‘I’m Just Doing Something!’ Navigating the Messiness of Participatory Research With 3 and 4-Year-Old Children in Early Childhood Care and Education Settings in Ireland

Abstract

This paper explores the reality of participatory research with young children aged 3-4 years old in two early childhood care and education settings in Ireland. It combines the Lundy (2007) model of participation and the Mosaic approach (Clark & Moss, 2001, 2005, 2011) to listening to children. Informed by the notion of the competent child, the pedagogy of listening and the pedagogy of relationships, we use our reflections to capture the process of participatory research. The findings indicate, that as a process, participatory research is messy and non-linear. It is surprising, playful, challenging and rewarding. The findings reference the primacy of relationships between researchers and children, highlighting the need for time and space to establish relationships with children, create a safe environment, gain their trust, facilitate their agency, leading to sustained researcher/child engagement. The findings also underscore tensions and challenges that may impede children’s participation in research, including the research agenda, the dichotomy between educators’ and researchers’ expectations of children, differences in pedagogical approaches, and the inherent structure/routine of the setting. Overall, we argue that the ‘messiness’ of participatory research with children should not only be expected but welcomed and embraced. We see it as a manifestation of meaningful participation of children – achieved on their terms, developed at their pace and resulting in their voices, being truly expressed, recorded, listened to, and acted upon.

Introduction

A child’s right to express their views freely encompasses “the youngest children… [and extends] …to all matters affecting the child” (UN CRC, 2006), “including through research and consultation” (UN CRC General Comment No. 12, 2009, para. 14). Consequently, a child’s right to express a view applies in the context of research relating to children (Lundy et al., 2011), especially research that aims to understand and enrich children’s lives (Cowie & Khoo, 2017) (Clark & Moss, 2001, 2005, 2011; Lundy, 2007).

In keeping with its commitments under the National Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-Making 2015–2020 (Ireland, Department of Children and Youth Affairs [DCYA], 2015) and the subsequent Participation of Children and Young People in the Decision Making-Action Plan 2024–2028 (Ireland, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth [DCEDIY], 2024), the Irish Government, throughout the past decade, have consulted with children and young people in Ireland, including seeking the views of babies, toddlers and young children on updating Aistear: The Early Childhood Curriculum Framework (O’Toole et al., 2024), and the opinions of primary and secondary school children on bullying in schools (Ireland, Department of Education [DE], 2022).

More recently, in 2024, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY) launched a public consultation on a national plan for Irish language provision in Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) and School-Age Childcare (SAC) in Ireland. This paper draws upon phase two of this consultation, which involved 3–12-year-old children attending both English-medium and Irish-medium settings in Ireland. The DCEDIY specified that the consultation with children must address pre-established objectives, including opportunities to access ECCE/SAC Irish-medium education, and strengthening and supporting the delivery of Irish-medium provision.

Members of the research team were assigned to settings based on their strengths (e.g., Irish language proficiency, expertise in working with pre-school and/or school-aged children, experience of participatory research). As previous early childhood educators, now ECCE lecturers with experience of participatory research with young children, we undertook the consultation with 3 and 4-year-old children (n = 27) attending two English-medium ECCE settings. Drawing upon our reflections, this paper explores the reality of consulting with these young children.

Presented in four sections, the paper begins with a discussion of child agency and the principles underpinning child participation in research. Here, we argue that child participation is not just about children having a voice, but that what adults do with that voice matters equally. The following section explains the use of Lundy’s (2007) model of participation alongside the Mosaic Approach (Clark & Moss, 2001, 2005, 2011). It describes the multi-modal participatory data collection strategy, participant selection, ethical considerations and data analysis. Next, we present the findings, which draw upon our reflections and professional conversations following consultation with the children. Finally, the concluding section discusses the need for a shared understanding of participatory research among all stakeholders and references the skills needed by researchers, and the mindset required from the outset to undertake participatory research with young children.

Child Agency and Participation

Although children have a right to participate in research (UN CRC, 2009), their involvement is informed by how adults, conceive of, and understand the notions of children and childhood (Byrne, 2023). Drawing upon the United Nations, 1989 and the New Sociology of Childhood (e.g., James & James, 2004; James & Prout, 1997; Punch & Tisdell, 2012), we view children as competent social actors within social and cultural settings. In other words, children are agentic. From the youngest age, they can form and express views and participate in issues relating to their immediate family, school, local community and natural environment (Lansdown, 2011). They are actors, competent decision-makers, active players and agents of change in the context of their home, their ECCE setting, school, and community (Hanson & Nieuwenhuys, 2013). Children are able to make informed decisions about their own learning and participation (Alderson & Morrow, 2011), and act to influence and shape their world (Oswell, 2013; Scott et al., 2020). Agency is not just a feature of an individual or a situation (Baker & Le Courtois, 2022), it is a social construct (Manyukhina & Wyse, 2019) that extends beyond a person’s ability. It requires a sense of agency (the belief that one can act in the world) and opportunities to exercise agency (Baker & Le Courtois, 2022), essential elements of participatory research.

Child participation, itself, is an elusive concept, and difficult to define. It is invariably described as a process (e.g., UN CRC, 2009; Ireland, DCYA, 2014; Children in Scotland [CIS], 2019) and a multi-dimensional construct that can be exercised in various ways in various contexts (e.g., Alderson & Morrow, 2011; Hart, 1992; Shier, 2001; Sinclair, 2004). In research, meaningful participation engages children on matters that concern them (DCYA, 2014), enabling them to be heard in decision making (CIS, 2019) and beyond, encompassing how children are included, accepted, engaged and how they participate in communities (Lundy, 2007; Ree & Emilson, 2019; UN CRC, 2009). In keeping with the new sociology of childhood, This definition “shifts the focus from what the child does to participate toward how the child is recognised and responded to as a participant” (Walter-Davies et al., 2024, p. 1826) by adults. Thus, emphasising the relational aspects of participation. Within research, childrens’ personal voices and adults’ professional voices are intertwined and interrelated (Wall et al., 2019). True participation encompasses the activities of children which can manifest as “talking, thinking and deciding,” (Alderson, 2009, p. 79) as well as adults responding to, and acting upon these contributions (Lundy, 2007; Theobald et al., 2011). It is a complex process, embedded in cultural, social and relational contexts (Lansdown, 2005; Zalewska-Królak, 2020), requiring researchers to remain mindful of the inherent adult-child power imbalance at all times (Marren, 2024). Regardless of good intentions, adult lenses and agendas, originating from both internal factors and external pressures, impact on children’s experiences of participation in both learning and research (Yoon & Templeton, 2019).

We see child participation not as a “gimmick or an item to check off a list at the end of the day” (Theobald et al., 2011, p. 24) but as a dialogic process of information-sharing between children and adults (UN CRC, 2009). Moreover, we recognise that children are “best served by changes to policy and practice which remain alert to their differing perspectives and interests as well as their needs” (Clark et al., 2003, p. 48). These views, coupled with our belief in, and commitment to children’s right to express their opinions, have them listened to, acted upon, and influence their lives (United Nations, 1989, Art 12), informed the research design.

Research Design

Lundy’s (2007) rights-based model of participation, which underpins effective implementation of children’s participatory rights, as set out in the UNCRC, informed the research design, data collection, and our subsequent reflections (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Lundy’s (2007) Model of Participation

As illustrated, the four aspects of Lundy’s model encompass:

(1) Space: children must be given the opportunity to express their view

(2) Voice: children must be facilitated to express their views

(3) Audience: children’s views must be listened to

(4) Influence: children’s views must be acted upon as appropriate (Lundy, 2007, p. 933).

The research design also draws inspiration from:

 - The Mosaic approach (Clark & Moss, 2001, 2005, 2011), a widely acclaimed methodological framework for conducting participatory research with children. We conceptualise the Mosaic Approach as involving four stages: Consulting (with children), Reflecting (on the process), Documenting (children’s voices) and Influencing (using children’s voices to effect change).

 - The theoretical perspectives of the Reggio Emilia approach, namely, the notion of the competent child, the pedagogy of listening and the pedagogy of relationships (Clark & Moss, 2011).

The pedagogy of listening involves much more than listening with our ears. It is listening with all our senses: sight, touch, smell, taste, orientation. Pascal and Bertram (2009, p. 255) remind us that listening is not solely about providing opportunities for children to verbalise their views, it is “an active process of receiving, interpreting and responding to [their] communications”. Listening is about the search for meaning, giving meaning to the message, value to those being listened to (Rinaldi, 2005), and it is central to the exercise of children’s rights and agency (Moloney et al., 2025). In the context of the Reggio Emilia approach, a participatory culture is embedded in and sustained through relationships and the interactional processes between children and adults (Theobald et al., 2011). Proponents of the Mosaic Approach view children as “experts in their own lives, skillful communicators, rights holders and meaning makers” (Clark & Moss, 2005, p. 5).

The study, therefore, draws together the Lundy Model of participation and the four stages of the Mosaic Approach, utilising them as a complementary framework (Figure 2). Hence, the Lundy Model sets out the ‘What’ of participation (Space, Voice, Audience, Influence), while the Mosaic Approach details the ‘How’ of participation (Consulting, Reflecting, Documenting, Influencing).

Figure 2.

Combined Lundy Model of Participation and the Mosaic Approach as a Complementary Framework for Participatory Research. Source: Original (Moloney & Pope, 2025, Unpublished)

Participants

In Ireland, all ECCE and SAC settings must register with Tusla: The Child and Family Agency. All settings (6 ECCE and 3 SAC) participating in the child consultation, were purposively selected from this register, available at: https://www.tusla.ie/services/preschool-services/early-years-providers/register-of-early-years-services-by-county. Participating settings represented the diversity of ECCE and SAC provision across Ireland in relation to location, designation (i.e., community or private), type of provision (e.g., full daycare, sessional, part-time), ethos and spoken language. Additionally, each selected ECCE setting participated in the universal Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) scheme, which provides children aged 2 years 8 months to 5 years 6 months with their first formal experience of early learning in the two years prior to commencing primary school (Pobal, 2025).

The two ECCE settings discussed in this paper were community-based, English-medium settings, providing full-daycare in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. One setting was located in a rural community, with the second, located in an urban area.

Methodology

Located within a participatory paradigm (Clark, 2017), the consultation utilised a compendium of participatory research methods, taking account of power in relationships (e.g., positionality of researchers and educators) in participating ECCE settings, behaviours expected of children within their setting, their individual needs, and diversity within the group overall. Horgan (2017) advises that using a range of data collection methods recognises and mitigates power differentials. Furthermore, “multiple modalities of expression in child-centred research empower children by promoting their participation in the production of oral and visual texts” (Quiroz et al., 2014, p. 212). Consistent with the Mosaic Approach, the methodology comprised flexible (st)age-appropriate participatory data collection strategies, that played to the children’s strengths, interests and abilities, providing opportunities for them to express their agency throughout the consultation process.

Data Collection Strategies

The four aspects of the Lundy Model guided the design of the data collection techniques, which needed to be flexible, enabling us to continually negotiate where, when and how children could express their views (i.e., Space and Voice). Furthermore, to ensure we listened to the different voices or languages of participating children, we recognised and respected “non-verbal forms of communication including play, body language, facial expression, and drawing and painting, through which very young children demonstrate understanding, choices and preferences” (UN CRC, 2009, para. 21). In keeping with the Mosaic approach (Clark & Moss, 2001), we therefore utilised a multi-method approach (see Table 1) to facilitate children in choosing which data collection strategy/strategies, if any, they wished to engage with, so they could freely express their views and interests (DCEDIY, 2024) as documenters, photographers, initiators and commentators (Clark, 2005). This approach also enabled us to remain attuned to children’s verbal and non-verbal communication, action and/or inaction throughout, altering the pace and structure of the consultation as necessary (i.e., Space, Voice, Audience).

Table 1.

Overview of Participatory Data Collection Strategies

Strategy	Description
Photo elicitation	Using photographs of activities and items familiar to young children as provocations for voicing and discussing preferences and interests (Butschi & Hedderich, 2021; Dockett et al., 2017)
Draw and tell	Providing opportunities for drawing and more broadly, mark-making, to gain insights into children’s understanding (Einarsdottir et al., 2009) and facilitating them to tell their story (White et al., 2010)
Child-led tours	Inviting children to become tour-guides of their ECCE environment. Described as “a child-led way of talking” these tours expand on ways to listen to children and explore spaces from their point of view (Clark, 2017, p. 49). They entail a ‘mobile conversation’ where children guide the researcher(s) around spaces within their everyday environment
Informal contemporaneous conversations	Engaging children in conversations about photographs, their drawings, favourite areas to play in, favourite toys and activities etc., to gain insight into their lived experience of Irish language, and other languages, as well as learning and play in a broader sense
With children’s permission, we
➢ Photographed drawings, or supported children to photograph their own drawings, respecting their ownership of their work (Christensen & James, 2008)
➢ Took contemporaneous notes during play-based conversations and child-led tours
➢ Documented the process through field notes

Source: influenced by Clark & Moss (2001); Lundy (2007); UN CRC (2009).

In line with the DCEDIY objectives, the findings from the consultation are intended to influence the development of an action plan for Irish Language in ECCE and SAC settings in Ireland. By encapsulating children’s views in the present paper, we hope that their voices will further influence the practices of participatory research with children in the future.

In addition to the participatory data collection strategies outlined in Table 1, two hand puppets (Paulie and Kermit) mediated our interactions with the children, at the outset of the data collection process. Although we remained with both groups of children for extended periods of time (4 h and 3 h respectively), we met each group only once. Accordingly, we used the puppets to break the ice by creating a fun atmosphere facilitating dialogue and relaxed engagement (Coyne et al., 2021). The puppets helped us to connect with the children, pique their interest, convey our interest in their lived experience, and ultimately, shift the power imbalance between us and them.

Ethics

Our institutional Research Ethics Committee granted approval to undertake the consultation (Ref: A24-039). A key aspect of ethical approval concerned garnering informed assent from participating children. To this end, while settings helped to disseminate information letters and informed consent forms to children’s parents/guardians, we personally provided each participating child with a child friendly information sheet and informed assent form. The letter and assent forms used short simple sentences and included imagery as well as photographs of our faces. Using these forms, we explained the research aim and process to the children, allowing time to answer their questions in advance of data collection (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Extracts From Informed Assent Forms

Although parents/guardians provided written informed consent beforehand, any child indicating they did not want to participate was not included in data collection. This did not preclude them from engaging in the various activities, if they wished to do so (e.g., their drawings did not form part of data collection). We used our “ethical radars” (Skånfors, 2009) throughout, remaining attuned to the children’s interest, verbal and non-verbal cues, and eagerness to participate. Viewing their informed assent as ongoing (Harcourt & Conroy, 2011), we constantly checked with children regarding their willingness to participate. Children had complete flexibility to opt out at any point, to engage with as many data collection strategies as they wished and to decide when they were finished. With the exception of one child, whose parent/guardian did not give consent for participation, all other children (n = 27) across the two ECCE settings participated in at least one mode of data collection. None-the-less, as discussed later, the manner of their participation varied.

Data Analysis

As indicated, this paper is concerned with our reflections (i.e., notes written after each consultation and ongoing professional discussions in the weeks that followed) on consulting with children aged 3-4 years in the two ECCE settings, rather than the findings of the consultation per se. Using Lundy’s Model of Participation and the Mosaic Approach as a lens to guide our reflections and professional discussions, we asked:

(1) How the consultation process provided time and space to support children’s authentic participation?

(2) How the children engaged with the participatory data collection tools?

(3) What challenges, if any, children encountered when engaging with the data collection tools?

(4) What, if anything, prevented children from expressing their views and/or participating in the consultation process?

Firstly, we analysed our reflections deductively seeking to answer these pre-determined questions. We then used Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) (Braun & Clarke, 2022), to undertake inductive analysis, remaining open to all the possibilities within the data, identifying codes, and later, themes, that were not captured through deductive analysis. The children’s actions and interactions permeated our reflections, influencing our perspectives and perceptions concerning their participation, helping us to develop a shared and deeper understanding of child participatory research. While the deductive analysis helped to answer the questions outlined above, the inductive analysis uncovered additional considerations including the research agenda, educator’s pedagogical practices, and tensions between respecting the rules of the setting and upholding the children’s right to participate on their terms.

The remainder of the paper provides insights into key considerations identified through the data analysis concerning the importance of affording time (Space) for meaningful child participation; children’s engagement with the participatory data collection strategies (Space and Voice); and the factors that can impede child participation in research (Audience and Influence).

Findings

Space: Allowing Time for Participation

Our reflections highlight the importance of time in facilitating child participation in research. We noted that “Involving children in research is messy. It is not a neat linear process, and it can’t be rushed … [i]t’s not a question of simply turning up to the setting, explaining what is involved, seeking informed assent and off you go.” Stage 1 of the Mosaic Approach involves children and adults gathering, and documenting information on the topic being explored. This requires Space (Lundy, 2007), which extends beyond physical space to encompassing time – time to establish relationships with children, to build rapport and gain their trust (Horgan, 2017), prior to commencing the research. Concurring with Horgan (2017) who emphasises the need to establish relationships with children, our reflections indicate that “it is impossible to just launch into an explanation of the research…we must get to know the children, gain their trust first.” The children we worked with brought their curiosity and their own ideas on their participation to the research process. We reflected on the need for us, as researchers, to “adapt, to trust their judgement, their competence and expertise… [and to] …slow down.” Slowing down is core to becoming familiar with the children’s “preferred pace and rhythm” (Green & Clark, 2024, p. 7), and is, we believe, a key aspect of participatory research, enabling researchers to linger, revisit, rethink (Clark, 2020), and “stay in the moment with children” (Green & Clark, 2024, p. 7).

By slowing down, we prioritised the children’s voices, rather than the research agenda. It helped us to establish rapport with the children, showing genuine interest in them; asking their name, their age, what they like to do, etc. before commencing the research. Our reflections provide insight into our growing awareness of the process involved in supporting children to participate meaningfully in research:

we’re not rushing or seeking to get the children to complete a list of pre-determined research activities…they know themselves what to do and when they want to do it. They are not in any rush; there is no finished product here… they clearly let us know when they are ready to move on or stay put!

Thus, mirroring Theobald et al.’s (2011) caution that child participation is not something that is ticked off at the end of the day.

Space and Voice: Children’s Engagement With Participatory Data Collection Strategies

Stage 2 of the Mosaic approach: Reflecting, involves putting the different pieces of the mosaic together through reflection and dialogue. In addition to time and space, this stage facilitates the element of voice in Lundy’s (2007) model of participation. The findings provide insight into children’s engagement with each participatory data collection strategy, while also referencing the centrality of space in supporting their participation.

Children’s Engagement With Puppets

As mentioned, we used two hand puppets, Paulie and Kermit in the initial stages of the consultation (Figure 4). Children unanimously expressed a preference for Paulie.

Figure 4.

Paulie and Kermit

We naively thought that perhaps the children would recognise Kermit© as a character from Sesame Street©. However, when asked if they knew who he was, they replied: “He’s a frog” and “He lives in a pond,” showing little interest in him. They were curious about Paulie and enjoyed learning that he was a child, like them, that he spoke two languages: Irish and English, and that he wanted to know if they would help him to learn about what they liked to do in their setting. Some children asked: “What’s Irish?”. When Paulie introduced himself saying “Is mise Paulie – my name is Paulie,” the children giggled and seemed excited. They clearly enjoyed this approach. They laughed gleefully, eager to hold Paulie (some wanted to “rub his hair,” “hold his hand” or “play with him”), passing him from one to the other. Many children called on him to “ask another question” or “say something else”.

It was essential to allow time and space for children to settle into consultation. Paulie mediated between us and the children, serving as a buffer between the two. Children related to, responded to and delighted in his playful interactions. Consistent with Coyne et al. (2021), Paulie helped to break the ice, playing a key role in creating a fun, safe and comfortable environment, where children settled into participation. We did not rush this stage, which was instrumental in establishing trust with the children.

As children became more accustomed to informal conversations with Paulie, singing, counting, and/or reciting rhymes with him, his importance receded into the background. At this point, the children seemed comfortable with our presence in their environment and happy for us to sit with, chat with, listen to, and respond to them.

Children’s Engagement With Photo Elicitation

We asked the children what they like to do, and/or what makes them happy in their setting. Their answers indicate that, first and foremost, they like to play, e.g., “play games with friends/everyone”; “play with toys”; “playdough”; “play rugby, football and hurling”. To prompt their thinking, we showed them images representing various activities and types of play, children may typically engage in while attending an ECCE setting (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Images Representing Various Activities and Types of Play

They became visibly excited about the images, standing up, looking at and picking them up. While all 27 children engaged with this activity, their engagement varied. Some children enthusiastically selected images, holding them up for all to see, some moved through the images slowly, picking them up, laying them down again, not selecting any, while others selected one or two images, holding them tightly to their chest, or by their side. Some children named their chosen image, shouting out “painting”; “playdough”; “playing with water”, etc. Others simply held the images out to us, nodding affirmatively as we named the activities. The images chosen correlated with the types of activities children said they liked and made them happy, as indicated above, including Playing with playdough and toys; Arts and crafts (“Colouring”); Football; Messy play (“Slime”); Dressing up (“Batman mask”); Dancing; Playing and Singing in a circle/circle time. Some of these activities featured in the children’s drawings also as they engaged in Draw and tell.

Children’s Engagement With Draw and Tell

As with Photo elicitation, although all children engaged enthusiastically with Draw and tell, the nature of their engagement differed. Some children focused intensely on drawing for lengthy periods, while others left after a few minutes to play, with some, returning frequently to their drawing, completing it in stages.

We did not fully anticipate how much children would enjoy experimenting with and exploring the materials we provided: pencils, crayons and markers, which differed in terms of shape, size, colour strength, vividness and compatibility when mixed. We also provided large sheets of paper (size A3) which facilitated greater space for creative expression. We noticed that children “really liked experimenting with various drawing utensils especially markers, tempera paint sticks and colours.”

We explained that while we would love to see drawings of activities they like to do in the setting, it was their choice to decide what to draw, and how to draw. Some children drew their favourite activity. However, most chose to draw what they felt like drawing – underscoring the need for researcher flexibility, understanding, willingness to follow their lead, and adapt methodology in the moment.

Despite most children drawing whatever they wanted, they none-the-less, clearly showed us what was on their minds and what was important to them. By spending time with them, remaining attuned to their vocalisations and silences, action and sometimes in-action, we experienced first-hand, their engagement with, and enjoyment of Draw and tell. The following comments/snippets of conversations with children while drawing, provide insight into their interests, lived experiences, knowledge, competencies and natural curiosity:

“I am just doing all the colours”

“Can I mix them?” (referring to the colours)

“I like this sound!” (opening and closing the lid on the tempera crayon/marker repeatedly and laughing as the sound is made). Then, “They smell funny too! I have markers at home that smell like poo!” (laughing)

Our reflections reveal that drawing facilitated children to speak about their work and their preferences, as evidenced through their comments (Figure 6):

“I drawed (sic) a circle and I like to colour … I like this colour” (pointing at red). In this instance, the child named the colour in Irish, noting “It’s dearg” (i.e., red)

“My colour is Elsa” (i.e., blue - referring to their favourite character discussed previously)

“This is (sic) my favourite colours!”

Figure 6.

Examples of Children’s Drawings

Here we return to the matter of relationships and agency. At times, some children seemed unsure of what to do upon completing their drawing and tended to sit quietly waiting for adult instruction. When we asked if they would like to draw more pictures, they were visibly excited to hear they could use more pages. Although some children wandered off to play with toys, most asked for at least one more page, some waiting quietly for us to hand it to them, while others seemed delighted when we indicated that they could choose their own page from the pile. They happily continued drawing, colouring and chatting to each other, and to us.

In accordance with ethical considerations, we asked children for permission to keep their drawings for inclusion in the research report and potential research papers. In both settings, most children wished to keep their drawings in the setting or take them home. They responded positively when asked if they would like to photograph their work, so they could retain the original, while we would keep the photo. Children excitedly photographed their work, using our mobile phones. In each case, children themselves, chose where to lay their drawing, often selecting a clear table at the back of the room, in a quiet area away from other children and educators. Once they were satisfied with how they positioned their drawing, they invariably asked: “Can I take a picture now?”. In some instances, a child asked: “What do I do?” Indicating they were not familiar with taking photos. Each time children heard the camera click, and saw their drawing on the phone screen, they smiled broadly, some giving a thumbs up, and/or saying, “I’m finished now”, or “Me done”. All children verbally agreed that we could use the photos for our report or “for other work like writing your story for other people to read” [information provided prior to collecting data and again, when asking for permission to keep the drawings or photos).

A 4-year-old boy, who had given permission for us to keep his drawing, later changed his mind, when being collected from the setting. Exercising his agency, he indicated his wish “to show daddy what I drawed [sic]”. His 3-year-old sister, followed suit, also requesting to take the “hungry caterpillar” (name of her drawing) home to “daddy”. Both children enjoyed photographing their drawings and agreed that we could use the photos (Figure 7).

Figure 7.

Drawings by Sister and Brother Attending One Setting

Children’s Engagement With Child-Led Tours

While child-led tours featured in the compendium of participatory data collection strategies, upon reflection, we agreed that ‘Come and See’ episodes would be a more authentic term to capture the manner in which, children showed us around the environment. We did not ask children to become tour-guides of their ECCE environment. Instead, they spontaneously invited us to “come and see,” using these sporadic and fleeting episodes to show us areas where they liked to play, toys and activities they enjoyed, and to introduce us to their friends.

During these come and see episodes, children formed dyads, triads and/or played alone. While our reflections indicate that “These are the natural groupings children chose themselves”, they also reference how these grouping affected our responsive engagement in supporting their participation.

I don’t know why I didn’t anticipate they [children] would split up into their friendship groups…it kept me on my toes, trying to keep up with all the movement and ensuring I gave time and opportunity for every child to express an opinion.

A 4-year-old girl in one setting ran toward one of us, holding a black wig. When asked “what do you have?”, she replied: “a wig, come I’ll show you!”. She brought the researcher to a dressing up area, saying “this is my favourite place”, and proceeded to present all the different outfits and accessories, inviting the researcher to “look.” (Figure 8)

Figure 8.

Dressing Up Area

Observing this interaction, a 4-year-old boy, took the same researcher by the hand, leading her to the book corner, saying: “Look at all the books!”. Here, two girls, a 3-year-old, and a 4-year-old spontaneously selected their “favourite book” from a wall mounted rack. One chose Oops a Daisy, Here Comes Maisy, with the second child choosing The Fish Who Could Wish, which she said was “fun.” Meanwhile, the boy had chosen a book and was kneeling on the floor with the book open on a couch in front of him, looking at the pages (Figure 9).

Figure 9.

Boy Kneeling on the Floor With Book Open on Couch in Front of Him

While the consultation resulted in gathering rich and meaningful data, primarily relating to our shared deeper understanding of the importance of relationship, space, time and process in participatory research with children, it also uncovered certain pitfalls in the research process and potential barriers to achieving meaningful child participation. These featured prominently in our individual reflections and post-research conversations. Even though we anticipated some of these barriers based on our previous research experience and engagement with literature, others, such as educators’ pedagogy and the predominance of setting rules were more nuanced and unexpected.

Factors That Impede Child Participation in Research

Our reflections and discussions point to three factors that impeded child participation in the present study: The research agenda, educators’ pedagogical approach and the routine/structure within the setting. We now discuss how these factors manifest in the present study, and our attempts to offset them.

Research Agenda

The DCEDIY, as funders of the study, determined the timeframe for undertaking the research and sought information relating to predetermined themes, as indicated in the introduction. The consultation was therefore, condensed into a short time period and underpinned by Government oriented objectives. Consistent with Horgan (2017), we found this challenging and a potential impediment to child participation. We pondered the “tension between expediency and meaningful child participation… [wondering]…how do we resist the temptation to rush the process and/or influence children’s choices of what to draw, or to direct their conversations”. While we were unable to influence the timeframe, which limited us to just one visit per setting, we aligned with UNICEF (2015, p. 5) in determining that the goal of research “should never take precedence over the rights of individual participants”. In funded research studies, while it may be a case of “he who pays the piper calls the tune” (McCrabb et al., 2021), we felt that it was essential that funder demands did not overshadow or trump children’s participatory rights.

To mitigate this challenge, we focused on giving precedence to Voice (children), and Audience (us, the researchers and the children). Consequently, we did not relentlessly pursue the pre-determined themes. We did not request children to draw pictures or answer a set of questions related to the research objectives. Instead, we left it free for them to choose the data collection strategy/strategies they wished to use, i.e., to play with photographs that were meaningful to them during photo elicitation, to show us things of importance to them during come and see episodes, to tell us whatever they wanted about their everyday environment, and to draw whatever they wanted, and tell us about it, if they wished.

While most children happily spoke to us throughout the data collection, others were not as forthcoming, as the earlier discussion of photo elicitation indicates. Regarding their engagement with Draw and tell, not all children wanted to discuss their drawing, indicating instead, their preference for uninterrupted time. For example, one child, when asked about his drawing, simply replied, “I’m just doing something.” His tone of voice, and the fact that he did not look up when answering, remaining focused on drawing, sent a clear message – a preference for solitary uninterrupted engagement. Regardless of our eagerness to learn more, we took a step back in direct response to the child’s implicit communication of his needs and preferences, understood as his level of assent for participation at this time. In a post consultation discussion, we asked “What changed?” agreeing that

it was the angle at which this finding was recorded. Instead of documenting a verbal description, the focus shifted to something probably much more meaningful – the child’s engagement with the research process and fluidity of their assent and participation.

It reminded us that an adult idea of what children may like to do (i.e., tell us about the drawing they are so passionate about) and an adult agenda of collecting ‘concrete’ or ‘presentable’ data (i.e., description of the drawing), may differ greatly from the child’s idea and agenda. In the instance reported here, the child wanted to engage wholeheartedly in the process of drawing, exploring the materials and experimenting with colour – all for the sake of the process, his own enjoyment and learning. While this discrepancy in perspectives may seem difficult to overcome, throughout the consultation, we welcomed and embraced the ‘messiness’ of the data (e.g., children drawing what they wanted, describing or not what they drew or selected during Photo elicitation), and the unpredictability of the process (e.g., moving between different activities frequently, from drawing to free play, to come and see episodes, back to drawing, to photo elicitation to play, etc.), allowing us to truly capture the children’s perspectives, as they occurred. Cook (2009, p. 277) sees this “messy area… [as]…a vital element for seeing, disrupting, analysing, learning, knowing and changing.” Discussing her participatory action research, she argues that rigorous research necessitates

researchers to both create and delve into the messy area…[and]…rather than prejudging the messy area as negative, we need to celebrate the positive role it plays in creating depth and rigour within the participatory research process. (p. 289)

We believe that trusting the child and following their lead, allows their voice to materialise not just in what it says, but also in how and when it says it (including, when it does not seem to be saying anything at all). Following in the footsteps of Abma et al. (2022), therefore, we continually asked ourselves: “whose voice is it really?”. Focusing on this question ensured we prioritised the child’s voice at all times, remaining true to our beliefs and the chosen framework (Clark & Moss, 2001, 2005, 2011; Lundy, 2007).

As alluded to previously, we drew from the principles of relational pedagogy focusing on creating that “in-between space” between us, as researchers, and the children, filled with trust and respect (Ljungblad, 2019). We facilitated more sustained engagement by sitting down and engaging in activities with the children (e.g., at the table during drawing, on the floor during free play, joining in circle time). Slowing the pace reduced the pressure on children to produce answers to specific questions or products, such as pre-determined drawings. From our perspective, children were free to determine how long they wanted to continue playing/drawing/talking/showing and telling, and how they went about it. Our reflections highlight our conclusion that “allowing time and space, taking an unhurried approach to the research honours our commitment to the children’s right to participate, to voice their opinion on their terms, in their way.”

Notwithstanding our commitment to upholding the children’s right to participate on their terms, we became acutely aware of tensions between our approach and that of the educators in the participating settings.

Pedagogical Approach and Setting Schedule

Stage 3 of the Mosaic approach emphasises the importance of listening to children, which is interlinked with Space, Voice, Audience and Influence. As the consultation unfolded, the educators’ capacity to facilitate these elements, either supporting or impeding the children’s participation became evident.

Upon arrival at both settings, we found the children sitting down waiting for us. In one setting, children were positioned around two tables, in the other, they sat on chairs in a circle, waiting for our arrival so they could engage in circle time. In both settings, the educators stressed the necessity of this structured environment, expressing concern that if the children were playing freely, “the environment would become too chaotic”. Thus, prompting us to reflect, “From the outset, the children’s agency seems compromised… did they have a choice about sitting, were they asked?”. One manager explained that ‘circle time’ was the best time for us, as researchers, to explain ‘the activities’ to the children. A key principle of our approach, however, was to uphold the children’s right to participate, to follow their lead and converse with them as they freely moved around the environment. Instead, “children were awaiting our instructions, requiring us to adapt our research approach to fit with the pedagogical approach in the room.”

In general, we noticed educators hovering on the periphery of activities, policing the environment, ready to intervene whenever they perceived that the children (and possibly, us) had breached the setting boundaries, or acted contrary to their pedagogical practice. While the children’s excitement and enthusiasm were a welcome and anticipated aspect of the process for us, some educators continually reminded them to “sit back down.” They also voiced their preference for children’s engagement to happen on a staggered basis, e.g., taking turns when looking at and selecting images during photo elicitation, and when showing us around the environment. Educators in one setting were clearly uncomfortable with children spontaneously inviting us to come and see their environment. Rather than facilitating the children’s free movement within the environment, they instructed them to take turns in showing us their favourite toys and areas of the room, while simultaneously, expecting the rest of the group to remain seated quietly watching.

We readily acknowledge the merits of adopting a staggered approach to children’s engagement with photo elicitation for example, recognising that educators may have concerns about children’s safety, in this context. However, we noted that overall, educators adopted an authoritarian approach, often not listening to, or disregarding children’s voices. At times, children were not allowed to speak to each other, but expected to sit still and wait their turn. Occasionally, the power imbalance between educators and children, hindered children’s agency.

At one point, during draw and tell, noticing that some children had finished their drawing, and before we had an opportunity to offer additional paper to them, educators provided children with pages from a colouring book, directing them away from the draw and tell activity. When children realised, they had a choice in continuing to draw, some placed the colouring book pages to one-side, choosing instead to continue drawing whatever they wanted, using the blank sheets and materials we had left out for them.

On another occasion, when a few children in one setting identified the ‘dress-up corner’ as their favourite place to play, the educators’ expectations impeded their freedom of movement and autonomy. This time, an educator immediately intervened, stating that children were “not allowed to take the costumes off the hangers or put them on, because it’s too messy”. The children obeyed without question, simply moving away from the dress up corner. Although this felt somewhat unnatural or overly structured, preventing children from participating on their terms, we felt obliged to observe the boundaries set by the educators.

Mindful of the third stage of the Mosaic approach, which moves beyond listening to putting what has been said and heard into action, like voice and action (Lundy, 2007), we had to carefully navigate our positioning and facilitate children’s engagement. Our reflections reveal that “we had not anticipated the tension between respecting the rules of the setting while ensuring we did not compromise the centrality of children’s voice and participation in this study.” Cognisant of the voluntary nature of the setting’s participation, this tension caused certain dissonance, for us, as expressed in our reflections:

It’s a tricky balancing act to stay true to your beliefs and prioritise the children, but at the same time not to step on the educators’ toes, as you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you.

We were also conscious not to assume a dominant role in the room (i.e., an outsider coming to introduce new routines or practices), nor to adapt an evaluative stance (i.e., an inspector-like visitor). To achieve this, we moved within the framework set by the educators, while exercising a range of pedagogical strategies, including slowing down, making interactions playful and light-hearted, and incorporating humour, to facilitate children’s deeper engagement. This flexible responsive approach allowed us to ensure that the children could still freely voice their opinions and enjoy meaningful engagement in the process, assured that we were moving beyond listening to them, by affording opportunities (time and space) to exercise their agency.

Conclusion and Discussion

There is little doubt that participatory research in an ECCE setting is non-linear, messy, full of richness, complexity and contradictions. It requires a positive mindset, where both researchers and educators are open to and embrace the messiness, as well as all the possibilities within the research process. This calls for a shared understanding of participatory research, among all those involved in research with young children.

It is paramount that researchers discuss the process of participatory research in detail with educators, agreeing roles and responsibilities in advance, thus ensuring that children can exercise their agency throughout the process. Without this shared understanding, as the findings in the present study suggest, participatory research can be imbued with tensions and challenges emanating from external factors (policy maker agendas) and internal factors (pedagogical approaches and setting structure and routines) that hamper child participation.

Agreeing the nature of the research and the associated protocols in advance, may not fully mitigate the internal factors. Thus, researchers must continually navigate their positioning within ECCE settings, remaining attuned to educators’ and children’s cues at all times- ready to respond accordingly, shifting focus, redirecting the research, providing support as necessary.

Additionally, we suggest that researchers must resist external pre-determined research objectives, keeping them at arms’ length during the participatory research process. Indeed, difficult conversations between researchers and policy makers are critical. Researchers must use these conversations to convey that while participatory research is messy, the messiness does not preclude rigour in research (Cook, 2009). In fact, the messy area is “a vital element for seeing, disrupting, analysing, learning, knowing and changing” (Cook, 2009, p. 277). By entering and embracing the messiness of the present consultation, we recognised that participatory research “can be ambiguous rather than defined” (Cook, 2009, p. 1), something that funders can misunderstand or overlook.

Although Zalewska-Królak (2020, p. 79), suggests that “participatory research assures agency,” this may not necessarily happen in practice. Rather, researchers must be fully prepared for the challenges of participatory research from the outset. This requires considering how, when and where children will participate. It requires consideration of research dyads and/or triads. We thoroughly embraced and enjoyed the messiness of the process. However, trying to keep up with all the movement, complexity and contradictions, while providing time and opportunity for every child to express their opinion, kept us on our toes.

Notwithstanding the paramountcy of participatory research strategies, they are not a means to an end. Though we approached the consultation with a compendium of data collection strategies, we did not use them in a systematic manner. Rather than adhering rigidly to a definitive neatly packaged plan whereby, we held all power and control of the process, we facilitated time and space for children to lead and exercise their agency throughout. Children came and went as they pleased, spontaneously moving between photo elicitation, drawing, playing, chatting and doubling back at will. This is the non-linear messy participatory research process in a nutshell. It is underpinned by choice, flexibility and freedom – agency! While we celebrate that children’s participation happened on their terms, it required our collaborative effort as a research dyad.

Whereas time is central to participatory research, it must be understood as more than just policymaker assigned timeframes (e.g.,6 months to undertake a study). We accept that boundaries are necessary to bring a research project to conclusion. None the less, participatory research necessitates a reconceptualisation of time as a process. It requires considerable researcher investment, which manifests as time. Time to design the process, negotiate with policymakers, educators, and children (not forgetting parents’/guardians’ informed consent); time to facilitate children’s participation through reflecting, documenting, co-constructing data, analysing and writing up a research report. We call upon policy makers to be realistic about embracing the messiness of participatory research and negotiate reasonable timeframes that permit recurring visits with children. We concur with Horgan (2017) in stressing the need for researchers to build relationships with children, to create a safe environment, to gain their trust, and facilitate their agency, leading to sustained researcher/child engagement, all of which, requires time.

Herein lies an important message for those holding responsibility for children’s participation in decision-making: funder demands must not overshadow or trump children’s participatory rights. Mindful of Abma et al. (2022), we recommend that researchers, funders and educators continually ask: Whose voice is it really? If we are serious about children’s participation, the only voice that matters, is the voice of the child. It is through a shared understanding of participatory research, that all those involved can uphold the tenets of participation as proposed by the UNCRC (United Nations, 1989) Clark & Moss, 2001, 2005, 2011; Lundy, 2007; United Nations, 1989.

Limitations

We acknowledge certain limitations of this paper. The reflections which inform the paper are based on working with a small sample of children (n = 27) in two Early Childhood Care and Education settings in Ireland. We do not claim that this sample is in any way representative, or that the findings can be generalised to a wider population. However, the findings, add to previous studies regarding the messiness of participatory research (Cook, 2009); the necessity of relationship and slowing down (Clark, 2020; Clark & Moss, 2024), and the potential for funded research to impede authentic child participation (Horgan, 2017). We hope that the findings serve as a useful provocation for further debates on the meaningful participation of very young children in research, and the role of adults in achieving same.