This paper delves into the creative methodology adopted whilst engaging in a research study with five families whose young children (aged between 8 and 10 years old) were excluded from school due to social, emotional and mental health difficulties. The complex needs surrounding these families often lead to them being labelled as hard-to-reach and therefore challenging to engage in research. This paper will explore these challenges, the ethical dilemmas that emerged, the constant observation throughout, the reflexivity and flexibility required by the researchers and the relationships forged. Using various creative methods as part of the Mosaic approach both the children and their parents were able to play a part in the meaning-making process throughout the research journey. The culmination of the research study took place in the format of a multi-family group session which provided a safe space for an intergenerational encounter allowing for the children’s and parent's authentic voices to continue to be heard.
AsenE (2002) Multiple family therapy: An overview. The association for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy24: 3–16. 0163–4445.
2.
AsenEScholzM (2010) Multi-Family Therapy: Concepts and Techniques. London and New York: Routledge.
3.
BashirN (2019) The qualitative researcher: The flip side of the research encounter with vulnerable people. Qualitative Research20(5): 667–683.
4.
BlaisdellCArnottLWallK (2019) Look Who’s Talking: Using creative, playful arts-based methods in research with young children. Journal of Early Childhood Research17(1): 14–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X18808816.
5.
BlaisdellCArnottLWallK, et al. (2019) Look who’s talking: Using creative, playful arts-based methods in research with young children. Journal of Early Childhood Research17(1): 14–31.
6.
Boag-MunroeGEvangelouM (2012) From hard-to-reach to how to reach: A systematic review of the literature on hard-to-reach families. Research Papers in Education27(2): 209–239.
7.
BorraSTKellyLShirreffsMB, et al. (2003) Developing health messages: Qualitative studies with children, parents, and teachers help identify communications opportunities for healthful lifestyles and the prevention of obesity. Journal of the American Dietetic Association103(6): 721–728.
8.
Bushin N (2007) Interviewing with children in their homes: Putting ethical principles into practice and developing flexible techniques. Children’s Geographies 5(3): 235–251. DOI: 10.1080/14733280701445796.
9.
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University (2021) Three principles to improve outcomes for children and families, update. Available at: http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu.
10.
ChamberlainKHodgettsD (2018) Collecting qualitative data with hard-to-reach groups. In: FlickU (ed) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070.
11.
ClarkA (2005) Ways of seeing: Using the Mosaic approach to listen to young children. In: ClarkAKjørholtAMossP (eds) Beyond Listening: Children’s Perspectives on Early Childhood Services. Bristol: The Policy Press.
CoemansSHannesK (2017) Researchers under the spell of the arts: Two decades of using arts-based methods in community-based inquiry with vulnerable populations. Educational Research Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.003.
14.
CortisNKatzIPatulnyR (2009) Engaging hard-to-reach families and children. National Evaluation Consortium (Social Policy Research Centre). Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2004-2009. University of New South Wales and Australian Institute of Family Studies.
15.
CoussensMDestoopBDeBaetsS, et al. (2020) A Qualitative Photo Elicitation Research Study to elicit the perception of young children with Developmental Disabilities such as ADHD and or DCD and/or ASD on their participation. PLoS One15(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229538.
16.
CreswellJWMillerDL (2000) Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice39: 124–130.
17.
DawsonNMcHughBAsenE (2018) Multi-Family Groups in Schools: A Theoretical and Practical Guide. London: Anna Freud Centre for Children and Families.
18.
DeweyJ (1916) Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.
19.
DockettSPerryBKearneyE, et al. (2009) Researching with families: ethical issues and situations. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood10(4). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2009.10.4.353.
20.
DoradoJSMartinezMMcArthurLE, et al. (2016) Healthy environments and response to trauma in schools (HEARTS): A whole-school, multi-level, prevention and intervention program for creating trauma-informed, safe and supportive schools. School Mental Health8: 163–176.
21.
Equinet: European Network of Equality Bodies (2022) Training: Engaging with Hard-to-Reach Groups in the Context of Research. Brussels: European Union Fundamental Rights Agency.
FengeLAHodgesCCuttsW (2011) Seen but seldom heard: Creative participatory methods in a study of youth and risk. International Journal of Qualitative Methods10: 418–430.
24.
FreemanCButteryYvan HeezikY (2021) Complexity and flexibility: Interviews with three-generation families in their homes. Qualitative Research21(4): 531–549.
25.
FroonijianJGarnettJL (2013) Reaching the hard-to-reach: Drawing lessons from research and practice. International Journal of Public Administration36(12): 831–839.
26.
GannoniAFShuteRH (2010) Parental and child perspectives on adaptation to childhood chronic illness: A qualitative study. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry15(1): 39–53.
27.
GeorgesonJPorterJDanielH, et al. (2014) Consulting young children about barriers and supports to learning. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal22(2): 198–212.
28.
GergenK JGergenM M and Kara H (2015) Foreward. In: Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide (1st ed., pp. ix–x). Bristol University Press. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt1t88xn4.5.
29.
GilliesVRobinsonY (2010) Managing emotions in research with challenging pupils. Ethnography and Education5(1): 97110.
30.
GombertKDouglasFMcArdleK, et al. (2015) Reflections on ethical dilemmas in working with so-called ‘vulnerable’ and ‘hard-to-reach’ groups: Experiences from the Foodways and Futures project. Educational Action Research24(4): 583–597.
31.
GrayCWinterE (2011) Hearing voices: Participatory research with preschool children with and without disabilities. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal19(3): 309–320.
32.
Groundwater-SmithSDockettSBottrellD (2015) Participatory Research with Children and Young People. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
33.
GuinoteACotziaISandhuS, et al. (2015) Social status modulates prosocial behaviour and egalitarianism in preschool children and adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112(3): 731–736.
34.
HarperMColeP (2012) Member checking: Can benefits be gained similar to group therapy?The Qualitative Report, Teaching and Learning17(2): 510–517. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2012.2139.
35.
HillVCroydonAGreatheadS, et al. (2016) Research methods for children with multiple needs: Techniques to facilitate all children and young people to have a ‘voice’. Educational and Child Psychology: 26–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2016.33.3.26.
36.
HollandSRenoldERossNJ, et al. (2010) Power, agency and participatory agendas: A critical exploration of young people’s engagement in participate qualitative research. Childhood17(3): 360–375.
37.
JenkinEWilsonECampainR, et al. (2019) The principles and ethics of including children with disability in child research. Children and Society34(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12356.
38.
KaraH (2015) Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Policy Press.
39.
KelletM (2010) Rethinking Children and Research. London: Continuum.
40.
KoelschLE (2013) Reconceptualising the member check interview. The International Journal of Qualitative Methods12(1): 168–179.
41.
Kramer-RoyD (2015) Using participatory and creative methods to facilitate emancipatory research with people facing multiple disadvantage: A role for health and care professionals. Disability & Society30(8): 1207–1224.
42.
KristensenGRavnMN (2015) The voices heard and the voices silenced: Recruitment processes in qualitative interview studies. Qualitative Research15(6): 722–737.
43.
LandySMennaR (2006) Early Intervention with Multi-Risk Families: An Integrative Approach. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
44.
LemmensG (2023) Multifamily therapy – Spreading across the world. Journal of Family Therapy45(1): –3.
45.
LittleSLittleT (2022) An un/familiar space: Children and parents as collaborators in autoethnographic family research. Qualitative Research22(4): 632–648.
46.
McKayMMHarrisonMEGonzalesJ, et al. (2002) Multi- family groups for urban children with conduct difficulties and their families. Psychiatric Services53(11): 1467–1468.
47.
MullinsJ (2014) A framework for cultivating and increasing child welfare workers’ empathy towards parents. Journal of Social Service Research37(3): 242–253.
48.
O’ LearySMoloneyM (2020) Understanding the experiences of young children on the autism spectrum as they navigate the Irish early years’ education system: Valuing voices in child-centred narratives. International Journal of Qualitative Methods19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920914696.
49.
ParkerCPagetAFordT, et al. (2016) ‘.he was excluded for the kind of behaviour that we thought he needed support with…’ A qualitative analysis of the experiences and perspectives of parents whose children have been excluded from school. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties21(1): 133–151.
50.
RainfordJ (2020) Confidence and the effectiveness of creative methods in qualitative interviews with adults,International Journal of Social Research Methodology23(1): 109–122.
51.
RapportF (2004) New Qualitative Methodogies in Health and Social Care Research. New York: Routledge.
52.
RiessmanCK (2008) Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Pulications, Inc.
53.
Sammut ScerriC (2015) Living with contradictions of love and violence: A grounded theory study of women’s understanding of their childhood experiences of domestic violence. Doctoral dissertation, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
54.
SammutScerri CAbelaAVetereA (2012) Ethical dilemmas of a clinician/researcher interviewing women who have grown up in a family where there was domestic violence. International Journal of Qualitative Methods11(2): 82–101.
55.
SkaugeBSkarstad StorhaugAMarhinsenE (2021) The what, why and how of child paricipation – A review of the conceptualisation of ‘child paricipation’ in child welfare. Department of Social Work, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
56.
Van der KolkB (2014) The Body Keeps the Score. New York, New York: Penguin Random House.
57.
Van der PutCEde RuiterC (2016) Child maltreatment victimization by type in relation to criminal recidivism in juvenile offenders. BMC Psychiatry16: –9.
58.
WilkinsonCCarterBSatchwellC, et al. (2021) Using methods across generations: Researcher reflections from a research project involving young people and their parents. Children's Geographies20(5): 648–660.
59.
WilsonJ (2013) A social relational critique of the biomedical definition and treatment of ADHD; ethical practical and political implications. Journal of Family Therapy35(2): 198–218.
60.
YinR (2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
