Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Disabled children are often excluded from research about their own lives due to researchers’ reliance on inaccessible methods and ableist assumptions about their capabilities. Inclusive research approaches that prioritize accessibility, meaningful engagement, dignity, and ethics create space for research with and by disabled children. Accessible methods for data generation play a central role in inclusive research. For example, action cameras have the potential to shine light on disabled children’s perspectives from both socio-spatial and socio-cultural standpoints, providing unique access to disabled children’s points of view. While the use of action cameras has become increasingly popular across the social sciences, there is a paucity of literature that discusses the use of action cameras in data generation with disabled children. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the possibilities and challenges of using action cameras as a tool for data generation with disabled children. Drawing on lessons learned during a research project about disabled children’s and their families’ experiences of inclusion at a playground labelled as “inclusive”, we reflect on the use of action cameras and situate our experiences within a broader dialogue about reflexive, methodological, and ethical considerations for conducting inclusive, critical, qualitative research with disabled children.

Keywords

action cameras disability children inclusive research qualitative research reflexivity

Introduction

Disabled¹ children occupy unique positions within society; their intersecting experiences of being children and being disabled mean their lives are significantly shaped by adults (Punch, 2002; Stafford, 2017a; Tisdall, 2012) and their voices are commonly replaced by those of adults in everyday life. Unsurprisingly, this has extended into the field of childhood disability research; disabled children’s perspectives continue to be underrepresented in research about their own childhoods (Njelesani et al., 2022; Stafford, 2017b; Tiefenbacher, 2022; Van Goidsenhoven & De Schauwer, 2022). Disabled children are often excluded from research because of ableist assumptions about their capabilities, reliance on normative communication, and inaccessible research methods (Harasym et al., 2024; Stafford, 2017b; Watson, 2012). To engage disabled children in research about their own lives, researchers are called to consider inclusive methodological innovations to garner rich understandings of children’s cultures inclusive of childhood disability. Inclusive research with disabled children aims to ensure that research processes prioritize meaningful engagement, accessibility, dignity, and the centering of disabled children’s unique knowledge (Ibrahim et al., 2022; Jenkin et al., 2020; Teachman & Gibson, 2013; Tiefenbacher, 2022). Action cameras, for example, have the potential to shine light on disabled children’s perspectives and provide unique access to children’s points of view.

Action cameras and other forms of wearable technology, such as GoPro cameras, can be held or worn, and record audio and visual footage from the user’s point of view (Brown, et al., 2008). Action cameras have gained traction as an innovative research tool to understand how children interact in their environments from their unique points of view (Burbank et al., 2018; Burris, 2017; Green, 2016; Hov & Neegaard, 2020; Richardson, 2023). Despite this, disabled children have been overwhelmingly absent from conversations about the use of wearable technology as a tool for data generation about children’s lives. In response to this gap, this paper contributes methodological insights to broader discussions about inclusive research with disabled children, particularly regarding data generation using wearable action cameras.

The authors draw on their experiences conducting critical qualitative research exploring perspectives on inclusion at playgrounds with disabled children and their families. The aim of this study was to understand how socio-spatial factors shape disabled children and their families’ experiences of inclusion. Disabled children’s points of view were centred within this work. Unique to this study, disabled children were invited to use action cameras while engaging in play. Action cameras and adaptive accessories were purposefully selected to 1) facilitate inclusive research through accessible methods, 2) share control in data generation, and 3) provide a unique entry point into children’s life worlds. By drawing on examples from our research with disabled children, we explore the possibilities and pitfalls associated with using action cameras and how this technology can center disabled children’s perspectives in conversations about their own lives. We situate our reflections within a broader dialogue about reflexive, methodological, and ethical considerations for conducting inclusive, critical, qualitative research with disabled children and their families.

Research with Disabled Children

Children’s involvement in research can be understood as research on children, research with children, and research by children (Mason & Watson, 2013; Njelesani et al., 2022). This categorization is about understanding or examining how children “have been positioned in the construction of knowledge about them” (Mason & Watson, 2013, p. 2757). Children’s involvement in research is dictated (in part) by how much (or how little) control over research processes adults are willing to share (Alderson, 2001). Research on children refers to studies led by adults, positioning children as the objects under study (Mason & Watson, 2013). Historically, children have been viewed as unreliable sources regarding their own experiences. As such, research concerning their lives has been primarily done on children (Barker & Weller, 2003; Fargas-Malet et al., 2010; Mayall, 2000). Research with children is rooted in an understanding that information about childhood must come from children’s knowledge (Mayall, 2000; Montreuil et al., 2021) and is marked by their active participation in data generation methods and a commitment to tailoring methods to suit children’s preferences and strengths (Christensen & James, 2017; Njelesani et al., 2022). Research by children involves projects that are initiated, developed, and directed by children as (co)researchers (Alderson, 2001; Phelan & Boyd, 2019).

The exclusion of disabled children from participating in research has primarily stemmed from ableist assumptions, values, and beliefs about their competence and capability of providing valuable and credible data (Stafford, 2017b; Tisdall, 2012; Watson, 2012). Typically, the experiences of disabled children have been elicited through adult proxies in research studies (Bailey et al., 2014; Moore et al., 2022; Njelesani et al., 2022; Stafford, 2017b). For example, in the literature reporting on the experiences of disabled children at playgrounds, there has been an overreliance on the perspectives of adults, mainly parent, teacher, and clinician accounts of children’s experiences, as well as observations made by researchers (research on children) (e.g., Brunnberg, 2005; Da Silva et al., 2022; Gilmore et al., 2018; Gutierrez et al., 2007; Kodjebacheva, 2008; Rocha et al., 2018; Van Engelen et al., 2021). However, more recently, researchers have demonstrated that disabled children can be more actively involved in research about their experiences of inclusion at playgrounds using interviews (Holt, 2007; Jeanes & Magee, 2012; Wenger et al., 2020), storytelling (oral, digital, and visual) (Ktenidis, 2023), and other creative methods (Burke, 2015; Stafford, 2017a). While the conversation is growing, there is a need for more dialogue about inclusive research methods to facilitate research with and by disabled children (Malmqvist et al., 2024; Young & Clerke, 2024).

Notably, activists, scholars, and researchers in the field of disabled children’s childhood studies have called for research and scholarship that is rooted in an understanding of disabled children as knowledgeable and capable of participation in research about their own lives (Bailey et al., 2014; Curran & Runswick-Cole, 2014; Njelesani et al., 2022; Tiefenbacher, 2022; Underwood et al., 2020). Exploring disabled children’s perspectives in research is a unique task that deserves careful consideration for several reasons. First, disabled children occupy a marginalized position in adult-centric societies, meaning much of their lives are controlled by adults (Punch, 2002; Stafford, 2017b). This places a tremendous responsibility on researchers to ethically navigate the power relations inherent in the research process (Abbott, 2013). Second, adults often position children as an inherently vulnerable “other”, which will shape their decision-making throughout the research process (Cater, 2009; Nutbrown, 2010; Punch, 2002; Van Goidsenhoven & De Schauwer, 2022). Lastly, there is a tendency for adult researchers to focus their work on intervention-based approaches for transitioning disabled children into normative adulthood (Curran, 2013; Slater, 2013). Slater (2013) suggested that this ignores the here-and-now experiences of being young and disabled, which are worthy of being explored, particularly from disabled children’s points of view.

Using Action Cameras in Qualitative Research

Before their use in research, action cameras gained traction in popular culture as a way to record and share footage of extreme sports (Chalfen, 2014; Brown, et al., 2008). Action cameras have become “increasingly portable, lightweight and generally miniaturised” (Chalfen, 2014, p. 299). The versatility of action cameras has led to an increase in their use in research, broadly, across the social sciences (Burbank et al., 2018; Caton & Hackett, 2019; Chalfen, 2014; Everhart, 2022; Green, 2016; Kindt, 2011; Middleton & Byles, 2019). For example, action camera footage has been used in research as a ‘stand-alone’ data source (e.g., Kinsley et al., 2016) and as a tool for eliciting discussions with participants (e.g., Burbank et al., 2018; Green, 2016; Lloyd et al., 2018; Middleton & Byles, 2019).

Decision-making regarding the use of wearable cameras in research is shaped by the researcher’s paradigm (ontology, epistemology, axiology), research questions, theoretical perspective, and methodology. For example, some researchers argue that action cameras enable access to an “objective” point of view (Green, 2016; Kindt, 2011; Richardson, 2023). From this perspective, wearable cameras offer a naturalistic approach to observation from a participant’s vantage point that is unmatched by other observational methods (Richardson, 2023). This claim is rooted in post-positivist ontological and epistemological assumptions prioritizing objective truth and reality. In contrast, researchers operating from interpretive paradigms acknowledge the generation of action camera footage as constructed and curated by the person wielding the camera (Caton & Hackett, 2019; Lofthus & Frers, 2021; Sumartojo & Pink, 2017). From this perspective, attaching an action camera to a person involves “repositioning the researcher” who interprets and generates meaning from the data (Lofthus & Frers, 2021, p. 327). Considering action camera footage as one of many points of view creates opportunities for crystallization; to consider multiple perspectives and tensions in the data instead of confirming a single truth (Mohammed et al., 2015; Tracy, 2010). Transparency about researchers’ ontological and epistemological assumptions is important to understand their intentions around the use of action cameras, how they engaged with the data, and to situate the claims they make about the data and corresponding truths (Caton & Hackett, 2019; Harwood & Collier, 2019).

Using Action Cameras with Children

Action cameras have been used in research with children in a variety of contexts, for example, nature-based learning programs (Beauchamp, 2019; Green, 2016; Harwood & Collier, 2017; Harwood et al., 2022), museums (Burbank et al., 2018; Burris, 2017), early childhood education settings and after-school programs (Burris, 2017; Richardson, 2023), and children’s outdoor play spaces, including playgrounds (Beauchamp, 2019; Chen & Hamel, 2022; Fellner, 2020; Tangen et al., 2022). In response to an increase in the use of action cameras in research with children, researchers are engaging in broader discussions about their application (e.g., Caton & Hackett, 2019; Green, 2016; Hov & Neegaard, 2020; Kindt, 2011). Action cameras have been touted as reliable tools for generating data with children (Hov & Neegaard, 2020; Kindt, 2011), for a few reasons. For example, children can be “independent” when using the cameras, meaning data can be generated without researcher(s) or other adults being immediately nearby (Beauchamp et al., 2019; Fellner, 2020; Hov & Neegaard, 2020; Lloyd et al., 2018). Similarly, the action cameras afford opportunities to generate data related to activities in child-centred spaces that are difficult for adult researchers to gain access to, both physically and culturally speaking (Burris, 2017; Green, 2016). For example, tight spaces like a tunnel slide on a playground or a window into children’s games and imaginative play. As such, child-led data generation using action cameras has the potential to provide insight into children’s unique perspectives that adults might otherwise miss (Fellner, 2020; Green, 2016; Lloyd et al., 2018; Richardson, 2023).

Using Action Cameras with Disabled Children

While there has been an increased use of wearable cameras in research with children (Brown, et al., 2008; Burbank et al., 2018; Burris, 2017; Ghekiere et al., 2014; Green, 2016; Hov & Neegaard, 2020; Kindt, 2011; Richardson, 2023), there is a paucity of literature that discusses the use of action cameras in data generation with disabled children, and much less research that supports disabled children in directing or leading how action cameras are used. Much of the research involving the use of action cameras with disabled children has primarily been directed by adults and focused on behaviours and/or interventions specific to disability. For example, Magrelli et al. (2013, 2014) used action cameras to study the gaze behaviours of autistic children in their homes and schools, with the aim of understanding their responses to social cues. Mazzei et al. (2010) utilized action cameras with autistic children to study their behaviours in response to an android as part of their research aimed at developing adaptive therapy to improve social engagement. Marcu et al. (2012) instructed autistic children to don wearable cameras (that took still photos as opposed to video) to understand if these devices could be useful in family life, for example, to support communication between parents and children. As part of their doctoral research, Stump (2017) invited autistic children to wear action cameras during community outings as part of an intervention to increase social interactions between parents and their children. Parents and their children then watched the videos together, and researchers compared the amount of time parents and children spent interacting while watching the videos and during other daily interactions. Other documented uses of action cameras include studying disabled children’s experiences in play spaces (Ayyagari, 2018; Burke & Stafford, 2023). Ayyagari (2018) used a GoPro (aerial view) “to capture the movement of children with and without disabilities in an effort to understand the variation in displacement and dispersion patterns” in an open gymnasium (the location for an inclusive play group) (p. 23).

Notably, in all these studies, the researchers or parents were responsible for determining how and when to use the cameras. Using action cameras in this way may arguably be considered research with disabled children in the literal sense but does not necessarily go as far as centring their unique knowledge and points of view. In contrast, Burke and Stafford (2023) engaged disabled children in research to understand how their agency is enacted in an inclusive play space. In this study, participants wore action cameras during free play sessions to generate data. The difference with Burke and Stafford’s (2023) approach hinges on the researchers’ paradigmatic position and their interpretation of the data through the lens of disabled children as active agents and experts in their own lives.

The Potential for Action Cameras to Facilitate Inclusive Research with Disabled Children

Inclusive research encompasses a range of works that are driven by concerns related to participation, power, accessibility, and ethics and focuses on engaging with the perspectives of those who have been excluded from research (Kellett, 2010; Nind, 2014; Verhage et al., 2024; Walmsley & Johnson, 2003; Watharow & Wayland, 2022). Inclusive research does not offer prescriptive instructions for how studies are conducted or what methods to use but rather reflects a range of approaches that embrace the democratization of research processes (Nind, 2014; Nind & Vinha, 2013). For Walmsley and Johnson (2003), inclusive research “involves people who may otherwise be seen as subjects for the research as instigators of ideas, research designers, interviewers, data analysts, authors, disseminators and users” (p. 10). In other words, an inclusive approach to research aligns most closely with research with and by members of the disability community (Nind, 2014; Warwick, 2020).

Action cameras may offer a unique opportunity for researchers aiming to conduct inclusive research using accessible methods. Making action cameras available can diversify participation beyond traditional methods like interviews and observations by providing participants with an alternative way to share their points of view and opportunities to direct their participation in the research process (how, when, and whether or not to wear the camera) (Kullman, 2012; Lloyd et al., 2018). Researchers have suggested that action cameras can create space for participants to record what is most significant for them, driving research findings toward priorities that matter to them (Kinsley et al., 2016; Richardson, 2023). This can support a shift in traditional researcher-participant power relations toward a dynamic of power-sharing, where researcher methods become participant methods (Kinsley et al., 2016; Middleton & Byles, 2019; Richardson, 2023).

Importantly, this alternative approach to data generation can clearly convey to participants that their perspectives and unique points of view are valuable, regardless of how they are communicated, shared or documented (Everhart, 2022; Warwick, 2020). This can lead to a broader sense of inclusion and citizenship for folks who have been historically excluded from research, particularly folks who may communicate non-verbally or with other less traditional literacies (Harasym et al., 2024; Middleton & Byles, 2019; Warwick, 2020). Given the generative potential of action cameras as a method to facilitate inclusive research, we, the authors, employed their use in our research with disabled children and their families about their experiences of inclusion at an inclusive playground. In the following sections, we will reflect on some of the advantages and challenges associated with using action cameras in research with disabled children.

“I’ll show you!”: Reflecting on Action Cameras and Disabled Children’s Points of View Context

We, the authors, have a long-standing trajectory of research supporting inclusion and belonging for disabled children and their families in all aspects of community and cultural life. In this particular study, we explored how socio-spatial factors shaped disabled children’s and their family members’ experiences of inclusion at a playground that had been labelled as “inclusive”. The research design was rooted in the assumption that disabled children are active agents who can contribute to research about their own lives (Abbott, 2013; Curran & Runswick-Cole, 2014; Slater, 2013). A socio-spatial lens was used to examine how the structural aspects of the space, and the social interactions within the space, impacted disabled children’s experiences of inclusion at the playground (Gleeson, 1996; Jeanes & Magee, 2012; Kitchin, 1998). I, the first author, collected the data and worked closely with the participants during data generation, and therefore, many of the reflections are based on my direct experiences in the field. We, the authors, shared in reflexive dialogue about the research process throughout the study, which contributed to our collective reflections and lessons learned. Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained through the University of Alberta Research Ethics Board and Dalhousie University Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Board.

This work was rooted in critical theory (Crotty, 1989). Central to the critical paradigm is the aim to disrupt the status quo and create conditions that lead to transformation (Crotty, 1989; Kincheloe et al., 2018; Ponterotto, 2005). A critical orientation to research with disabled children enabled us to reflexively examine the power relations that are inevitable in researcher-participant relationships, consider how to empower children to express themselves freely, and recognize the ways in which they exert agency over their lives (Facca et al., 2020; Phelan, 2011; Stafford, 2017b; Teachman et al., 2018). In alignment with inclusive research principles and our interest in disabled children’s points of view, we decided to explore the use of action cameras as an accessible and participant-driven data generation method. Firstly, our intent was for the action cameras to offer children alternative ways to actively engage in research from their unique standpoints and share control in the data generation process. Secondly, in contrast to the perspective that action cameras enable an objective point of view (Green, 2016; Kindt, 2011; Richardson, 2023), our intent was to use action cameras to provide critical insights into the socio-spatial factors influencing intersubjective experiences of inclusion.

We collected data at an inclusive playground located in a large urban centre in Western Canada. Six disabled children between the ages of 4 and 8 were core participants centred in the study, along with 9 parents and 4 siblings. As follows, the disabled children who participated in the study are known by their pseudonyms: Nathan (age 6), Joseph (age 5), Ava (age 6), Willow (age 4), Sally (age 7), and Tayler (age 8). Core participants were given the option to wear (e.g., chest mount) or hold the action camera during their playground visits for as little or as long as they would like. Some of the core participants used the cameras during free play, go-along interviews, and scavenger hunt interviews at the playground. Some core participants chose not to use the cameras. And some agreed to have their siblings wear cameras too, or instead. The child-generated action camera footage (audio-visual data) was analyzed in conjunction with the other data sources (interview transcripts with children, parents and siblings; observation notes; field notes following interviews; reflexive journaling by the first author; and reflexive dialogue sessions with the team) using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022). The footage was viewed and reviewed, while points of interest were noted and coded. Notably, the action camera data offered unique insights into the socio-spatial factors (structures, social interactions, temporal conditions, etc.) that shaped inclusion, some of which were challenging to garner from interviews and observations alone.

In the following sections, we critically reflect on the advantages and unanticipated challenges associated with using action cameras in critical, qualitative research with disabled children and their families. Some of the reflections below occurred during data generation and analysis, and others occurred later during knowledge mobilization planning and dissemination.

Advantages

Insights into Disabled Children’s Points of View

Research about participation and inclusion at playgrounds has typically focused on the physical environment and accessibility (Lynch et al., 2020; Moore & Lynch, 2015; Prellwitz & Skär, 2007; Ripat & Becker, 2012; Stafford, 2017a; Stanton-Chapman & Schmidt, 2016). Unique to this study was the use of a socio-spatial lens to understand how the combination of physical structures, social interactions, cultural expectations and rules, and temporal conditions shaped experiences of inclusion (Freund, 2001; Gleeson, 1996; Kitchin, 1998). A nuanced understanding of the factors at play called for more than just an interview-based or observational approach. The use of action cameras offered a multidimensional point of view, providing access to the child’s unique point of view, literally speaking, and in relation to the social, cultural, and spatial environments. With this viewpoint, we gained insight into how different aspects of the environment played a role in shaping play. For example, during a visit with Sally and Tayler, and each of their brothers, action camera footage illuminated how the physical space (in this case, a snowy playground) shaped the social environment (in this case, play negotiations between children):

Tayler’s brother kickstarts the game of hide and go seek, and all of the kids get invited to play! He wants to play ‘hide and go seek the floor is lava’, but Sally says no, and wants to just play regular hide and seek- I bet because she cannot move quickly on the floor of the playground that is covered in snow. Sally says: “Let’s not do that. Not ‘hide and go seek the floor is lava’. Just regular hide and go seek.” (Action Camera Footage Notes, November 2022)

In another example, while visiting the playground with Ava, her sister, and two other friends, they all took turns wearing the cameras. Their collective footage showed her sister and the two friends flowing quickly in and out of pretend play together, moving about the playground, at times separately and then rejoining one another to pick up their pretend play where it had left off. In these videos, Ava is seldom nearby and rarely invited to participate in the pretend play. From a socio-spatial lens, it was evident that the pace at which the other children’s play “moved” was, at times, exclusionary to Ava.

From an interpretive, critical lens, the value of the data from the action cameras was not in its “objectivity” but in the ways it allowed the researchers to access multiple viewpoints and interpret the socio-spatial and relational aspects of participants’ experiences. In other words, action camera footage provided insights into socio-spatial aspects of participants’ experiences from another point of view, providing critical insights into the intersubjective: the shared space where “how we perceive and behave toward one another transpires” (Mayan, 2023, p. 4). This can be particularly beneficial for an adult researcher aiming to understand disabled children’s life worlds.

Insights into Disabled Children’s Agency

Another notable advantage of the use of action cameras with disabled children was that the approach created space for power sharing in the research process. We had accessories available to support accessibility and independent use, such as adjustable head and chest mounts and a “claw clip” mount that could be used to attach the camera to a mobility device such as a walker, stroller, or wheelchair. These accessories were necessary to ensure that the action cameras could be used by all participants who expressed a desire to do so and to support the use of action cameras with little intervention from adults (researcher or parent), allowing them to direct the data generation process.

Using action cameras also supported a dynamic process where disabled children could make decisions about their participation. They could choose to be behind or in front of the camera from moment to moment (or not engage with the camera at all), offering more opportunities for them to exercise their agency and curate different points of view. Footage generated with Ava demonstrated how engagement with the camera allowed her to dictate how she wanted to engage in the research (Action Camera Footage Notes, September 2022):

Ava and I are still on the friendship swing.

Wearing the camera, she says to me, “I see you!”

I ask her, “Do you want to see yourself? Do you want me to hold it so I can record you?”

She exclaims: “Yeah!”

I take a moment to undo the camera from the chest mount, and turn it around to face Ava. She is sat in the friendship swing, with her legs crossed. We sway back and forth. The camera has a small lens on the front, so even though I am holding it, Ava can see that the camera is recording her. She says hello to the camera and giggles. I swing the camera sideways and see her sister and their friend on the individual swings. Then I ask Ava if she wants to wear it again, and she says “Yeah!”, and giggles.

Not only did the action cameras facilitate disabled children’s agency in relation to the research process itself, but the combination of audio and visual data from alternative points of view illuminated disabled children’s agency in the playground environment. For example, normative expectations involving pace and timing permeate children’s play at playground settings and often have disabling consequences for disabled children (Freund & McGuire, 1999; Kafer, 2013). The pace of play often moves quickly, leaving disabled children feeling “left behind” (Stanton-Chapman & Schmidt, 2017). As mentioned previously, the point of view generated through the action camera footage gave us a unique window into the impact of pace and timing on the playground on disabled children’s experiences. During a visit to the playground with Nathan, footage generated by his sister (wearing the camera) illuminated how Nathan played a key role in pace and timing:

Nathan enters the globe spinner, it is the place he has identified as feeling safe. He stands off to the side, in the space between two of the bench seats. There are some other children on the spinner, and they appear to be quite young (toddler age). He very deliberately waits for the smaller children to get off of the spinner before he then moves toward the center to grab the handle and start pushing. It’s cool to see him wait for the other children to either get off or be ready. (Action Camera Footage Notes, July 2022)

This led to a significant and novel finding: disabled children (and their families) were not passive subjects but rather active agents who were not only impacted by, but also shaped, the pace and timing of play at the playground.

Opportunities to Re-Turn to the Encounter

Understanding children’s life worlds, cultures, and experiences is often not a simple and straightforward task for the adult researcher. Children are the gatekeepers of their own wisdom (Abbott, 2013; Carr-Fanning & Guckin, 2016; Nutbrown, 2010). They are the experts in the “day-to-day spaces of childhood” (Carter, 2009, p. 862). As an adult, it is a special privilege to ask children for glimpses into their worlds and be granted access (Nutbrown, 2010). These glimpses are fleeting and fast and, therefore, can be easily missed.

Access to action camera footage gives researchers the unique opportunity to re-turn to the data and engage in researcher reflexivity by turning or flipping the lens around and re-engaging through the child’s point of view. When viewing the data in this way, it is possible to see things that you may not have seen in-the-moment and garner new reflexive insights and considerations from this vantage point. For example, re-turning to an encounter with Ava created an opportunity to reflect on how using the action camera as a tool created more opportunities to be mindful and present with participants. When engaging with children in research, one must aim to be mindful of ongoing consent or assent, be responsive to children’s strengths, preferences, and needs, and ponder how and when to ask questions (Phelan & Kinsella, 2013; Teachman & Gibson, 2013; Warin, 2011). It can be difficult to attend to all of these nuances in-the-moment. For example, one of the video clips generated by Ava during our third playground visit opens with the camera facing me (Action Camera Footage Notes, October 2022):

Researcher: “Now you are recording! Okay, where should we go?”

Ava: “Here!”

Researcher: “What do you think?”

Ava: “Help?”

Researcher: “You need help up?”

Ava: “Yeah.”

It is comforting to have the footage to look back at. I can tell that at this moment, I am making sure that Ava is aware that the camera is on and recording. If I had only been using a digital recorder, I would have also had to pay attention to describing where Ava chose to go on the playground. Because I have the video to review, I can confirm that we are by the swings. (Reflexive Journal, March 2023)

Through re-turning to the footage, I realized and was able to reflect on how using action cameras during the playground visits with children enabled me to be more present. I was also able to reflect on how being present also led to my ability to be authentically curious, freeing me up to engage in children’s play when I was invited into their worlds without the pressure of having to record every observation in a fast-paced and dynamic environment.

Re-turning to the action camera footage also illuminated novel insights that I had missed or dismissed as insignificant during the research encounter. The excerpt below illustrates one example of re-turning to an experience, and gaining new insights:

I am watching back some GoPro footage to prepare for my final interviews with Nathan and his family. I’ve just noticed something interesting about the playground design. The majority of the “ramped structure”, as I’ve been calling it, is double wide, to give space, in part, for mobility devices to navigate. However, the ramped section that leads up to the bridge, periscope, and slide is narrower than the other ramped sections! Also, there are stairs up to the highest point of the ramped/raised structure. I find this quite interesting. Why would that part be designed to be narrower? Why would there be stairs to the highest point of the playground? (Reflexive Journal, August 2022)

The first time I moved through that section of the playground (the day this footage was recorded), it did not occur to me that ramps became narrower and that there were stairs up to the top; I simply followed Nathan without attending to how his and my own body navigated the physical playground structures. Having the footage to re-turn to the encounter enabled me to view myself and others on camera, and this offered a different view; it presented opportunities for me to replay the encounter over in my mind, to discover alternative understandings and interpretations (Jarman, 2023). My intent is not to suggest that watching and rewatching the video footage is akin to embodying someone else’s experience. Rather, it may afford opportunities to (re)consider what the footage illuminates and what may have been missed or dismissed when in the moment. This also provides another outlet for researcher reflexivity; seeing oneself in the data offers an opportunity to consider further how the researcher and their presence shape the work and to bring these thoughts forward into the analysis.

Unanticipated Challenges

The Creep of the Researcher Agenda

Several scholars have written about the importance of involving disabled children in research about their own lives and pondered ways to effectively and ethically involve disabled children in research (Ibrahim et al., 2022; Maconochie, 2018; Slater, 2013; Stafford, 2017a; Teachman et al., 2018; Teachman & Gibson, 2013; Tiefenbacher, 2022). Tiefenbacher (2022) wrote, “[h]ow we do research ‘with’ affects the possibility of children with disabilities’ participation in research” (p. 782). As a result of advances driven by scholars within critical disability studies and disabled children’s childhood studies, there is much work to guide researchers in engaging in research with disabled children.

Maconochie (2018) suggested that paying attention to the “taken-for-granted objects, routines and interactions of everyday life” is one way to honour children’s unique perspectives and inch closer to doing research with children (p. 137). To do so, researchers are challenged to let go of the need to adhere to rigid data generation plans and instead share control in the research process (Mason & Watson, 2013; Tiefenbacher, 2022); everything from setting the agenda to selecting the methods used to generate data. Though the goal of this research was to create space for child-driven research activities, the adult research agenda inevitably shaped what children chose to record. The children’s perceived expectations of what the adult researcher desired from the action camera footage shaped their decisions on the playground. Sally’s footage from a playground visit with Tayler provides an example of how the participants were aware of the researcher’s agenda (Action Camera Footage Notes, November 2022):

Sally and Tayler are on the playground, up by the twirly slide.

Sally: “Wait, we’re doing the videos and we’re doing the exact same things.”

The kids plan to split up and go in different directions on the playground.

Sally: “Because I don’t think they want the exact same video two times”.

Despite the care taken to inform participants that they should “play as usual” while wearing the cameras, Sally and Tayler were both attentive to the research(er) agenda, and this shaped their decisions during their playground visit. Hov and Neegaard (2020) suggested that wearable cameras make “interesting details visible without a researcher being present” (p. 5). However, researchers should consider how they may shape the data generation, even if they are not physically present or in close proximity to the child.

Unobtrusive Data Generation or Another Form of Surveillance?

Burbank et al. (2018) explained that using action cameras in research with children can be advantageous in that they remove “the need for the child to make decisions about what is of interest to capture and allows them to continue their [experience] in a more business as usual mode” (p. 323). Despite the notion that wearable cameras offer an unobtrusive data generation method (Burbank et al., 2018; Green, 2016), some researchers contend that wearable cameras may also intrude on children’s experiences (Beauchamp et al., 2019; Richardson, 2023). For example, action cameras may cause distraction or the feeling of being monitored. This was an unanticipated challenge we encountered in our study. Though the footage was not being viewed in real-time, participants may have been sensitive to the fact that someone would see the footage and may have worried about how they would appear (even if they were behind instead of in front of the camera). This likely influenced children’s decision-making in terms of both actions and words. For example, during a playground visit with Sally, she was moving across the playground and fell in the snow:

Sally is making her way to the music section. She stumbles and falls on her hands and knees onto the snow.

Sally: “I like to play in the snow.”

It seems that Sally does not fall on purpose. I wonder if she says that because she knows she is being recorded. Is she embarrassed? (Action Camera Footage Notes, November 2022)

Even without direct involvement from an adult, children may experience discomfort, knowing that their decisions, actions, and communication are being recorded. This is a critical consideration for disabled children whose lives are considerably monitored and controlled by adults (Lester & Russell, 2010; Punch, 2002; Stafford, 2017b; Tisdall, 2012).

The geographical, social, and cultural context of the research may shape perceptions of surveillance while wearing the camera. In this research, we were collecting data through disabled children’s play on playgrounds. Play is often used to assess, diagnose, and carry out therapy for disabled children (Goodley & Runswick-Cole, 2010). Wearing an action camera and being encouraged to play at a playground for research purposes may lead to disabled children feeling as though they are being assessed, which may ultimately shape their behaviour; what type of play they engage in, how they engage in play, who they engage in play with, while negotiating normative scripts of conduct and expectations.

Taking the time at the beginning of the research to be reflexive about the research context and the research design can help to mitigate perceptions of adult surveillance by taking actions to create conditions that support disabled children’s agency, to be themselves, tell their stories, show their stories, and have the freedom to participate and communicate in their chosen ways. Engaging children in conversation about the reasons for generating action camera footage during the consent/assent process—what will be used, why it will be used, and who will see it—allows children to thoughtfully consider how comfortable they are with the method and ask questions before deciding to wear the camera (or not).

Saying no to Wearing the Camera but Appearing in the Footage

The purpose of utilizing action cameras in this study was, in part, to support disabled children’s inclusion in the research; to give them control over what they would like to record, and to “show” the researcher what is significant to them (Richardson, 2023). However, disabled children were still given space to dictate whether they wanted to wear the camera, when, and for how long. This decision was rooted in a commitment to an ongoing and relational process of consent/assent, a process which aimed to honour children’s decisions to opt in and out of research activities as desired (Karmiris, 2022; Phelan & Kinsella, 2013; Warin, 2011).

During data collection with Nathan and his family, he did not once accept the offer to wear the camera during playground visits. However, his sister was keen to wear the camera and did so during each of our three playground visits, where the siblings often engaged in data generation together. As a result, Nathan often appeared in his sister’s footage. This posed an unanticipated and missed ethically important moment. Nathan’s parents consented to Nathan’s use of the action camera and appearance in visual recordings (including footage shared as part of knowledge dissemination activities). In the moment, I had felt I had honoured his decision not to wear the camera himself and was attentive to ongoing assent to that regard. But I did not factor in his appearance in his sister's footage until re-turning to the encounters and seeing him appear on camera; in the moment, I did not explicitly ask Nathan if he was comfortable appearing in the footage that his sister was recording. As Richardson (2023) discussed, it is “essential to consider the ethics of children who are involved by default; those who are indirectly involved just being present at the same time” (p. 110). It was not until I returned to the footage during analysis that this ethical tension became apparent. Though I had considered issues related to recording video footage in public spaces and the potential to record members of the general public, this ethical tension exceeded the scope of procedural ethics and left me with a feeling of ethical uncertainty when re-turning to the data (Brown, et al., 2008; Hov & Neegaard, 2020). In response, I engaged in reflexivity to ensure I was sensitive to the ways in which Nathan would be represented in the findings, recognizing that he was present in the footage, but the footage did not reflect his unique point of view.

Despite institutional review board approval and time spent preparing to conduct ethical research (reflexive journaling and engaging with the literature), unanticipated ethically important moments arise in the “doing” of the research (Phelan & Kinsella, 2013). Attending to these moments with the use of reflexivity is imperative. In future research, this lesson learned should be considered when children generate data together. When it comes to the use of action cameras, this means reminding children that they can choose to wear the camera or not, take the camera off or stop recording whenever they choose, and also explaining that they may appear in the footage of other research participants (Burris, 2017; Harwood & Collier, 2019). If children express discomfort with being in someone else’s footage, it is the researcher’s responsibility to coordinate the use of cameras and respect the child’s decision to direct their participation accordingly.

Balancing the Advantages and Challenges Through Researcher Reflexivity

As demonstrated through the aforementioned examples, reflexivity can support researchers in navigating the use of action cameras, balancing both the advantages and the challenges in an effort to make research with and by disabled children more inclusive. Table 1 offers researchers a set of guiding questions to consider when making decisions to use action cameras in their research and how to navigate their use. These questions have been derived from our reflexive journalling and reflexive dialogue sessions throughout the research process and are offered as a starting point for consideration. It is important to contextualize these questions to the researchers’ paradigmatic position (ontology, epistemology, and axiology), research objectives and questions, research context, and relation to the participants.

Table 1.

Guiding Questions for Using Action Cameras in Research With Disabled Children.

Topic	Guiding Reflexive Questions
Researcher Paradigm	o What ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions are driving the research?
	o How does point of view shape understandings of the phenomenon of study?
	o How does the use of action cameras align with my ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions?
	o How will action cameras support efforts to respond to the research question(s)?
	• Am I seeking an objective truth or multiple truths?
	• Am I seeking to explore multiple meanings of a phenomenon?
	o How does the research design facilitate disabled children’s agency?
	o Have I described how I have engaged with the action camera data?
	o How might re-turning to the action camera data offer new insights about the findings?
	o How might re-turning to the action camera data offer more opportunities for researcher reflexivity?
Ethical Preparation	o What ethical issues may arise from using action cameras in this work? How might I navigate these issues?
	o What gaps might exist between procedural ethics and ethics in-the-moment? How might I navigate these gaps?
	o What mechanisms, strategies, and resources are in place to help me navigate unanticipated ethically important moments?
	o How have I ensured that participants understand how and why the data from action cameras will be used and who will have access to view it?
	o Will children have an opportunity to review their footage generated with the action cameras? If so, for what purpose?
Child-Directed Use of Cameras	o How have I created space for disabled children to direct their involvement with the action cameras?
	o In situations where two or more children are engaging in data generation together, how will I ensure that all children feel comfortable with the method and can choose how to be involved?
	o Do I have accessories available to ensure the methods are accessible and offer alternative ways to use the cameras? (e.g., chest mount, head mount, claw clip mount)
	o In what ways do the use of action cameras shift power between the researcher and the participant?
	o In what ways does the research design create opportunities for both child-directed and interdependent use of the method/tool?
Representation	o How have I considered how disabled children’s unique knowledge, voices, images, and points of view will be represented in the findings?
	o How have I honoured what disabled children have expressed as significant to them (as illuminated by their footage)?
	o How is disability represented in the findings? What disability discourses are (re)produced?

Conclusion

In summary, the lessons learned from using action cameras as a method of data generation with disabled children present important implications for future research. Action cameras have the potential to be a useful tool in inclusive, critical, qualitative research with disabled children as active agents in research about their own lives. The use of action cameras in research can leverage disabled children’s agency in two ways: by creating space for shared control in data generation processes and by illuminating disabled children’s agency through capturing interactions in their environments from their unique points of view. The data generated from action cameras offered generative insights into how the participants used and navigated the space, not only the physical space but also encounters and interactions with others. This novel form of data generation offered rare glimpses into children’s culture, in this case, the socio-spatial and socio-cultural norms and patterns that set expectations for play (Brown, et al., 2008; Burbank et al., 2018; Mouritsen, 2002). The action camera footage was particularly valuable in understanding how socio-spatial factors shaped disabled children’s experiences by providing a look at what was in view of the camera and illuminating how individual, social, cultural, relational, and spatial elements interact (Burbank et al., 2018). Unique to the use of action cameras is the opportunity for researchers to re-turn to a research encounter to construct deeper understandings of the participants’ experiences and engage in researcher reflexivity (Beauchamp et al., 2019; Hov & Neegaard, 2020; Jarman, 2023; Lloyd et al., 2018). A reflexive approach to decision-making regarding the use of action cameras in inclusive research with disabled children can help researchers balance the advantages and challenges of using action cameras and create opportunities to center the points of view of disabled children. Future research should centre disabled children’s perspectives to learn more about their experiences using action cameras.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We extend our gratitude to the children and families who shared their time and stories with us about their experiences of inclusion. Thank you to the Edmonton Sport Council for their support.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Kassi Boyd was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship Grant #(752-2022-1553), the MITACS Accelerate Program (IT26790), and a Women and Children’s Health Research Institute Graduate Studentship Award (2628). Implementation of the research and knowledge mobilization was supported by the University of Alberta Intersections of Gender Thesis Grant (Boyd), the University of Alberta Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine Thesis Operating Grant (Boyd), and the Dalhousie University Faculty of Health Research Establishment Grant (Phelan).

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Kassi A. Boyd

Shanon K. Phelan

Note

References

Abbott

(2013). Who says what, where, why and how? Doing real-world research with disabled children, young people and family members. In Curran

Runswick-Cole

(Eds.), Disabled children's childhood studies: Critical approaches in a global context (pp. 39–56). Palgrave Macmillan.

Alderson

(2001). Research by children. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570120003

Ayyagari

(2018). Variation in the displacement and dispersion of young children during an inclusive playgroup Honors Thesis. Oregon State University. https://C:/Users/17802/Downloads/AyyagariApoorva2018_(1).pdf

Bailey

Boddy

Briscoe

Morris

(2014). Involving disabled children and young people as partners in research: A systematic review. Child: Care, Health and Development, 41(4), 505–514. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12197

Barker

Weller

(2003). Is it fun?”: Developing children centred research methods. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(1/2), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330310790435

Beauchamp

Haughton

Ellis

Sarwar

Tyrie

Adams

Dumitrescu

(2019). Using video to research outdoors with young children. In Brown

Perkins

(Eds.), Using innovative methods in early years research: Beyond the conventional (pp. 124–137). Routledge.

Braun

Clarke

(2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage Publications.

Brown

K. M.

Dilley

Marshall

(2008). Using a head-mounted video camera to understand social worlds and experiences. Sociological Research Online, 13(6), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1818

Brunnberg

(2005). The school playground as a meeting place for hard of hearing children. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 7(2), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410510032163

10.

Burbank

McGregor

Wild

(2018). “My special, my special thing, and my camera!” Using GoPro™ as a complementary research tool to investigate young children’s museum experiences. Museum and Society, 16(3), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.29311/mas.v16i3.2792

11.

Burke

(2015). Not just for the fun of it. Children’s constructions of disability and inclusive play through spatiality in a playspace. In Corcoran

White

Whitburn

(Eds.), Disability studies: Educating for inclusion (pp. 3–21). Sense Publishers.

12.

Burke

Stafford

(2023). Through the eyes of children with disabilities: Recognising children’s agency in their play in inclusive playspaces. In Beckett

A. E.

Callus

(Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of children’s rights and disability (pp. 555–576). Routledge.

13.

Burris

(2017). A Child’s-eye view: An examination of point-of-view camera use in four informal education settings. Visitor Studies, 20(2), 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2017.1404352

14.

Carr-Fanning

Guckin

(2016). Developing creative methods for children’s voice research: Potential and pitfalls when constructing verbal and visual methods for research with children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In Sage Research Methods Cases Part 2, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473958036. SAGE Publications, Ltd.

15.

Carter

(2009). Tick box for child? The ethical positioning of children as vulnerable, researchers as barbarians and reviewers as overly cautious. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(6), 858–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.003

16.

Caton

Hackett

A. C.

(2019). Head mounted, chest mounted, tripod or roaming? Ontological possibilities for doing visual research with children and GoPro cameras. In Kucirkova

Rowsell

Falloon

(Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of learning with technology in early childhood (pp. 362–376). Routledge.

17.

Chalfen

(2014). ‘Your panopticon or mine?’ Incorporating wearable technology’s Glass and GoPro into visual social science. Visual Studies, 29(3), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586x.2014.941547

18.

Chen

Hamel

E. E.

(2022). Toddler play preferences and the teacher’s role in the outdoor play environment. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 31(3), 376–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2022.2108095

19.

Christensen

James

(2017). Researching children and childhood: Cultures of communication. In Christensen

James

(Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (3rd ed., pp. 1–10). Routledge.

20.

Crotty

(1989). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage Publications.

21.

Curran

(2013). Disabled children’s childhood studies: Alternative relations and forms of authority? In Curran

Runswick-Cole

(Eds.), Disabled children’s childhood studies: Critical approaches in a global context (pp. 121–135). Palgrave Macmillan.

22.

Curran

Runswick-Cole

(2014). Disabled children’s childhood studies: A distinct approach? Disability & Society, 29(10), 1617–1630. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.966187

23.

Da Silva

B. M. S.

Rieffe

Frijns

J. H. M.

Sousa

Monteiro

Veiga

(2022). Being Deaf in mainstream schools: The Effect of a hearing loss in children’s playground behaviors. Children, 9(7), 1091–1111. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9071091

24.

Everhart

(2022). Personal viewpoint ethnography utilizing GoPro™ cameras to capture student information seeking in school libraries. School Libraries Worldwide, 27(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.29173/slw8444

25.

Facca

Gladstone

Teachman

(2020). Working the limits of “giving voice” to children: A critical conceptual review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920933391

26.

Fargas-Malet

McSherry

Larkin

Robinson

(2010). Research with children: Methodological issues and innovative techniques. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718x09345412

27.

Fellner

A. R.

(2020). Moving through playground spaces: Exploring the sensory, material, and embodied experiences of 2-year-olds in playground spaces. (Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University). https://C:/Users/17802/Downloads/Moving_through_Playground_Spac_(1).pdf

28.

Freund

(2001). Bodies, disability and spaces: The social model and disabling spatial organisations. Disability & Society, 16(5), 689–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590120070079

29.

Freund

P. E. S.

McGuire

(1999). Health, illness and the social body: A critical sociology (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.

30.

Garland-Thomson

(2002). Integrating disability, transforming feminist theory. NWSA Journal, 14(3), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.2979/nws.2002.14.3.1

31.

Ghekiere

Van Cauwenberg

de Geus

Clarys

Cardon

Salmon

De Bourdeaudhuij

Deforche

(2014). Critical environmental factors for transportation cycling in children: A qualitative study using bike-along interviews. PLoS One, 9(9), 1066966. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106696

32.

Gilmore

Frederick

L. K.

Santillan

Locke

(2018). The games they play: Observations of children with autism spectrum disorder on the school playground. Autism, 23(6), 1343–1353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318811987

33.

Gleeson

B. J.

(1996). A geography for disabled people? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 21(2), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/622488

34.

Goodley

Runswick-Cole

(2010). Emancipating play: Dis/abled children, development and deconstruction. Disability & Society, 25(4), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687591003755914

35.

Green

(2016). Sensory tours as a method for engaging children as active researchers: Exploring the use of wearable cameras in early childhood research. International Journal of Early Childhood, 48(3), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-016-0173-1

36.

Gutierrez

Jr. Hale

M. N.

Gossens-Archuleta

Sobrino-Sanchez

(2007). Evaluating the social behavior of preschool children with autism in an inclusive playground setting. International Journal of Special Education, 22(3), 26–30.

37.

Harasym

Gross

MacLeod

A. A. N.

Phelan

S. K.

(2024). This is a look into my life”: Enhancing qualitative inquiry into communication through arts-based research methods. International Journal of Qualitative Research Methods, 23(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241232603

38.

Harwood

Collier

D. R.

(2017). The matter of the stick: Storying/(re)storying children’s literacies in the forest. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(3), 336–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798417712340

39.

Harwood

Collier

D. R.

(2019). “Talk into my GoPro, I’m making a movie!”: Using digital ethnographic methods to explore children’s sociomaterial experiences in the woods. In Kucirkova

Rowsell

Falloon

(Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of learning with technology in early childhood (pp. 49–61). Routledge.

40.

Harwood

Huang

Somma

(2022). “We’re trying to find cool things in the forest” – exploring children’s curiosity and creativity in the outdoors. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 15(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2022.276

41.

Holt

(2007). Children’s sociospatial (re)production of disability within primary school playgrounds. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25(5), 783–802. https://doi.org/10.1068/d73j

42.

Hov

A. M.

Neegaard

(2020). The potential of chest mounted action cameras in early childhood education research. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 16(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.7049

43.

Ibrahim

Vasalou

Benton

Clarke

(2022). A methodological reflection on investigating children’s voice in qualitative research involving children with severe speech and physical impairments. Disability and Society, 37(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1933389

44.

Jarman

P. A.

(2023). Children's encounters with urban woodlands, digital technologies and materialities. Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham. https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/13533/8/Jarman2023PhD.pdf

45.

Jeanes

Magee

(2012). ‘Can we play on the swings and roundabouts?’: Creating inclusive play spaces for disabled young people and their families. Leisure Studies, 31(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2011.589864

46.

Jenkin

Wilson

Campain

Clarke

(2020). The principles and ethics of including children with disability in child research. Children & Society, 34(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12356

47.

Kafer

(2013). Feminist, queer, crip. Indiana University Press.

48.

Karmiris

(2022). Consent as a relational engagement with children with intellectual disabilities—ethical conundrums and possibilities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 37(1), 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2022.2061739

49.

Kellett

Allan

Baines

Clancy

Jewiss-Hayden

Singh

Strudgwick

, & with original research contributions by young people with a learning disability. (2010). WeCan2: Exploring the implications of young people with learning disabilities engaging in their own research. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250903450822

50.

Kincheloe

J. L.

McLaren

Steinberg

S. R.

Monzo

L. D.

(2018). Critical pedagogy and qualitative research: Advancing the bricolage. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 260–325). Sage.

51.

Kindt

(2011). Seeing through the eyes of the students: First impressions of recording in the classroom with a GoPro head-mounted camcorder. Journal of the School of Contemporary International Studies, Nagoya University of Foreign Studies, 7(1), 179–199. https://ndlsearch.ndl.go.jp/books/R000000004-I11258824

52.

Kinsley

K. M.

Schoonover

Spitler

(2016). GoPro as an ethnographic tool: A wayfinding study in an academic library. Journal of Access Services, 13(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15367967.2016.1154465

53.

Kitchin

(1998). ‘Out of place’, ‘knowing one’s place': Space, power and the exclusion of disabled people. Disability & Society, 13(3), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599826678

54.

Kodjebacheva

(2008). Shane's inspiration: An assessment of a playground for children living with and without disabilities. Children, Youth, and Environments, 18(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1353/cye.2008.0017

55.

Ktenidis

(2023). Navigating dis/ableist school playgrounds and toilets with geographic maturity: Stories of young people with dwarfism from their secondary education. Children's Geographies, 21(4), 594–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2022.2099246

56.

Kullman

(2012). Experiments with moving children and digital cameras. Children's Geographies, 10(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2011.638174

57.

Lester

Russell

(2010). Children’s right to play: An examination of the importance of play in the lives of children worldwide. Working Papers in Early Childhood Development. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED522537.pdf

58.

Lloyd

Gray

Truong

(2018). Seeing what children see: Enhancing understanding of outdoor learning experiences through body-worn cameras. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 10(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.18666/JOREL-2018-V10-I1-8192

59.

Lofthus

Frers

(2021). Action camera: First person perspective or hybrid in motion? Visual Studies, 38(3–4), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586x.2021.1878055

60.

Lynch

Moore

Edwards

Horgan

(2020). Advancing play participation for all: The challenge of addressing play diversity and inclusion in community parks and playgrounds. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 83(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022619881936

61.

Maconochie

(2018). Making space for the embodied participation of young disabled children in a children's centre in England. In Runswick-Cole

Curran

Liddiard

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of disabled children's childhood studies (pp. 125–139). Palgrave Macmillan.

62.

Magrelli

Jermann

Noris

Ansermet

Hentsch

Nadel

Billard

(2013). Social orienting of children with autism to facial expressions and speech: A study with a wearable eye-tracker in naturalistic settings. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(1), 840. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00840

63.

Magrelli

Noris

Jermann

Ansermet

Hentsch

Nadel

Billard

A. G.

(2014). A wearable camera detects gaze peculiarities during social interactions in young children with pervasive developmental disorders. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 6(4), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1109/tamd.2014.2327812

64.

Malmqvist

Atterström

Swärd

A.-K.

(2024). But was it trustworthy? Methodological experiences from a study of a hard-to-reach group of students in need of a flexible research approach. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241234805

65.

Marcu

Dey

A. K.

Kiesler

(2012). Parent-driven use of wearable cameras for autism support. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on ubiquitous computing. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2370216.2370277

66.

Mason

Watson

E. A.

(2013). Researching children: Research on, with, and by children. In Ben-Aryeh

Casas

Frønes

Korbin

J. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of child well-being: Theories, methods and policies in global perspective (pp. 2757–2796). Springer.

67.

Mayall

(2000). Conversations with children: Working with generational issues. In Christensen

James

(Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (pp. 120–135). Routledge.

68.

Mayan

M. J.

(2023). Essentials of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Routledge.

69.

Mazzei

Billeci

Armato

Lazzeri

Cisternino

Pioggia

Igliozzi

Muratori

Ahluwalia

De Rossi

(2010). The FACE of autism. In 19th international symposium in robot and human interactive communication. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2010.5598683

70.

Middleton

Byles

(2019). Interdependent temporalities and the everyday mobilities of visually impaired young people. Geoforum, 102(1), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.03.018

71.

Mohammed

Peter

Gastaldo

Howell

(2015). Rethinking case study methodology in poststructural research. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research Archive, 47(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/084456211504700107

72.

Montreuil

Bogossian

Laberge-Perrault

Racine

(2021). A review of approaches, strategies and ethical considerations in participatory research with children. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920987962

73.

Moore

Lynch

(2015). Accessibility and usability of playground environments for children under 12: A scoping review. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 22(5), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2015.1049549

74.

Moore

Lynch

Boyle

(2022). Can universal design support outdoor play, social participation, and inclusion in public playgrounds? A scoping review. Disability & Rehabilitation, 44(13), 3304–3325. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.1858353

75.

Mouritsen

(2002). Child culture—play culture. In Mouristen

Qvortrup

(Eds.), Childhood and children’s culture (pp. 14–42). University Press of Southern Denmark.

76.

Nind

(2014). What is inclusive research? Bloomsbury Academic. [electronic resource].

77.

Nind

Vinha

(2013). Doing research inclusively: Bridges to multiple possibilities in inclusive research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 102–109. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12013

78.

Njelesani

Mlambo

Denekew

Hunleth

(2022). Inclusion of children with disabilities in qualitative health research: A scoping review. PLoS One, 17(9), 02737844. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273784

79.

Nutbrown

(2010). Naked by the pool? Blurring the image? Ethical issues in the portrayal of young children in arts-based educational research. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410389437

80.

Phelan

Boyd

(2019). Engaging dis/abled youth in critical qualitative research: Rights, dignity and ‘voice(s). Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 63(7), 880–881. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12663

81.

Phelan

S. K.

(2011). Constructions of disability: A call for critical reflexivity in occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 78(3), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.2182/cjot.2011.78.3.4

82.

Phelan

S. K.

Kinsella

E. A.

(2013). Picture this.safety, dignity, and voice. Ethical research with children: Practical considerations for the reflexive researcher. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412462987

83.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126

84.

Prellwitz

Skär

(2007). Usability of playgrounds for children with different abilities. Occupational Therapy International, 14(3), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.230

85.

Punch

(2002). Research with children: The same or different from research with adults? Childhood, 9(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568202009003045

86.

Richardson

(2023). Body-worn cameras as a research tool in early years settings: Strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 21(1), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X221136472

87.

Ripat

Becker

(2012). Playground usability: What do playground users say? Occupational Therapy International, 19(3), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.1331

88.

Rocha

A. N. D. C.

Desidério

S. V.

Massaro

(2018). Avaliação da Acessibilidade do Parque Durante o Brincar de Crianças com Paralisia Cerebral na Escola. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial, 24(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-65382418000100007

89.

Slater

(2013). Research with dis/abled youth: Taking a critical disability, ‘critically young’ positionality. In Curran

Runswick-Cole

(Eds.), Disabled children’s childhood studies: Critical approaches in a global context (pp. 180–195). Palgrave Macmillan.

90.

Spencer

Peers

Eales

(2020). Disability language in adapted physical education. What is the story? In Haegele

J. A.

Hodge

S. R.

Shapiro

D. R.

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of adapted physical education (pp. 131–143). Routledge.

91.

Stafford

(2017a). Journeys to play: Planning considerations to engender inclusive playspaces. Landscape Research, 42(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1241872

92.

Stafford

(2017b). “What about my voice”: Emancipating the voices of children with disabilities through participant-centred methods. Children's Geographies, 15(5), 600–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2017.1295134

93.

Stanton-Chapman

T. L.

Schmidt

E. L.

(2016). Special education professionals’ perceptions toward accessible playgrounds. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916638499

94.

Stanton-Chapman

T. L.

Schmidt

E. L.

(2017). Caregiver perceptions of inclusive playgrounds targeting toddlers and preschoolers with disabilities: Has recent international and national policy improved overall satisfaction? Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 17(4), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12381

95.

Stump

K. S.

(2017). Children with autism wearing action cameras: Changing parent/child interactions using point-of-view video modeling. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas). https://hdl.handle.net/1808/25880

96.

Sumartojo

Pink

(2017). Empathetic visuality: GoPros and the video trace. In Gómez Cruz

Sumartojo

Pink

(Eds.), Refiguring techniques in digital visual research (pp. 39–50). Palgrave Macmillan.

97.

Tangen

Olsen

Sandseter

E. B. H.

(2022). A GoPro look on how children aged 17–25 months assess and manage risk during free exploration in a varied natural environment. Education Sciences, 12(5), 361–414. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050361

98.

Teachman

Gibson

B. E.

(2013). Children and youth with disabilities: Innovative methods for single qualitative interviews. Qualitative Health Research, 23(2), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312468063

99.

Teachman

McDonough

Macarthur

Gibson

B. E.

(2018). A critical dialogical methodology for conducting research with disabled youth who use augmentative and alternative communication. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417727763

100.

Tiefenbacher

(2022). Finding methods for the inclusion of all children: Advancing participatory research with children with disabilities. Children and Society, 37(3), 771–785. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12628

101.

Tisdall

E. K. M.

(2012). The challenge and challenging of childhood studies? Learning from disability studies and research with disabled children. Children and Society, 26(3), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012.00431.x

102.

Tracy

S. J.

(2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

103.

Underwood

Moreno Angarita

Curran

Runswick-Cole

Wertlieb

(2020). An international conversation on disabled children’s childhoods: Theory, ethics and methods. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 9(5), 302–327. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v9i5.699

104.

Van Engelen

Ebbers

Boonzaaijer

Bolster

E. A. M.

Van Der Put

E. A. H.

Bloemen

M. A. T.

(2021). Barriers, facilitators and solutions for active inclusive play for children with a physical disability in The Netherlands: A qualitative study. BMC Pediatrics, 21(1), 369–413. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-021-02827-5

105.

Van Goidsenhoven

De Schauwer

(2022). Relational ethics, informed consent, and informed assent in participatory research with children with complex communication needs. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 64(11), 1323–1329. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.15297

106.

Verhage

Lindenberg

Bussemaker

Abma

T. A.

(2024). The promises of inclusive research methodologies: Relational design and praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241230407

107.

Walmsley

Johnson

(2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: Past, present, and futures. J. Kingsley Publishers.

108.

Warin

(2011). Ethical mindfulness and reflexivity: Managing a research relationship with children and young people in a 14-year qualitative longitudinal research (QLR) study. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(9), 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800411423196

109.

Warwick

(2020). Shifting the gaze. The use of wearbable cameras in research. In Nind

Strnadova

(Eds.), Belonging for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: Pushing the boundaries of inclusion (pp. 113–126). Routledge.

110.

Watharow

Wayland

(2022). Making qualitative research inclusive: Methodological insights in disability research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221095316

111.

Watson

(2012). Theorising the lives of disabled children: How can disability theory help? Children and Society, 26(3), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012.00432.x

112.

Wenger

Schulze

Lundström

Prellwitz

(2020). Children’s perceptions of playing on inclusive playgrounds: A qualitative study. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 28(2), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2020.1810768

113.

Young

Clerke

(2024). Inclusion of students with disability in qualitative education research – a scoping review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241244869

“I’ll Show You!”: Reflections on Disabled Children’s Points of View and the Use of Action Cameras in Inclusive,Critical,Qualitative Research

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Research with Disabled Children

Using Action Cameras in Qualitative Research

Using Action Cameras with Children

Using Action Cameras with Disabled Children

The Potential for Action Cameras to Facilitate Inclusive Research with Disabled Children

“I’ll show you!”: Reflecting on Action Cameras and Disabled Children’s Points of View Context

Advantages

Insights into Disabled Children’s Points of View

Insights into Disabled Children’s Agency

Opportunities to Re-Turn to the Encounter

Unanticipated Challenges

The Creep of the Researcher Agenda

Unobtrusive Data Generation or Another Form of Surveillance?

Saying no to Wearing the Camera but Appearing in the Footage

Balancing the Advantages and Challenges Through Researcher Reflexivity

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Note

References