CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Philosophy and Theoretical ScienceChildren's Rights and ParticipationPosthumanist Ethics and Activism

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

“My mind is not in my brain”: exploring consciousness with children using creative research methods

Open access
Thomas, Donna M., O’Riordan, Zoe·2025·Qualitative Research in Psychology
DOI 10.1080/14780887.2024.2354338
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The focus on the brain over the last few decades has seen an overclaiming of the human condition through brain-based research. Researching consciousness is an enquiry into who we are, our subjective experiences and our relationality with others and the world. In typical and child development research, materialist orientations dominate the field, assuming brains as the manufacturers of consciousness. Qualitative research has the potential to engage children in consciousness research, while interrogating typical constructionist, realist and materialist orientations. In this article we discuss using creative research methods for exploring aspects of phenomenal consciousness, such as self and mind, with children in a UK primary school. We share findings in relation to how children understand consciousness, how consciousness bears on self for children in the study, and how children experience and perceive the mind/body.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14780887.2024.2354338

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Recent studies on children's extra sensory experiences (near-death experiences, invisible companions, engaging with strange entities, hearing voices others cannot hear) show how creative research methods can induce more knowledge from children about their experiences.

    “For example, recent studies on children ' s extra sensory experiences - such as their near-death experiences, 17 invisible companions, engaging with strange entities and hearing voices others cannot hear, 18,19 2023) - show how creative research methods can induce more knowledge from children about their experiences 19 .”

    From New methodological directions for involving children in past life memories research (2026) · cites this paper as [17]

  • Children in paediatric intensive care (PICU) have used small world play items and art materials to effectively share features of their near-death experiences.

    “For example, children in paediatric intensive care (PICU) have used small world play items and art materials to effectively share features of their near-death experiences (see. 16,17”

    From New methodological directions for involving children in past life memories research (2026) · cites this paper as [17]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Arendt, H. 1971. Arendt to McCarthy, May 28th 1971, between friends: The correspondence of Hannah Arendt and Mary McCarthy 1949–1975. Ed. Carol Brightman. 1995. New York: Harcourt Brace.
  2. Chalmers, D. J. 1995. Facing up to the problems of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 20:200–19.
  3. Forti, B. 2021. Subjective experiences matter. What do we know about consciousness? Evidence-Based Psychiatric Care 7:158–69.
  4. Kastrup, B. 2019. The idea of the world: a multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality. London: John Hunt Publishing.
  5. Strawson, G. 1999. The self and the SESMET. Journal of Consciousness Studies 6:99–135.
  6. Thomas, D. M. 2023, Children’s unexplained experiences in a post materialist world: What children can teach us about the mystery of being human, John Hunt Publishing, United Kingdom.
  7. Thomas, D., and S. Durston. 2025, Self and subjectivity in social research. Sage Publications, London.
  8. Watt, C.1996. Physics envy: The politics of parapsychology. European Journal of Parapsychology 12:85–89.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Thomas, D. M., & O’Riordan, Z.
Affiliations
University of Lancashire (GB)
Corresponding author
Thomas, Donna M.
ORCID
Venue
Qualitative Research in Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2024-05-30
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
346-377
ISSN
  • 1478-0887 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-0895
DOI
10.1080/14780887.2024.2354338
OpenAlex
W4399170002
Cited by
2
References
74
Citations by year
2025: 2
FWCI
0.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Qualitative Research in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • CLOK (University of Central Lancashire) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Children's Rights and Participation
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Posthumanist Ethics and Activism
Keywords
consciousness, phenomenal consciousness, self, mind, mind-body problem, materialism, constructivism, creative research methods, elementary school students, subjectivity

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