising the application of dominant Minority World discourses to the lives of young children living in Majority World contexts. I aimed to examine the different types of play and early learning experiences children engaged in, how they played in and outside of school, where they liked to play, and with whom.

The second phase, the meta-study, involved plugging in (Jackson and Mazzei, 2012, 2013) each decision, choice, and consideration that was made by me when initially designing my study, and when researching in the field, into two or more theories in order to think with theory (Jackson and Mazzei, 2012, 2013) to allow for different considerations or ‘findings’ depending on the theories into which it is plugged. This allows each piece of data to been seen or interpreted in multiple different ways with multiple different meanings. Decisions included (1) methodological choices (2) ethical choices, (3) the consideration of my positionality, and the decisions about which literature to review, and why. These decisions, choices, and considerations were plugged in to two or more theories and/or combinations of theories such as post-colonial, feminist, anti-racist, and children’s rights, to allow me to think with the different theories. The decisions, choices, and considerations became the data that was analysed (or underwent the analytical process of thinking with theory) rather than the data collected in the field. The research question evolved into exploring a more ethical and equitable way for Minority World researchers to research with children in the Majority World.

The case site, EPS, caters for approximately five hundred children aged between three and eighteen years of age, living in ten local underprivileged communities within a five-kilometer radius. The original study used a combination of ethnographic methods, semi-formal and formal interviews with teachers and parents, deeper exploration with two children, and arts-based participatory methods with one hundred and fifty children aged between three and eight years. This mixed-methods approach was utilised based on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) bio-ecological systems theory and post-colonial theories.

The arts-based methods were designed to create a ‘living picture’ using the Mosaic Approach (Clark and Moss, 2001, 2011) and utilised drawings, photo-voice (Anderson et al., 2023; Fernández et al., 2021), and ethnographic observations in classrooms and in the school yard which relied on the way the body speaks through facial expressions, body language, and embodiment of space as some of the hundred languages of children (Malaguzzi, 1981). ³ Due to my ten years of travelling to the research site as a volunteer , the school, teachers, and older children were already known to me before commencing fieldwork. This gave me an understanding and situated knowledge of the cultural variations of play and the verbal and non-verbal communications that were specific to the local context. The children were asked to draw pictures of how, where, and whom they liked to play with in school and to describe them to myself and Suresh (my co-researcher/interpreter). They were also given digital cameras in groups of six and asked to take photos of what they like about the school, where they play, and who they play with. Giving children the use of a camera to take photographs in research can result in more meaningful, emotional, in-depth accounts of their lives (Anderson et al., 2023; Fernández et al., 2021). Suresh and I categorised the photos using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2013). The children were not asked to participate due to time restrictions and the large size of the cohort (150 children); this is a noted limitation given its participatory intent. A selection from each theme was printed out and brought back into the classroom for discussion with the children.

During the initial research design phase, and when applying for institutional ethical clearance, I considered it best practice to employ the use of Mandell’s concept of the least-adult role when observing and researching with young children, due to its positionality of learning from below. During the meta-study phase, I used a combination of post-colonial, feminist, anti-racist, and children’s rights theories to ‘productively undo’(Spivak, 2012) the original study. I identified key moments (decisions and choices made about methodologies, ethics, and so on) that could have been completed in a more ethical and equitable manner. They were then plugged in (Jackson and Mazzei, 2012, 2013) to different types of theories (such as those mentioned above) and disciplines in order to think with theory (Jackson and Mazzei, 2012, 2013) and in doing so it enabled me to see the same concepts / decisions in different lights depending on which theory I was thinking with. Some of these considerations included notions of voice and power. The concept of the least-adult role and its initial use in the gathering of data was one methodological decision that underwent intense interrogation.

The least-adult role, as a concept and as a paper, was plugged into many theories and combinations of theories, of which post-colonial and children’s rights were the most influential. This resulted in multiple close readings and re-readings. Plugging into Spivak’s (2012) post-colonial theories about the subaltern, voice, agency, power, and the Western academy’s position in knowledge production allowed me to think with these theories in combination with ethical considerations and my positionality as a white, adult, Minority World researcher. This allowed me to reach the conclusion that as a methodological practice, the least-adult role was utilising deception when I chose to play the part of least-adult in the field. I was not presenting myself as authentic to the children with whom I was co-researching. This indicates a possible occupation of space that I would otherwise not gain entry into, a possible abuse of power, and an unethical position. This finding was reinforced when plugged into frameworks and theories of meaningful research with agentic children (Hart, 1992; Lundy, 2007; Shier, 2001), as well as by Article 19 of the UNCRC which states that children shall be protected from exploitation and harm (United Nations, 1989). The body of this paper enacts thinking with theory through the interrogation and analysis of the least-adult role as a concept, as well as the paper in which it is written. It uses my experience in the field and the experience of other scholars (Atkinson, 2019; Garratt, 2021) to do so. Using a socio-cultural-historical lens, I pull out sections of the text or scenarios from the field, and I think with theory to interrogate them. Although the least-adult role was an influential concept that began conversations about how adult researchers should conduct themselves when researching with children, thinking with theories, as demonstrated below, reveals that it is ultimately a flawed model by contemporary standards.

The least-adult role

In 1988, Mandell conceived the idea of the least-adult role when carrying out a research study in the United States with young preschool children. Since then, it has been cited in over four hundred papers ⁴ indicating its influence as a concept. When initially exploring methodology for research with preschool children, the idea of the least-adult role seemed a logical choice – in order to get to know children well, I would become almost like one of them. When I unpacked the methodology in the meta-study phase, I returned to the concept of the least-adult role to interrogate it, my conceptualisation of the term, how I conducted myself while researching with children, and the paper in which it first appeared. I plugged the paper and the concept in Jackson and Mazzei (2012, 2013) in order to think with post-colonial and children’s rights theories, using a socio-cultural-historical lens.

To interrogate the concept of the least-adult role as described by Mandell, the time and context in which it was conceived firstly was examined. 1988 was a year before the UNCRC was published in New York. Mandell was a researcher from Toronto, Canada, carrying out research in which she conceptualised the role in the United States. Thus, it is a very North American concept shaped by this time and context. In the 1980’s in the U.S., developmental psychology – particularly Montessori’s sensitive periods and Piaget’s ‘ages and stages’5 dominated the early childhood education and care teaching philosophies and practices. Seeing the concept as developed in a certain time and context allows for critique.

Critique of the least-adult role

The least-adult role, when interrogated through a child rights and ethical lens, is a flawed model when used in contemporary research, as displayed in the following quote:

My role as least-adult included undertaking a responsive, interactive, fully involved participant observer role with the children in as least an adult role as possible. This entailed neither directing or correcting children’s actions. While my size dictated that I could never physically pass for a child, I endeavoured to put aside ordinary forms of adult status and interaction – authority, verbal competency, cognitive, and social mastery – in order to follow their ways closely. (Mandell, 1988, p.428)

A “responsive, interactive, fully involved participant observer” appeals to me greatly. It is what I first valued about the concept. However, “neither directing or correcting children’s actions” is a part I grapple with. In children’s play there are always rules (mostly unspoken, agreed rules) (Köngäs et al., 2022) and children are often quick to point out when another child is not following the perceived rules of the game or acting in the correct manner (Bateman and Butler 2014; Opie and Opie, 1997); even more so, children can tend to direct participants as part of their play (Chen, 2023). Thus, the decision to deliberately not get involved in correcting or directing the other children in play might be framed as problematic and even contradictory to declare oneself as “a responsive, interactive, fully involved participant observer.” Surely to be fully involved and responsive the researcher would have to direct, or correct? However, the deficit focused nature of the concept when used in contemporary research becomes clear in the phrase “I endeavoured to put aside ordinary forms of adult status and interaction – authority, verbal competency, cognitive, and social mastery.” It is here that the child is not viewed as being competent or capable – to fit in, the researcher felt she needed to display less mastery of verbal, intellectual, and social competency than that of which she was authentically capable. I find this troubling. Not only is it a deficit view of children’s capabilities but it could also be argued as unethical. Additionally, the power dynamics and differentials between adults and children are not recognised nor problematised in Mandell’s conception. However, I am mindful that it was not written in a time or context in which I formed my own culturally informed beliefs about children and their competencies.

Spivak’s (2012) advocated approach of learning from below is evident in the following idea from Mandell, “Since I initially had little understanding of children’s interactional entry patterns, I assumed the role of learner, and allowed the children to teach me their ways” (1988: 438). This sentence sees the children as capable and competent in and of themselves; even if perceived that they are less capable than adults, Mandell evidences here that she believes children are experts of their own worlds. However, there are many incidents of blurring lines and confusion for the children as to the exact nature of the role of the researcher that are discussed in the paper. For instance, allow me to explore the statement: “As an active participant I committed many mistakes by acting in non-childlike ways that the children either did not comprehend or mistook for adult responses” (1988: 439). As an adult, Mandell asserted that acting in a non-childlike manner i.e., an adult manner, was a mistake, leading me to conclude that allowing the children to see her as her authentic self – an adult – was considered a mistake, and further to this - that the children were somehow wrong for comprehending these acts as adult responses, or for not comprehending them at all. The power differentials and ethical implications of pretending to be something other than who you are to penetrate a marginalised group collide here in this sentence, particularly when it is plugged into post-colonial theory. It troubles me somewhat that this is viewed by Mandell to be a mistake or lack of comprehension on the part of the children for believing what they are seeing. That is, they see an adult behave as an adult, and are deemed confused or mistaken for believing it is an adult acting as an adult. This is, again, a contemporary interrogation of a research experience that happened nearly forty years ago, highlighting the problematic nature of utilising the least-adult role as conceived of, and described, in the 1980s, in contemporary times, without adaptation.

Consider a contemporary reading of this section:

The least-adult role demanded that I demonstrate to children the boundaries of my role. Since I did not want to be treated as a teacher, I had to show children that I could not be called on to perform adult tasks such as tying shoes, pushing them on the swings, holding them in my lap, or changing diapers. Children’s requests for these types of activities I rebuffed by stating, “I am not a teacher. You’ll have to ask the teacher to do that.” As I discovered, in the beginning, the children protested my refusals…The main reason children have difficulty in accepting an adult as nondirective stems from their inexperience of adults as participatory, enjoyable, and non-judgmental. (p.441- 442)

When I examine this excerpt, it appears that Mandell conflated the roles and identities of adult and teacher. There is no real explanation for why these roles are conflated or treated as one and the same. I do wonder if it is because the researcher came from a sociological tradition rather than early childhood education and care. However, I would hesitate to suggest it is simply a matter of disciplinary traditions and not more nuanced than that. It is also interesting to note that Mandell considered tying shoes, pushing a swing, or holding a child on their lap as adult roles. Certainly, in the Minority World, particularly in North America, the norm for changing diapers would be considered an adult’s role but that is not the same in other parts of the world, nor is it the case in every home in North America. Pushing a swing, holding a younger child on their lap, and tying shoes laces are things that older children do for younger children. This is true of contemporary times and life in the 1980’s. Again, Mandell does not give a rationale as to why these tasks are considered adult tasks. From the perspective of plugging this into early childhood education and attachment theories, supporting a child who has reached out for help, particularly in tasks that help build a more tactile, stronger relationship is part of the learning relationship. I understand, and empathise, with the young children’s protests and refusal to accept these imposed boundaries - but again, I am frustrated with Mandell’s tendency to focus on these reactions in deficit terms: “their inexperience of adults as participatory, enjoyable, and non-judgmental” (1988). I would contend that critically reflecting on children’s recognition and responses to changes in the power differentials and relationships with the adult is a core part of the research process.

There are many more episodes noted by Mandell of the children resisting or not comprehending her role, as indeed do the educators in the study. Some episodes could be considered problematic, such as “by not approaching the children with comforting or nurturing tasks and by responding unenthusiastically on the few occasions I was approached, the children rarely solicited my adult-like behaviour” (1988: 446). It is possible that the children rarely solicited, what I would term as caring behaviours rather than adult behaviours, because they understood the researcher (by her own boundaries) not to be an adult in the sense that they may have come to understand in their educational space – a caring adult or edu-carer (Gerber, 1979; Hammond, 2021). However, a contemporary reading offers a more plausible explanation, that the children did not approach Mandell for caring behaviours because they had been previously rejected by her and as such had learned that she would not offer these behaviours. I disagree that these caring behaviours sit purely in the realm of the adult; children are often comforting and caring towards each other (Perkins et al., 2022), particularly in early childhood, and the ethical implications of this behaviour on such young children (the children in both research sites were two and three years of age) does cause pause for thought about the impact of a researcher’s rejection on their ability to form future relationships with carers, adults, and educators. It also highlights the conflation Mandell makes between different types of adult behaviour, relegating caring and relational acts as “adult-like behaviour” (Mandell 1988: 446) rather than an essential part of the interdependency of people, and the lack of dignity or equal worth (Nussbaum, 1999) afforded to the children in the research study.

Unanticipated consequences of the least-adult role

Thinking through the unanticipated consequences of the least-adult role in contemporary research, and the affects it may have on the social, emotional, and physical well-being of children through the lens of children’s rights leads to questions of child protection concerns, disclosures, and the researcher’s duty of care. The role of least-adult can be very vague for both the researcher and the children they research with, both for Mandell in 1988, but also for contemporary researchers. Atkinson (2019), acknowledges that utilising the least-adult role led to an over-investment in trying to pass as a child in their research study with primary-school-aged children, causing them to push to disrupt power relations as far as they could, which resulted in many conflicting and troubling situations, such as swearing at a child, which they acknowledge, was problematic. In “neither agreeing or directing children’s actions” (Mandell, 1988: 428), Atkinson (2019) found themselves, and in turn their co-researchers, in sometimes violent and inequitable situations. Adopting the least-adult role as it was conceived and described in 1988, is to adopt a role in contemporary research activities which purposely blurs the line between the child and the adult researcher, which may put the child at risk.

This also poses questions about the researcher witnessing or being told something that is a child protection concern when they have adopted the least-adult role. Given the child protection legislation and guidelines contemporary researchers operate within, what are the implications for adopting the least-adult role as conceived and described in 1988? Purposely blurring the lines between adult and child can have unanticipated consequences and deeply problematic ethical considerations. Consider what a contemporary researcher should do if they encounter something that requires them legally to breach confidentiality after purposely blurring the lines between adult and child. What are the repercussions for the research relationship, for a child’s future attachments and trust in adults and themselves? Consider the blurring of the line itself – is it a deceit? Is there a possibility that the least-adult role, because of its vagueness, could be interpreted by a researcher to not step in or not report a disclosure or something they have witnessed? Certainly, during my time observing in EPS, one boy used to sharpen his pencil and stick it into another boy’s leg. One day when he did so, the other boy jumped up in pain and hit the first boy. The second child was considered “a troublemaker” by his teachers and was frequently called on to behave or blamed for incidences when he was absent from class. The teacher came over and shouted at the child and pulled him up by the arm. I initially sat in the chair not knowing what to do. After a minute of shouting, I interrupted the teacher and told her what had happened, and the first boy was made to apologise. I agonised for days about whether I had made the right decision as a researcher. In fact, I still grapple with it. I grapple with the idea that I should have reported the behaviours when I first started to notice them, but I also grapple with whether I made the right decision when I told the teacher – either way I still am unsure which was the correct decision for the least-adult in the room.

Authenticity as a researcher

The concept can cause researchers to abandon not only their authentic ways of being in order to be more child-like, such as their clothing, the way they speak etc. but also, more alarmingly, their own autonomy, both bodily and morally, as is illustrated by Atkinson’s experiences. Perhaps, this is a misinterpretation of the concept. The concept does not ask the researcher to take on the role of not-adult but that of least-adult. It is in the difference in situational, cultural, political, and relational spaces where this language can be problematic in its lack of direction. What does it mean to be the least-adult? Does least-adult equate to not adult? Somewhere between adulthood and childhood – adolescence? Does least-adult equate to child-like? If so, what does it mean to be a child? Is it an age; a stage; an emotional state; physical state; cultural state, and so on? I would offer that what it is to be a child is different depending on the context.

Atkinson (2019) considers the notion of childhood when they offer the concept of ‘honorary child’ as an alternative to least-adult role. A strong rationale is offered in countering the theorisation of the romantic notion of the child, that of childhood as a fluid, shifting, situated concept (Atkinson, 2019). Traditional deficit focused theories of power, and power balances are flipped, and the child is placed as the gatekeeper with power, allowing or denying the researcher access to their worlds. I am drawn to the queering of the heterogeneous norms of the concept of childhood even in its fluidic, broadest sense. I also appreciate how it causes us to consider childhood as something other than a stage or age in the lifespan while still acknowledging “the inescapability of adulthood” (Atkinson, 2019: 199). However, Atkinson does acknowledge loss of control and the perceived misbehaviour of the children as troubling to them as a researcher. The swearing incident came about after a child took a notebook containing fieldnotes that had other children’s names written in it. The researcher felt a lack of control in the situation, and tried to negotiate through using language the child themselves had used in a previous session. Did they also lose their authenticity as a person in this incident? I am not convinced that the concept of ‘honorary child’ solves a situation where you keep fieldnotes out of bounds for a child co-researcher any more than occupying a least-adult role would. Perhaps the loss of control is an inevitable part of researching with children in an equitable way; and as such any fieldnotes must be open to the child co-researcher?

Alternatively, Garratt (2021) discusses the embodied nature of the least-adult role and concludes that the wording of the least-adult role is that which is more attractive or suitable than alternatives, as it does not claim child status - unlike ‘honorary child’. However, it is noticeable that Garratt was also not true to their authentic selves and used their (acknowledged) white, adult body to “imitate the activities of children” (2021: 9). They also admitted to giving away their own autonomy to say no, to perform, or take part in, child-initiated activities such as singing. Ethically, it could be argued this lack of autonomy is problematic. The least-adult role could be described as an attempt to deceive children into believing the researcher is not fully adult, however it also demands the researcher to relinquish their own autonomy and authenticity to be somehow more child-like and less adult. This again demands a deficit view of children. Do children have no autonomy? Certainly, in my experience as an educator and a researcher, children who do not want to get up and sing, do not get up and sing, and they would not believe an adult is any less adult for declining to do so also. It must be ok to decline to take part in activities that children initiate when researching with them – if for no other reason other than for upholding boundaries.

A playful researcher?

As flawed as the concept of the least-adult role can be in contemporary research, I do believe that Mandell had a core idea of something rather innovative and much more productive in accessing children’s worlds and ways of being. Responsive, interactive, and being fully involved, as well as assuming the role of learner and allowing children to teach their ways (Mandell, 1988) are all relationship-building, partnership behaviours. This relationship and rapport building is pivotal to building up trust which depends on the capabilities of the adult researcher (Punch, 2002). They could also be considered the behaviours of a playful researcher. Play is a natural medium through which to build genuine rapport and relationships with children (Lindo et al., 2019) and arguably, play, by its very explorative and inquisitive nature, should be used as a research tool with children, who naturally explore and learn through play (Corsaro, 2015). In turn, if using play as a research tool, and as a medium through which to develop a relationship with co-researching children, it follows that the researcher should assume the role of a playful researcher. Admittedly, there may be hesitance in being playful when research criteria focus on ‘rigor’ or ‘tradition’, however we need to consider the following: Is being playful somehow the opposite of research or science? Considering that play is our very first, instinctive mode of inquiry as humans, should play and therefore playfulness not be central to inquisitiveness in researching?

“Playfulness can be seen as the disposition to frame or reframe a situation to include possibilities for enjoyment, exploration and choice”5 (Mardell et al., 2016: 3). While playfulness as an approach to researching and play as a method of inquiry or learning is being discussed and utilised more formally or explicitly in contemporary research (Baker and Davila, 2018; Baker et al., 2016; Koch, 2018; Mardell et al., 2016), I suspect it has been a natural approach of qualitative researchers with children (particularly younger children) for many years. “Play is both objective and subjective, comprising qualities of observable behaviour as well as qualities of felt experience” (Mardell et al., 2016: 3). It is this idea of felt experience that leads me to believe that it has been utilised in the field but not named – at least until Mandell tried to articulate it and put some sort of shape on it in the conceptualisation of the least-adult role. However, I would argue that Mandell fell victim to what Sutton-Smith (2007) calls the ambiguity of play. When it is difficult to articulate how you are trying to research, it is almost impossible to put appropriate (and agreeable) boundaries on it. It is instructive to look at theories and conceptualisations of play in education and sociology to inform thinking about play in research. For Wood (2010), play itself is:

ambiguous and highly complex, in terms of content, social interactions, symbolic meaning, communicative languages, and the environmental affordances that mediate play and playfulness. Meanings are produced dynamically, drawing on the socio-cultural-historical resources of the players… From children’s perspectives, play is also about subversion and inversion, which is where issues of power, agency and control are played out. Thus, play incorporates political and ethical issues … (2010)

Taking Wood’s definition of play and likening it to the role of a playful researcher would also name the complexities of the role, the responsibilities, the power relations, and make explicit the ethical and political implications, as well as the ambiguities. However, I agree it is also a disposition and an embodied or ‘felt’ role.

The Pedagogy of Play Research Team (Baker et al., 2016, Baker and Davila, 2018) use Playful Participatory Research (PPR) as a playful methodology for researching in schools and when researching play as learning or pedagogy. I would like to build on the notion of a playful researcher to be broader than that of a specific research approach. I would see a playful researcher as an extension of Mandell’s concept of least-adult role. I have searched – not exhaustively, but rigorously across many disciplines, and the explicit mention of ‘a playful researcher’ is something I have only found in recent research around using Playful Participatory Research (PPR) (Baker and Davila, 2018). Many research papers and studies name play as a method of inquiry, pedagogy, or learning, but not playful as a disposition or role of a researcher. Of my inquiries, Koch (2018) comes closest when she speaks about playful interactions and negotiations between the researcher and the child. Koch used Hart’s ladder of participation to negotiate her research with three-year-olds to five-year-olds, she argues that because children do not share the same theoretical interests as adults “their participation might easily change the focus of a study” (2018: 2). However, these differences in focus are not right or wrong, they are not at odds with each other, they are simply a different lens through which the study is experienced and told (Koch, 2018).

Being playful in the field

This argument by Koch is interesting to me in relation to my research in EPS, particularly during the photographic exercise. The children from three to eight years took part. Each class-group was divided into groups of six children. Each group was given a digital camera. We explained how the camera worked and asked them to take pictures of what they love about their school. Initially, when I created the methodology, I had planned to ask only focus children to complete the photography exercise. However, after 3 years of observing and researching with the children, I realised that they learned as communities rather than as individuals. The children had the freedom to go anywhere on the school grounds to take photos. I stood back and let the children take the lead in this exercise and I was surprised by their choices and decisions. The children took photos of the people with whom they have good relationships: the Singh family who run the school, their teachers, their friends, siblings, cousins, children from their communities, their bus driver. They directed each other to pose. They directed me and Suresh to pose. They took pictures of nature - particularly trees, “we go to school in a jungle”, they took pictures of shadows, of the school’s buildings, staircases, and the kitchen.

Thinking with Koch (2018), the children’s focus on relationships and physical environment did not compete with my focus on play and early learning. They were just two different lenses to what we valued and looked for in that moment of research together. Koch cautions that “by flexing back and forth between her own and the children’s perspective” (2018: 5) the adult researcher understands that they are not seeing things from the child’s point of view but that what they are seeing are adult representations and approximations of the children’s views (Koch, 2018: 5). This echoes James’ caution of claiming to see the world from a child’s perspective as a new kind of truth (2007) when using participatory research with children. However, Koch states that in order to include a child’s perspectives from this view, the playful researcher must be prepared to let go of their adult control, accept an invitation to play in order to develop relationships and “encounter the children with an open and curious mind” (2018: 5).

When I productively undid (Spivak, 2012) my experiences in the field, I noted that it was the photograph exercise where I let go of adult control (i.e., I stopped colonising their play), accepted play invitations, and encountered the children with a curious mind in order to engage in their play on their terms, just as Koch suggests. My adult research agenda did not dominate or lead the activity. I was not looked to for leadership. I was invited by the children to play and take part in their experiences with the camera and while they led, I authentically played with them and had fun. My interactions and my playful responses were authentic in the moment; I was not playing a role. I acknowledge that this could be argued to be a form of participant observation, however due to the play invitations and the sense of authenticity in my playful interactions and acceptance of those invitations, I would argue that I embodied the disposition of a playful researcher. I followed my research partners’ lead.

Being playful as a co-researcher, also meant making space for playful inquiry and inquiry that did not involve me. As Koch (2018) indicated, it meant a loss of adult control - not letting go of adult autonomy, but of adult control. To let go of my adult control led to a constant questioning of whether my research was rigorous or scientific enough. It certainly was not traditional, and it was terrifying. However, I believe it was also closer to authentic co-researching. Letting go of control as a researcher allowed me to be truly authentic in my interactions and dispositions, as the playful Sinead they knew me to be. It meant I could follow the children’s lead. It allowed me to be playful in my interactions and relationships without pretending to be something or someone I was not. It created space for the children to do their own research. It allowed the children space to surprise me and show me an insight into their lived experiences in the school that I would not have known if I had stuck to my original method and questions. Their findings did not compete with my findings, as I flexed back and forth (Koch, 2018) I gained a perspective that I had not considered. In many ways, my years of experience as a preschool educator prepared me for following children’s lead and trusting their abilities.

Shier, similarly explains how he believed his training and experience as a playworker helped him to research in partnership with children in Nicaragua – particularly the playworker mindset (2017). Shier suggested that other researchers intending on researching in partnership with children could benefit from the playworker mindset to “cut through the preconceptions and prescriptions of the adult professional world to engage more fully with children’s ways of thinking and so get closer to a real understanding of children’s own experiences, perceptions and agendas” (2017: 8). This mindset is described as formed through critical reflective practice and an understanding of play as an innate childhood activity with no need of leadership from adults (Shier, 2017). It echoes Koch’s (2018) argument that a sense of freedom that comes from play helps to overcome some power relations that exist in a co-constructed shared world between children and the playful adult researcher. This playworker mindset is also familiar to me as a Montessori teacher. To follow the child’s lead and critically reflect on what you observe is something I was trained in and began to do instinctively when in the field during the photography exercise. This similar mindset held by Shier, came about because of his experience and critical reflection on his relationship with children in his work as a Playworker. This raises the question of training adults to be playful researchers. Perhaps being playful is just part of someone’s personality, character traits, or dispositions? Is being playful with children an innate personality trait or is it something that can be learned? Certainly, both my experience and Shier’s experience seems to suggest that it is something that can be learned. This is a concept that needs to be explored in more depth.

Conclusion

Mandell’s least-adult role sparked a critical and ongoing conversation amongst researchers about how to conduct themselves while in the field co-researching with children, and while it was appropriate for its time and began a timely interrogation of how adults research with children, it is interrogated in this paper, because when I read further, it seemed I was not the only researcher to question it in contemporary research (Atkinson, 2019; Garratt, 2021). The concept was plugged in (Jackson and Mazzei, 2012, 2013) to postcolonial, children’s rights, and other theories, allowing for a contemporary interrogation, with different societal and cultural values – particularly of seeing children as agentic experts in their own lives, and of being honest and open with them as capable co-researchers so that their right to a say in matters that affect them (United Nations, 1989) is realised.

This led to the concept of ‘playful researcher’ being offered for consideration, to continue the conversation that Mandell started. It offers a prompt to consider training for the adult researcher in being playful as a methodology, mindset (Shier, 2017), or role. While some researchers discuss capacity building for children when participating in co-researching projects (Kellet, 2010; Lundy and McEvoy, 2012) perhaps there is a deeper, more urgent need to discuss disposition, personality, and roles with adult researchers first. Rather than imposing adult methods on children and colonising their ways of researching, perhaps we could consider what would happen if we let go of control (including our adult methodologies), became playful researchers, and trusted children to co-research through play with us.