Drawing a river:Utilizing the Power of Metaphors in Interviews With Children and Young People

In the field of qualitative health research on children, scholars have called for the inclusion of children’s perspectives. Still, health care research on children appears to be characterized by an exclusionary approach that stems from a conception of disability and sickness as equivalent to a lack of agency. This article responds to the call to include children’s perspectives. It presents the Double-view (Dovi)-river interview, which is a drawing- and metaphor-based interview method that enables ambiguous and multi-layered life course narratives. Based on two steps – (1) a life course interview conducted while drawing a river of the child’s life and (2) revisiting and unfolding the child’s stories – the method allows for an arts-based, joint exploration of life experiences. Inspired by childhood studies as well as a poststructuralist epistemology, the article discusses and proposes ways to challenge power relations between the adult interviewer and the child interviewee. It is argued that the method can also challenge the predominant deficit view and the dichotomous understanding of children’s experiences of their life and capabilities that characterize much health care practice and health research, by focusing both on challenges and opportunities. Doing so enables a more nuanced and appreciative approach to children. We draw on empirical examples from a study with children with disabilities. However, we suggest that the method’s potential for enabling articulation of the complex and ambiguous can inspire qualitative research and health care practice more broadly

Childism and philosophy: A conceptual co-exploration

This article is a conceptual co-exploration of the relationship between philosophy and childism. It draws upon a colloquium in December 2021 at the Childism Institute at Rutgers University. Nine co-authors lay out and interweave scholarly imaginations to collectively explore the concept of childism in critical philosophical depth. Through diverse entry points, the co-authors bring a wide range of theoretical perspectives to this task, some engaging the term childism explicitly in their work, others approaching it anew. The result is an extended conversation about the possibilities for deconstructing ingrained historical adultism and reconstructing social norms and structures in response to what is marginalized in the experiences of children. Our own conclusion, having initiated this dialogue, is that we have learned to think about childism with greater plurality, that is, as childisms.publishedVersio