Listening to young peoples voices in physical education and youth

sport research
Eimear Enright and Mary OSullivan
Participatory methods and methodological sensibility
This chapter encourages researchers who are conducting research with young people to go beyond
simply conversing with young people about what their experiences in physical education and youth
sport are like. Rather, we want researchers to consider young peoples authentic involvement in
opportunities for decision making, investment and participation around issues of direct interest to
their lives, that is, their lived experiences in physical education or sporting contexts in school and in
their community. This is Rudduck and McIntyres (2007) concept of authentic participation in the
research enterprise. Researchers might also consider ways to engage young people as co-researchers
and as a result of this engagement have a more central role in shaping their own and others
experiences and policies around physical education and sport. The important difference in
conducting research with this emphasis is that you focus on developing conditions that allow young
peoples voices a more central role in the research, rather than merely reporting research undertaken
with young people. The challenge then is to get buy-in from young people. Long and Carless (2010)
outlined four reasons why young peoples voices can go unheard, two of which are central to the
theme of this chapter. One reason is the power differential with the adult researcher, where young
people dont feel they can provide a story that is different from the expected one. A second reason
relates to the researchers ability to hear a story that is beyond their own preconceptions and may
even steer the young person to an acceptable story. The challenge for researchers then is:
to extend our thinking on devising innovative and effective practices and methodology in
encouraging young people to share their stories that allow for the enhancement of understanding
of young peoples needs and experiences in physical education and youth sport settings, which in
turn can be used to inform and formulate policy.
(OSullivan and MacPhail, 2010: 7)
We have found that participatory methods can go some way towards helping us address this
challenge and engage in the necessary task of carefully listening to young peoples stories.
Participatory methods are those that facilitate participants in finding their own language to articulate
what they know and help them put words to their ideas and feelings and share understanding of their
worlds, thereby giving participants more control over the research process. Most often, participatory
methods are practical activities, which are considered engaging, enjoyable and relevant ways for
participants to engage in research and generate data. Examples of participatory methods include:
student-led photography; social mapping exercises; student-led tours; role-play exercises; drama;
music; dance; diary keeping; collage; model making; storytelling; print journalism; and radio
production (Gallacher and Gallagher, 2008). Some examples of participatory methods used in
physical education and youth sport research have included: photography; development of personal
biographies; free writing; body drawing; journal writing; drama; scrapbooking, student drawings;
poster design; and timelines (Enright and OSullivan, in press). Participatory methodologies have
been praised for: supporting the active participation of young people in shaping the research process
(Clark and Moss, 2001; OKane, 2000; Punch, 2002); facilitating access to different types of
knowledge and different understandings of complex questions (Kesby, 2000); helping young people
in learning to derive meaning from themselves and the world around them (Kincheloe, 2007: 745);
promoting enjoyment and relevance for students (Barker and Weller, 2003; OKane, 2000; Punch,
2002); and encouraging student empowerment (Allard, 1996).
Participatory goes beyond the mere choice of methods to decisions around how, and by whom,
the research process is shaped, the findings are shared, and who learns and benefits from the process.
The researchers methodological sensibility therefore is every bit as important as the chosen
methods. We understand methodological sensibility as an awareness and appreciation of the

rationale for the use of certain methods and a keen intellectual and ethical perception regarding
when and how particular methods may be best used to help research participants share their
experiences, perspectives and feelings (Enright, Barnes and Gallagher, 2010).
Our methodological sensibility is based around three core tenets. The first of these relates to our
understanding of young peoples positioning within the research process and is grounded in what has
come to be known as the new social studies of childhood (James, Jenks and Prout, 1998). The new
social studies of childhood represent an epistemological shift away from understanding of children
and young people as incompetent, incomplete adults and/or passive subjects, towards an
understanding of children and young people as being, meaning that:
the child is conceived of as a person, a status, a course of action, a set of needs, rights or
differences - in sum, as a social actor . this new phenomenon, the being child, can be understood
in its own right. It does not have to be approached from an assumed shortfall of competence,
reason or significance.
(James, Jenks and Prout, 1998: 207)
Grounding our work in this theoretical understanding means that the children and young people
we work with are recognized as active participants in and fellow architects of the research process.
The second core tenet of our methodological sensibility is our acknowledgement of, and belief in,
our responsibility to attempt to address the power inequalities and differentials between researchers
and their participants (Alderson, 2000; Christensen and Prout, 2002; Hill, 2005; Mayall, 2000).
Alderson suggests that, when undertaking research with children, a key question is: how can adults
get beyond the power constraints and expose the intricacies of power in relations between adults and
children? (2000: 254). We speak to this power issue with reference to a case study later in this
chapter.
The third fundamental element of our methodological sensibility relates to our appreciation of
reflexivity, where we seek to not only critically interrogate our researching selves, both in the field
and beyond it through our writing, but also help the children and young people we work with to
engage in a critical and reflective way with the questions we ask of them and those they ask of
themselves. Engaging in participatory research can help children and young people develop a critical
capacity and question taken-for-granted assumptions in a way that they may not have the
opportunity to do through other methods.
Listening to young peoples voices
Drawing on the definition of listening provided in the introduction to this chapter we have organized
this section under three headings: receiving; constructing meaning; and responding.
Receivingyoungpeoples voices
Hill (2005) has commented that the main difference between research with children and research
with adults relates to ability and power. In terms of communicative ability, some children and young
people are less verbally competent, less able to understand and articulate abstract concepts. This is
more relevant when working with younger children but it may also, of course, be true for people
regardless of age, for whom the language used is not their first language, or for those with
intellectual disabilities. This understanding and acknowledgement behove those of us who seek to
speak with and listen to children and young people to ensure that our language and methods are
adapted to the communicative ability and preferences of our research participants.
The power issue relates to social status and lived experience. Many children are not accustomed to
having their perspectives requested, listened to and acted on by adults. Indeed, the relationship
between many children and the adults in their lives is often characterized by tight hierarchical
patterns of engagement, which may or may not be supportive. Difference in social status cannot be
avoided and should not be ignored. Children and young people can feel pressurized into
participating in research and/or giving responses that they perceive will be acceptable to the adult
researcher.
The following case study is adapted from Eimears doctoral thesis and speaks to this issue quite

well. One of the methods Eimear used when working to understand and transform her students
relationships with physical education and physical activity was photovoice (see also Chapter 20).
Photovoice has been described as a powerful participatory action research method where individuals
are given the opportunity to take photographs, discuss them collectively, and use them to create
opportunities for personal and/or community change (Wang, 2003). The young people in Eimears
study were asked to make photographs of their lives and given some prompts to focus some of their
image making. These prompts included: where I spend my leisure time; my physically active life;
physical activity facilities nearby; physical activity in the lives of my family and friends; and the
things that are important to me. The students photographs were then discussed in individual and
group contexts where the students and Eimear engaged in dialogue regarding what these
participatory research artefacts represented.
Case study 1: People talking without speaking ...
Students have years of learning what constitutes a teacher-pleasing response and in the
beginning of this study many of the participants gave me the type of responses that they thought
would please me. Most of the participants, for example, had over-reported their physical
activity participation in participation diaries they kept in the first eight weeks of the project.
This misrepresentation only became evident during the photovoice discussions, as is illustrated
by this exchange between Jade and me (my emphasis):
Eimear: You didnt get any pictures for the third prompt, your physically active life.
Jade: Yeah [laughing] ... thats because I dont do anything.
Eimear: You said in your diary that you go swimming and running and ...
Jade: Yeah, cos thats what I thought ye wanted to hear like, for the diary . but in the
photographs is what I do, who I am.
Jade had been reporting what she thought [we] wanted to hear as opposed to what she was
actually doing: quite a patent example of the researcher/ teacher/observer effect. Examples
such as this highlight the epistemological benefits of engaging with students using participatory
methods. Participatory methods allowed us to access knowledge that students are often
unwilling to share through other methods. Written text is privileged in school culture. Taking
photographs was perceived as a temporary escape from conventionalised routines of everyday
schooling. The students acknowledged that it would be more difficult to tell lies (Kelly)
through photographs and because the photovoice task was not real homework like essays or
writing stuff (Debra), they did not feel that they had to tell lies. Photographs therefore became
a more transparent representation of the life experiences of participants (Dodman, 2003: 294),
conveying their real flesh and blood life (Becker, 2002: 11). Jades example also reminds us of
the absolute necessity of triangulation and of spending significant time with our research
participants. It took time for us to gain Jades trust and for her to feel safe enough to tell us her
truth.
(adapted from Enright and OSullivan, in press)
Both the communicative ability and power issues may be partly addressed through the use of
participatory methods within a context of genuine respect for young peoples perspectives and ideas,
as illustrated by the dialogue between Jade and Eimear. In order to receive young peoples
authentic voices, the research needs to start from their perspectives, and time is necessary for the
development of a trusting relationship between the adults and young people involved. While we
found that participatory methods helped us to receive young peoples voices in ways that other
methods might not, it is important to note that participatory research methods do not have to be - and
we would argue should not be - used in isolation. We used participatory methods in conjunction with
other ethnographic techniques, namely interviews/discussions and observation. Participatory
methods therefore supported and enhanced, rather than replaced, more traditional data collection
methods in our research.

Constructing meaning from young people's voices

The reliability, validity and ethical acceptability of research with young people can be improved by
using methods that facilitate students in shaping the research agenda and are deemed by young
people as relevant and interesting methods to engage with their realities (Thomas and OKane,
1998). Youth research participants can be involved in all stages of the research process, including
analysis/interpretation. A participatory approach to interpretation and analysis can encourage a
rethinking of constructs and causality. This means going back to young people several times to
discuss the findings, their interpretations, and whether your interpretations of what they said are
aligned with theirs. A participative approach to coding with the research participants in Eimears
doctoral study ensured that the young people were actively involved in coding the transcripts of
conversations she had with them (Enright and OSullivan, in press). This resulted in unpacking and
rebuilding the codes and constructs as the student researchers and Eimear worked together to ensure
that how Eimear was constructing meaning from the young peoples voices was indeed meaningful
to them. In this way, she worked to ensure she was representing them and their ideas as accurately as
words would allow, and tried to avoid retelling their stories in a way that was not authentic to them.
This approach to analysis and interpretation enhanced the construct validity and ensured that our
constructs were valid and our causal analysis meaningful. In terms of expert validity, the use of
participatory methods can challenge the very notion of what expertise is and where it resides by
recognizing and elevating deep and varied local knowledges (Fine, 2008: 223).
Responding to and with young people's voices
There are several questions we might ask of ourselves and our research when it comes to responding
to and with young peoples voices. First, do the children and young people involved with the
research know about the findings? At a very minimum, we recommend that the young people
involved as participants in the research project be provided with an accessible summary of the major
findings and outcomes. Second, how do we represent young peoples voices in our work? Third, do
we represent and address all voices? Finally, are there opportunities for the young people to
communicate the findings? When young people are actively involved in the presentation of research
findings and have the opportunity to share their related experiences, this can have a greater impact
on audiences. Fine offers a novel conception of generalizability which speaks quite well to this
point. She defines provocative generalizability as:
a measure of the extent to which a piece of research provokes readers or audiences, across
contexts, to generalize to worlds not yet, in the language of Maxine Greene; to rethink and
reimagine current arrangements. To what extent [can this research] instil in audiences a sense of
urgency, pressing the question, what must we do?
(Fine, 2008: 227)
Young people, the primary stakeholders in their own youth sport and physical education
experiences, have a greater capacity to provoke audiences to rethink and reimagine current youth
sport and physical education provision. Engaging them in research dissemination can work to help
them influence decisions made by adults, in a direction that is meaningful to them. Supporting
students in adopting this role is not, however, without challenge. The following case study is an
adapted extract from Eimears PhD and highlights some of the problems associated with involving
young people in disseminating research findings.
Case study 2: People hearing without listening ...
It is common practice to share research findings at conferences; the protocol to do so involves
submitting a formal abstract of the intended presentation. One of the abstracts the student
researchers I worked with wrote and submitted to a conference received the following reviews:
Reviewer 1: I can tell that you are very excited about your after-school physical activity
club, and I applaud your efforts! I am very concerned about girls physical activity levels,
and am glad to see that you took the initiative to create your own club! However, [name of
research group] is a research organization, and you are not reporting research. Your

presentation would be more appropriate [elsewhere].

Reviewer 2: Your work is valuable and could make a contribution to the field. It could be a
valuable presentation [elsewhere]. Nonetheless, [name of research association] is a
prestigious research conference. To be accepted ... your proposal would need to have a
stronger theoretical framework, detailed and rigorous methods, and strong results that
contribute to the field.
Initially my reaction to these reviews was frustration. I was immediately reminded of a
quote from bell hooks:
No need to hear your voice when I can talk about you better than you can speak about
yourself. No need to hear your voice. Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your
story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. Tell it back to you in such a way that
it has become mine, my own. Rewriting you I write myself anew. I am still author, authority.
I am still colonizer the speaking subject and you are now at the centre of my talk.
(hooks, 1990: 343)
I wondered if the abstract would have been rejected if I had rewritten it for the students, if I
had become the speaking subject and the students the centre of my talk. I thought not.
On further reflection, however, I began to question what I had done to help the conference
reviewers to understand and receive this work as quality physical education research and
realized I too may have been at fault. I failed to help them hear the students voices. This
incident highlighted for me the importance of not only practising pedagogy, research and
theory building that repositions students as architects of research and curriculum, but also
of advocating for this approach and helping others to listen to young peoples voices.
In many ways, the above case highlights an important responsibility we have as youth researchers
and more specifically participatory youth researchers. Those of us who are passionate about the
potential of physical education and youth sport need to help others to open themselves and their
work, be it research or teaching/coaching, to being transformed by young people, their interests,
discourse and priorities. We need to educate the physical education and youth sport community to
respect and engage with the politics and the possibilities of young peoples voices. We have a
responsibility to communicate in a way that helps others to truly listen to young peoples voices.
Conclusion
Participatory research challenges conventional notions about what constitutes knowledge and how
knowledge/data should be produced and shared. Listening to young peoples voices using
participatory methods is a valuable approach, however challenging for you as a researcher. It not
only allows you to gather interesting data to answer a question of interest to you, but also provides
you with an opportunity to interact with young people in a more authentic way and gain important
insights into their ways of being and thinking. This can be hugely beneficial to you in your day- today teaching and coaching of young people. The use of participatory methods can mean a blurring of
the lines between research and pedagogy, and both enterprises can benefit. All participatory research
projects, regardless of whether they are undertaken with children or adults, need the time and
resources to support meaningful participation. It is not just about your choice of methods. It also
takes a particular mindset to approach research this way, what we have described as a
methodological sensibility. While you can gain insights into young peoples thinking, you also have
to be sensitive to how much you encroach into their private lives and how willing you are in turn to
share some aspects of your private life with them. Managing these relations as a beginning
researcher can indeed be challenging. There is a wealth of literature about undertaking research with
children and young people as participants and more recently as researchers. We hope this chapter
prompts you to seek out this literature and challenges you to think a little bit differently about why
and how you might involve children and young people in your research.

References
Alderson, P. (2000) Children as researchers: the effects of participation rights on research
methodology, in P. Christensen and A. James, Research with Children: Perspectives and Practice
(241-57), London: Falmer Press.
Allard, A. (1996) Involving young people - empowerment or exploitation?, Children and Society,
10: 165-7.
Barker, J. and Weller, S. (2003) Is it fun? Developing children-centred research methods,
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(1/2): 3358.
Becker, H. (2002) Visual evidence: a seventh man, the specified generalization and the work of the
reader, Visual Studies, 17: 311.
Bush, K. A. (2002) Listening to the voices of four African American adolescent females on physical
activity, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Christensen, P. and Prout, A. (2002) Working with ethical symmetry in social research with
children, Childhood, 9(4): 47797.
Clark, A. and Moss, P. (2001) Listening to Young Children: the Mosaic Approach, London: National
Childrens Bureau for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Dodman, D. R. (2003) Shooting in the city: an autophotographic exploration of the urban
environment in Kingston, Jamaica, Area, 35: 293304.
Dyson, B. P. (1995) Students voices in two alternative elementary physical education programs,
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 14: 394407.
Enright, E. and OSullivan, M. (2010) Carving a new order of experience with young people in
physical education: Participatory Action Research as a pedagogy of possibility, in M. OSullivan
and A. MacPhail (eds) Young People's Voices in Physical Education and Youth Sport, London:
Routledge.
Enright, E. and OSullivan, M. (in press) Producing different knowledge and producing knowledge
differently: rethinking physical education research and practice through participatory methods,
Sport, Education and Society.
Enright, E., Barnes, C. and Gallagher, M. B. (2010) Methodological attitude: Opening the door to
interdisciplinary dialogue in an Irish youth research context, paper presented at the The doors of
perception: Viewing anthropology through the eyes of children conference, VU University,
Amsterdam.
Fine, M. (2008) An epilogue, of sorts, in J. Cammarota and M. Fine (eds) Revolutionizing
Education: Youth Participatory Action Research in Motion (21335), Oxon: Routledge.
Gallacher, L. and Gallagher, M. (2008) Methodological immaturity in childhood research?
Thinking through participatory methods , Childhood, 15(4): 499516.
Hill, M. (2005) Ethical considerations in researching childrens experience, in S. Greene and D.
Hogan (eds) Researching Childrens Experience: Approaches and Methods (6187), London:
Sage.
hooks, b. (1990) Marginality as site of resistance, in R. Ferguson, M. Gever, T. T. Minh-ha, and C.
West (eds) Out There: Marginalization and Contemporary Cultures (341343), New York and
Cambridge, MA: The New Museum of Contemporary Art and Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
James, A., Jenks, C. and Prout, A. (1998) Theorizing Childhood, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kesby, M. (2000) Participatory diagramming: deploying qualitative methods through an action
research epistemology, Area, 34(4): 42335.
Kincheloe, J. (2007) Clarifying the purpose of engaging students as researchers, in D. Thiessen
and A. Cook-Sather (eds) International Handbook of Student Experience in Elementary and
Secondary Education (74575), Dordrecht: Springer.
Kinchin, G. and OSullivan, M. (1999) Making high school physical education meaningful for

students, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 70(5): 404.

Long, J. and Carless, D. (2010) Hearing, listening and acting, in M. OSullivan and A. MacPhail
(eds) Young People's Voices in Physical Education and Sport (21325), London: Routledge.
Mayall, B. (2000) Conversations with children: working with generational issues, in P. Christensen
and A. James (eds) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practice (120-36), London: Falmer
Press.
OKane, C. (2000) The development of participatory techniques: Facilitating childrens views about
decisions which affect them, in P. Christensen and A. James (eds) Research with Children (13660), London: Falmer Press.
OSullivan, M. and MacPhail, A. (eds) (2010) Young People's Voices in Physical Education and
Sport, London: Routledge.
Pope, C. (1998) Locating the stadium on the way to the school: The educative role of sport in an
urban American high school, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University. Available
May
27,
2011
at
http://search.proquest.com/docview/304453695/abstract/12F9
7682AF97B178ADD/1?accountid=14564.
Punch, S. (2002) Research with children: The same as or different from adults?, Childhood, 9(3):
321-41.
Rudduck, J. and McIntyre, D. (2007) Improving Learning through Consulting Pupils, London:
Routledge.
Thomas, N. and OKane, C. (1998) The ethics of participatory research with children,
Children and Society, 112: 336-48.
Wang, C. (2003) Using photovoice as a participatory assessment and issue selection tool, in M.
Minkler and N. Wallerstein (eds) Community-based Participatory Research for Health (179-196),