This paper presents the results of a research that aimed to understand what children living in Ireland know about their own rights. The research was conducted in partnership with a Youth Advisory Panel composed of seven participants between 12 and 17 years of age.

The research design of the study is informed by Freire’s (1970/2005) key concepts of problem-posing education, codifications and praxis and adapts his proposal of culture circles to engage young people in research about their rights. Culture circles have been previously used in research with young people (Humphries, 2019; Monteiro et al. 2015) as these circles create meaningful spaces for individuals to interrogate reality, express their levels of awareness about the problems that impact them and, through dialogue and discussion, develop a critical stance towards reality and possible solutions. The culture circles designed for this project retain some of the main characteristics proposed by Freire (1970/2005) as dialogical spaces in which individual experiences are central to develop a collective understanding of reality, spaces with horizontal relationships in which everyone is encouraged to teach and everyone learns from each other. In culture circles, participants identify the problems affecting them through ‘codifications’ (Freire, 1970/2005) - artefacts or materials - that will prompt a critical dialogue that will develop into collective understandings and solutions to overcome the identified problems.

Unlike Freire’s proposal, the culture circles in this project were fully digital with a combination of asynchronous and synchronous dialogue through digital channels. Reimagining the culture circle in a digital format made it possible to create a participatory research space for participants to engage as co-researchers.

This research was conducted fully remotely between mid-August and mid-November of 2021. Once per week during nine weeks, the seven children joined a ‘culture circle’ via Zoom meeting, facilitated by two adult researchers. When using the principles of participatory action research, the role of the adult researchers are redefined and they become active listeners rather than authoritative figures (Farmer and Cepin, 2017, p. 311). Acknowledging that, the adult researchers were actively involved in the dialogues, acting as facilitators rather than guiding the discussion.

The first 'culture circle' consisted of an open conversation about children's rights in Ireland and the presentation of the research objectives and methodology. The Youth Advisory Panel agreed on what components would be kept or changed and expressed what methods of data collection they would like to use. Each of the seven following 'culture circles' had a central theme, namely: children's participation rights; children on the move; children in care; LGBTQIA+ children; children in conflict with the law; and children with disabilities. In the last two 'culture circles', the group reflected on the data collected using a tree of opportunities and prepared recommendations on how different actors can support children in exercising their rights.

A new ‘culture circle’ was initiated every week, when we shared with the young researchers basic concepts about the theme to be discussed as well as prompt questions to encourage them to generate data. A child-friendly website was developed to make it easier for them to access the content. After going through the content, they undertook their own research using different methods of data collection.

As mentioned above, a group of seven children participated in this project as co-researchers. Along with the adult investigators, they participated in the process of gathering information, data interpretation and analysis, and will also take part in the dissemination of the findings. According to Punch (2002, p. 07) participatory research methods "not only provide opportunities for children to express themselves but are also a potential source for empowering them for a fuller participation in society and for decision-making in matters which affect them". Beyond that, children and young people should be included as active participants in research for ethical reasons – and in this particular research for coherence reasons, as its central topic is precisely children's knowledge of their own rights. Moreover, children's right to participate in society is recognised internationally as a fundamental human right. The UNCRC (article 12) calls for children to be consulted on issues that concern them, guaranteeing their "right to co-determine what questions are being asked, what usages are being counted, and which opinions are being tested for agreement and disagreement" (Kleine et al 2016). Thus, to critically reflect children's role in research also means to think about the choices of methods and their application (Punch, 2002). Farmer and Cepin (2017, p. 309) advocate that "if creative methods offer some potential to provide children and young people with more control over the research process [...] then ethically and methodologically these methods should be explored". With that in mind, we introduced to the young researchers the following research methods: - Research using technology, including sound-elicitation, content analysis of social media, news and movies, as well as using digital platforms such as Padlet and Miro to organise the data generated; - Arts-based methods including mapping, writing and creating collages; - Community methods for data collection, including interviews and observations at their homes, schools or neighbourhoods. We observed that the methodology used allowed the creation of multiple spaces of action and reflection. Firstly, the Zoom meetings were spaces where children could reflect on the data generated as well as engage in dialogues with their peers, learning from one another's experiences. Secondly, children had the chance to discuss the themes with family members, friends and in some cases, even with service providers. Finally, the digital spaces used by children as platforms to organise the data generated also represented spaces of reflection, where they could make sense of all the work undertaken.

The young researchers had already established ideas of what are children’s rights at the start of the study. In individual videos they recorded before the ‘culture circles’ began, each member articulated their own definition of children’s rights and what these rights entailed. Their responses emphasised key principles of children’s rights including non-discrimination and equal treatment, special protection and care, and their entitlement to express their views and identity. They also identified specific rights that are particularly important for them as children, including the right to education, health, participation in decision-making and the entitlement to services and supports for disabilities. The young researchers drew a distinction between ‘basic’ and ‘practical’ knowledge of children’s rights. For them, the basic knowledge included awareness of the UNCRC and an understanding that children have specific rights to secure their survival – eg. food and shelter. In contrast, they referred to a ‘practical knowledge’ of rights that relates to their capacity to apply their knowledge in real life and act when their rights are being violated. Spaces for learning and participation were also recurrently discussed. They had clear ideas of what makes a good space for participation and which are the spaces where they feel most encouraged to learn about rights. The common features of these spaces included a positive atmosphere in which the power imbalance between adults and children is less pronounced and a safe environment where children can express their views and are effectively listened to. They could identify spaces where they and the children they interviewed felt comfortable participating in. However, they also recognised the difference between spaces where their participation was meaningful and effective and those spaces where children are not able to speak about matters that affect them or where they are not listened to even when they raise their voices.

Farmer, D., & Cepin, J. (2017). Creative Visual Methods in Research with Children and Young People. In R. Evans, L. Holt, & T. Skelton (Eds.), Methodological Approaches (pp. 303–333). Springer. Freire, P. (1970/2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Bergman Ramos, M. Ed and Trans..). London: Continnum. Gillett-Swan, J. K. (2018) Children’s analysis processes when analysing qualitative research data: a missing piece to the qualitative research puzzle. Qualitative Research, 18(3), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117718607 Kleine, D., Pearson, G., Poveda, S., & Holloway, R. (2016). Participatory methods: Engaging children’s voices and experiences in research. 18. Humphries, A. (2019) Using Freire’s Culture Circles to Engage Young People in Borovica, T. Humphries, A., Baird, R., Chesters, J. & Cuervo, H. (Eds.) Researching Young Lives: Methodologies, Methods, Practices and Perspectives in Youth Studies - Vol. 4 Jerome, L. (2016). Interpreting Children’s Rights Education (CRE): three perspectives and three roles for teachers. Citizenship, Social and Economic Education. Mallon, B. & Martinez Sainz, G. (2021) Education for children's rights in Ireland before, during and after the pandemic, Irish Educational Studies, 40:2, 285-294, DOI: 10.1080/03323315.2021.1932552 Monteiro, E., Mercês, A., Cavalcanti, A., Lacerda, A., Silva, R., Silva, R., Neto, W. (2015). Culture Circle as a Teaching Approach in the Education of Teenager Health Multipliers on Leprosy Awareness. Health. 07. 1813-1823. 10.4236/health.2015.714199. Punch, S. (2002) ‘Research with Children: The Same or Different from Research with Adults?’ Childhood, 9 (3): 321-341. UN (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treaty no. 27531. United Nations Treaty Series, 1577, pp. 3-178. Retrieved from: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1990/09/19900902%2003-14%20AM/Ch_IV_11p.pdf