Cited by 35Children's Rights and ParticipationParticipatory Visual Research MethodsChild Welfare and Adoption

Critical dialogue, critical methodology: bridging the research gap to young people's participation in evaluating children's services

Todd, Liz·2012·Children's Geographies

Abstract

This paper suggests ways the academic debate on youth participation (and how this is translated into research designs) can inform the manner in which services collaborate with children and young people to evaluate their work. There is a gap between thinking from academic research and the practice of service evaluation that seems to be difficult to bridge. In order to bridge the gap, a particular kind of ‘criticality’ needs to be brought to the assumptions and structures of professional practice and to how research methods are used in consulting with young people. Some of the discourses of practice do not sit easily with a view of children as active agents in their own lives, a view that underlies a more meaningful collaboration with young people. A process of dialogue and reflection within services that looks questioningly at the relationship between services and young people is explored. Encouraging criticality within youth involvement in evaluation will go a long way in bringing the academic debate on young people and research to children's services. Criticality takes many forms, but this paper gives some possible areas for action. These involve research purpose, consent, method and interpretation. More youth involvement is not necessarily better. Consent is on-going rather than agreed at the start and is in the hands of young people. Rather than looking for child-friendly methods, services should think of participatory design. Conclusions from findings should go beyond tak…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14733285.2012.667919

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Another potential for research with children to be experienced as disempowering lies in the multiple-power relations among young people themselves which affect the research process, including peer group cultures and classroom dynamics that work against fairness and collegiality.

    “Another potential for research with children to be experienced as disempowering, and which has been given limited attention, lies in the multiple-power relations among young people themselves which affect the research process (Schäfer and Yarwood, 2008) including peer group cultures and classroom dynamics that work against fairness and collegiality (Todd, 2012).”

    From Child participatory research methods: Attempts to go ‘deeper’ (2017) · cites this paper as Todd, 2012

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Todd, L.
Affiliations
Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Todd, Liz
Venue
Children's Geographies
Published
2012-05
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
187-200
ISSN
  • 1473-3277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-3285
OpenAlex
W2069912272
Cited by
35
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
11.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Children s Geographies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Children's Rights and Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Participatory Visual Research Methods
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
Keywords
youth participation, children's services, service evaluation, criticality, participatory design, research with young people, children as active agents, research consent

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review