When examining the participation of children in educational institutions, it is widely accepted that the children themselves should be included in the research, at least in a consultative manner. This is justified by children's rights and various considerations on how these rights can be implemented and acknowledged both in educational institutions and schools, as well as in the research itself (Lansdown & O'Kane, 2014; Lundy & McEvoy, 2012).
The challenge that comes with exploring participation in educational settings and schools involves addressing how ‘good’ research with children can effectively capture both the perspectives of the children, and simultaneously meet essential ethical requirements regarding e.g. critical reflection of transparency of research aims, children´s ongoing informed consent, and degrees of children´s participation at different stages of the research process (Alderson & Morrow, 2020; Lundy & McEvoy, 2012; Mayne et al., 2016). The contribution focuses on exploring ethical challenges that arise in the phase of data collection. Based on these findings, a reflective tool has been developed to guide the planning and performing of reflective research with children (Velten et al., 2024).
The presented research is theoretically based on perspectives on three key motifs of research with children. The first key motif is the objective of ascertaining the children’s perspectives. This includes creating spaces for action within the research situation, acknowledging their various modes of expression, and appreciating the content-related impulses of the children (Clark & Moss, 2011; Lundy & McEvoy, 2012; Mayne et al., 2016). A second fundamental motif is the researcher’s aim and expectation to meet the research objectives. The importance of common quality criteria for qualitative research, including comparability of data and the intersubjective plausibility of the analysis, remains (Strübing et al., 2018). Additionally, the actions of researchers are guided by their own research questions and also by ideas about what should be discussed and done, for example, in interviews, taking into account the attention spans of the participants and the total time available within the institutional setting. Thus, the guiding principle of considering research-inherent principles also strongly influences actions in individual research situations (Spriggs & Gillam, 2017).
A third key motif becomes particularly relevant in institutionally framed research settings such as educational institutions and schools: the consideration of the conditions of the research field. This includes organisational conditions such as the available time for data collection and ensuring data protection, both of which are significant for securing access to the field. Furthermore, explicit and implicit expectations of the field regarding what research and researchers can/should achieve in terms of research-inherent goals also are crucial. Additionally, the actions of researchers can be situated within the broader context of considering children's rights, the well-being of the child, and child protection. This includes instances where children may be at risk of harm during the research situation or when information is conveyed to researchers that necessitates actions beyond the scope of the research to ensure the protection of the children (Velten et al., 2024).
When considering the responsibility of professional (adult) researchers in conducting ‘good’ research with children, these notions lead to the assumption, that researchers must perform a balancing act between these different key motifs both in planning the research project as well as in the situatively constructed research situations (Velten & Höke, 2023). The contribution explores these balancing acts by examining different apparently "unsuccessful" or “failing” situations in interviews with children. Practices and strategies for balancing demands and power dynamics were identified, highlighting disclosure of purported “failings” and the importance of ethical data collection.

The contribution is based on a re-analysis of selected sequences of interviews from two previous studies, each examining children's perspectives on the degrees of freedom afforded to them in terms of participation in institutional contexts (Höke, 2020; Velten, 2021). The first study, conducted in June and July 2016, involved seven interviews with 11 first graders following Fuhs´ (2012) Lifeworld Interview framework, as part of a school accompanying research project at a German participatory primary school (Höke, 2020). The interviews were conducted as a school tour, with the children tasked to show the interviewer the "places that are significant from their perspective." The relatively open research design allowed children to choose whether to participate alone, in pairs, or collectively, as well as the order in which different school locations would be visited. The interviews were videotaped and later transcribed based on the spoken content. In the second study, conducted from March to November 2013 in German Kindergarten and primary schools, interviews with 22 five- to seven-year-old children were conducted using Fuhs' (2012) approach and the Mosaic Approach (Clark and Moss, 2011). These interviews took place approximately four months before and after starting school (Velten, 2021). At both data collection times, children were asked to take photos in advance of “actions or situations where they felt participating and competent”. The photos then formed the focal point of the interviews. All interviews were recorded on video to capture not only verbal but also facial, gestural, and body language expressions of the children. Interview transcripts were primarily based on spoken words, with additions regarding facial expressions, gestures, and body language enclosed in square brackets. Both previous studies were based on the research ethics considerations (Alderson & Morrow, 2020). Using a sequential analysis following Schütz et al. (2012), interview sequences were re-analysed under the described focus on the balancing act of professional researchers. Situations were selected which were previously marked as conflicting or unusable in terms of research questions, due to perceived unsuccessful communicative processes and were thus either not considered or not fully considered. This included sequences where, for example, non-response to interview questions, introduction and ignoring of topics, or refusal and (threatening) termination of the interview became visible. In total, 10 interviews were identified, each containing critical sequences. These sequences were re-analysed. Interpretive bias of the re-analysis was addressed through independent coding by the two authors and joint moderation.

The re-analysis of selected interview sequences has revealed a spectrum of ad hoc practices, intricately tied to the perpetual balancing act undertaken by professional researchers (and children) during interviews. Interviewers employ diverse ad hoc practices to shape negotiations around topics, duration, and the pathways to engagement available, or not, to the interlocutors. These practices, categorized as either 'affirmation practices', 'ordering and structuring practices' or ‘practices around actual or threatened abandonment of the interview’, extend beyond mere interactional strategies intended to navigate the delicate equilibrium among the three emphasized key motifs in research with children; they, in themselves, generate or perpetuate assumptions of positions or roles between the interviewer and interviewee (Velten & Höke, 2023). Upon reflection on the interview sequences, it becomes apparent that the seemingly perplexing actions of professional researchers gain clarity within the delicate balancing act among the three key motifs. The reflection highlights how complex the requirements for "appropriate" actions can be for researchers in a specific research situation. What we have sequentially analysed afterwards the original research projects unfolds simultaneously in the ad hoc research scenario, demanding ad hoc actions while concurrently balancing the three key motifs of research with children that we have pointed out. Based on these findings, we propose a reflective tool to offer guidance in comprehending both research designs and the actions of a professional researcher, as well as the decisions made in specific research situations (Velten et al., 2024). In this way, appropriateness in research practice can be regarded as a phenomenon situationally constructed in the balancing act between different guiding principles. Furthermore, this re-analytical perspective on interactions between professional researchers and children provides points of reference for examining interactions in educational contexts.

References Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2020). The ethics of research with children and young people: A practical handbook (2. ed. // Second edition). SAGE. Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2011). Listening to young children: The mosaic approach (Second edition). ncb. Fuhs, B. (2012). Kinder im qualitativen Interview: Zur Erforschung subjektiver kindlicher Lebenswelten. In F. Heinzel (Ed.), Kindheiten. Methoden der Kindheitsforschung: Ein Überblick über Forschungszugänge zur kindlichen Perspektive (2., überarbeitete Auflage, pp. 80–103). Beltz Juventa. Höke, J. (2020). "Und die Kinderkonferenz, die haben wir abgeschafft" - Möglichkeiten kindlicher Beteiligung im Zusammenspiel von Handlungsstrategien der Erwachsenen und Kinderperspektiven einer partizipativ arbeitenden Grundschule. Die Deutsche Schule, 112(2), 229–244. Lansdown, G. (2018). Conceptual Framework for Measuring Outcomes of Adolescent Participation. https://www.unicef.org/media/59006/file Lansdown, G., & O'Kane, C. (2014). A Toolkit for Monitoring and Evaluating Children’s Participation: A 10-step guide to monitoring and evaluating children’s participation. https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/pdf/me_toolkit_booklet_4_low_res1.pdf/ Lundy, L., & McEvoy, L. (2012). Children’s rights and research processes: Assisting children to (in)formed views. Childhood, 19(1), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568211409078 Mayne, F., Howitt, C., & Rennie, L. (2016). Meaningful informed consent with young children: looking forward through an interactive narrative approach. Early Child Development and Care, 186(5), 673–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1051975 Schütz, A., Breuer, A., & Reh, S. (2012). Sequenzanalysen von Kinder-Interaktionen: Zu den Möglichkeiten einer sozialwissenschaftlichen Hermeneutik. In F. Heinzel (Ed.), Kindheiten. Methoden der Kindheitsforschung: Ein Überblick über Forschungszugänge zur kindlichen Perspektive (2., überarbeitete Auflage, pp. 190–204). Beltz Juventa. Spriggs, M., & Gillam, L. (2017). Ethical complexities in child co-research. Research Ethics(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117750207 Strübing, J., Hirschauer, S., Ayaß, R., Krähnke, U., & Scheffer, T. (2018). Gütekriterien qualitativer Sozialforschung. Ein Diskussionsanstoß. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, 47(2), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-2018-1006 Velten, K. (2021). Self-efficacy experiences in day care and primary school from the children’s perspective: A starting point for the reflection of didactic and methodological competences of adult educators. Journal of Early Childhood Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X211051192 Velten, K., & Höke, J. (2023). Adults’ ad hoc practices in interviews with children - Ethical considerations in the context of adultness and generational ordering. Childhood, 30(1), 86-103. https://doi.org/10.1177/09075682221149615 Velten, K., Höke, J., & Walther, B. (2024). What the Hell is „Angemessenheit“ in der Forschung mit Kindern? Eine Annäherung an einen strapazierten Begriff. In A. Flügel, I. Landrock, J. Lange, B. Müller-Naendrup, J. Wiesemann, P. Büker, & A. Rank (Eds.), Grundschulforschung meets Kindheitsforschung. Reloaded. Jahrbuch Grundschulforschung (Vol. 1). Klinkhardt.