Online Research with Children: Cultivating Better Practice with the Beauty of Hindsight

By Louise Couceiro

Like many researchers, the Covid-19 pandemic activated my interest in online data gathering tools. My PhD research explores how a group of children, aged 7 to 10, respond to collective biographies about women published between 2016 and 2020. Unable to spend time with children in educational settings, I sent the children books in the post and used Zoom to conduct individual interviews and group reading sessions. (See a Methodspace post about Facilitating Group Discussions with Zoom.) Here, I discuss my experience of undertaking online research with children, sharing some reflections on what worked well and lessons I learned.

All children are unique, they have their own set of experiences, values and preferences, and should thus be respected as experts in their own lives. This is an obvious point, but research involving children can sometimes fall foul to assumptions about what children enjoy and find engaging. For example, whilst many children like drawing and might prefer to share their views and perspectives through this medium, for others, drawing may be unenjoyable or even anxiety provoking. In a similar vein, we must not make assumptions about individuals’ communicative capabilities or preferences when researching with children online. As such, whilst I hope my reflections on what worked well and lessons I learned might be broadly applicable, I would encourage you to think specifically about the uniqueness of your own research context and the individuality of your own participants.

What worked well?

Using Zoom proved to be effective in facilitating insight into participants’ responses to the books. They seemed comfortable and at ease, and we discussed multifarious biographies in sufficient detail to explore my research questions. As innovative technologies continue to afford new and exciting opportunities for qualitative research, I join other scholars in advocating that, for certain projects, using online tools should be seen as equally valuable if not preferable to the ’gold standard’ of in-person interactions. Below are five (of many) things that worked well when I gathered my data at the end of 2020.  

Taking time to consider safety and privacy

As aforementioned, monitoring our own assumptive tendencies is important, but ensuring participant safety and protecting privacy is vital. Understanding how your chosen online platform works is a crucial component of ethical practice when researching in a digital environment. I found that taking time to review and adjust the default settings on Zoom was time well spent, as I realised that both the waiting room and password-protection needed activating. Different platforms have different features and idiosyncrasies, so I recommend becoming familiar with your chosen tool before commencing data gathering.

Optimising opportunities for creativity

Digital environments afford exciting opportunities for creative research with children. Zoom has numerous built-in features, including the whiteboard and polling system. On one occasion, I shared my screen to display a picture of one of the biographies we were discussing and asked participants to use the annotation tool to circle an illustration that stood out to them. I also made use of email communication, sending participants an electronic reader response toolkit, which included an introductory video and a range of arts-based activities they could engage with (Figure 1). Giving participants autonomy to choose their own methods was very effective. Participants were eager to discuss their creations with me and many noted that this was their favourite part of the project.

Figure 1 - Excerpts from the electronic reader response toolkit

Reviewing and developing my research practice

One of the benefits of using a videoconferencing platform such as Zoom is that, with participant consent, you can record meetings. Watching the recordings was incredibly useful for developing my own practice – reviewing the recordings allowed me to reflect and set personal actions for subsequent interviews and reading sessions. For example, following the first session I realised that serendipitous, ad-hoc conversations or engagements could not occur ‘on the side’ as they might do in face-to-face, group settings. Further, that strict turn-taking was a requirement as it was impossible to hear more than one person talking at once. Although this type of ‘turn-taking’ is arguably democratic – more domineering characters are less likely to dominate discussions – it nonetheless incites a more contrived and mechanical structure of conversation. Therefore, I implemented strategies to encourage engagement with one another (click here for my tips on how to facilitate group discussions on Zoom).

Redressing some of the power imbalance

In some ways, conducting interviews and reading sessions on Zoom helped to redress some of the power imbalances. As we were joining the meetings from our own homes, participants were able to ‘enter’ my personal space as well. They engaged with my surroundings by asking about the LEGO creations on the shelves behind me and wondered why I had ‘so many books!’ Although we were disconnected in that we were sat behind our respective screens, engaging with our respective copies of the texts, in our respective homes, ‘sharing’ our personal spaces in this way seemed to engender a quiet, intimate relatedness.

Lessons Learned

Overall, I found there to be innumerable advantages to using online tools for researching with children. However, there are some things I would do differently next time…

Over-estimate the extent of adult involvement

As with any research study, there are some things that are impossible to anticipate. There are other things that, in hindsight, seem blindingly obvious. Something I had considered but not fully appreciated was the extent to which parents / guardians would need to be involved in terms of organising the logistics of meeting online and supporting their children with accessing the technology. Over-estimating and setting clear expectations regarding adult involvement would have helped reduce unexpected participation from others.

Think of ways to recognise important nonverbal cues

The restricted field of vision imposed by platforms such as Zoom, (which tend to provide head shots) inevitably impacted my ability to pick up on some nonverbal cues. Although I was constantly observing for signs of discomfort, I could not know whether a participant was shaking their leg or tapping their foot under the table. All I could do was remain vigilant, continue building rapport and trust, and remind participants of their right to withdraw consent at any time. This is something I will continue to do in the future, in addition to potentially asking participants to move backwards to widen the field of vision.

Try to problem solve technological issues as soon as possible

Conversations were sometimes disrupted by technological issues. Certainly, there were moments where the flow of conversation was affected by poor audio and visual quality. I imagine participants may have felt frustrated at times. In hindsight, I would have done more to address the issue at the time (for example, asking participants to check how many bars were coloured in on their internet symbol and troubleshooting together), rather than hoping the connection would improve of its own accord.

If you’d like to discuss online methods, creative methods and/or researching with children, please feel free to email me at l.couceiro.1[at]research.gla.ac.uk. I’d love to hear from you!

---

More Methodspace Posts about Research with Children and Youth