First paragraph: Look who&rsquo;s talking: Eliciting the voices of children from birth to seven was an international seminar series funded by the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, that brought together researchers and practitioners who work with young children (birth to seven) to give and support &lsquo;voice&rsquo; in respect to different aspects of their lived experience; in other words, to elicit voice. The intention was to create a space for individuals working in this relatively underdeveloped field to work in a collaborative process, engaging with associated theory and practice. The aims of the seminars were: to move debate forwards; to develop guidelines and provocations for practice; and to advance understandings of the affordances and constraints on the implementation of Article 12 of the UNCRC with young children. The series comprises two seminars, one in January and one in June 2017, each of three and a half days duration. The first focused predominantly on mapping the field, sharing and discussing experiences and practices and exploring the affordances and constraints of eliciting the voices of those aged seven and under. It is this seminar on which this submission focuses. The second, held in June 2017, aimed to synthesise participants&rsquo; thinking and identify the needs and opportunities for development within the field

Arnott, Lorna

Beaton, Mhairi

Cassidy, Claire

Christensen, Pia

Dockett, Sue

Hall, Elaine

I'Anson, John

Kanyal, Mallika

McKernan, Gerard

Pramling, Ingrid

Robinson, Carol

Wall, Kate

English

Look who’s talking: Eliciting the voices of children from birth to seven was an international seminar series funded by the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, that brought together researchers and practitioners who work with young children (birth to seven) to give and support ‘voice’ in respect to different aspects of their lived experience; in other words, to elicit voice. The intention was to create a space for individuals working in this relatively underdeveloped field to work in a collaborative process, engaging with associated theory and practice. The aims of the seminars were: to move debate forwards; to develop guidelines and provocations for practice; and to advance understandings of the affordances and constraints on the implementation of Article 12 of the UNCRC with young children. The series comprises two seminars, one in January and one in June 2017, each of three and a half days duration. The first focused predominantly on mapping the field, sharing and discussing experiences and practices and exploring the affordances and constraints of eliciting the voices of those aged seven and under. It is this seminar on which this submission focuses. The second, held in June 2017, aimed to synthesise participants’ thinking and identify the needs and opportunities for development within the field

University of Strathclyde Institutional Repository

Wall, Kate and Arnott, Lorna and Cassidy, Claire and Beaton, Mhairi and Christensen, Pia and Dockett, Sue and Hall, Elaine and I'Anson, John and Kanyal, Mallika and McKernan, Gerard and Pramling, Ingrid and Robinson, Carol (2017) Look who's talking : eliciting the voices of children from birth to seven. International Journal of Student Voice, 2 (1). , This version is available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/61250/Strathprints is  designed  to  allow  users  to  access  the  research  output  of  the  University  of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may  not  engage  in  further  distribution  of  the  material  for  any  profitmaking  activities  or  any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the Strathprints administrator: strathprints@strath.ac.ukThe Strathprints institutional repository (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk) is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde research outputs. It has been developed to disseminate open access research outputs, expose data about those outputs, and enable the management and persistent access to Strathclyde's intellectual output.This is a peer-reviewed accepted author manuscript of the following output: Wall, K., Arnott, L., Cassidy, C., Beaton, M., Christensen, P., Dockett, S., ... Robinson, C. (2017). Look who's talking : eliciting the voices of children from birth to seven. International Journal of Student Voice. (In press) >ŽŽŬtŚŽ ?ƐdĂůŬŝŶŐ ?ůŝĐŝƚŝŶŐƚŚĞǀŽŝĐĞƐŽĨĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶĨƌŽŵďŝƌƚŚƚŽƐĞǀĞŶ Kate Wall, Lorna Arnott and Claire Cassidy, University of Strathclyde, UK Mhairi Beaton, Aberdeen University, UK Pia Christensen, Leeds University, UK Sue Dockett, Charles Sturt University, Australia Elaine Hall, University of Northumbria, UK :ŽŚŶ/ ?ŶƐŽŶ ?University of Stirling, UK Mallika Kanyal, Anglia Ruskin University, UK Gerard McKernan, Glasgow City Council, UK Ingird Pramling, Gothenburg University, Sweden Carol Robinson, Brighton University, UK   >ŽŽŬǁŚŽ ?ƐƚĂůŬŝŶŐ ?ůŝĐŝƚŝŶŐƚŚĞǀŽŝĐĞƐŽĨĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶĨƌŽŵďŝƌƚŚƚŽƐĞǀĞŶwas an international seminar series funded by the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, that brought together researchers and practitioners who work with young children (birth to seven) to ŐŝǀĞĂŶĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ?ǀŽŝĐĞ ?ŝŶƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƚŽĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚĂƐƉĞĐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞŝƌůŝǀĞĚĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ; in other words, to elicit voice. The intention was to create a space for individuals working in this relatively underdeveloped field to work in a collaborative process, engaging with associated theory and practice. The aims of the seminars were: to move debate forwards; to develop guidelines and provocations for practice; and to advance understanding of the affordances and constraints on the implementation of Article 12 of the UNCRC with young children.  The series comprises two seminars of three and a half days each, one in January and one in June 2017. The first focused predominantly on mapping the field, sharing and discussing experiences and practices and exploring the affordances and constraints of eliciting the voices of those under seven years-old. This is the seminar on which this submission focuses. The second, held in June 2017, aimed to synthesise participants ? thinking and identify the needs and opportunities for development within the field.   Each seminar started from a range of prompt questions, the ones relevant to the January seminar are below, but there was a freedom and openness to the sessions that meant the discussions should be flexible to the needs of the group. These prompts were a guide only, developed by a sub-set of the participants at the point of applying for funding. They were used as a prompt to engage potential participants and then as an aide memoire within the discussion. They are useful here as providing a snapshot of the kinds of enquiries that were ongoing. x ,Žǁ ĚŽ ĞǆƉĞƌƚƐ ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶĐĞƉƚ ŽĨ  ?ǀŽŝĐĞ ?  ?ŝŶ ƚĞƌŵƐ ŽĨ ƌƚŝĐůĞ  ? ? ? ǁŚĞŶworking with young children?  x tŚĂƚĚŽĞƐ ?ĂƵƚŚĞŶƚŝĐǀŽŝĐĞ ?ŵĞĂŶŝŶƌĞůĂƚŝŽŶƚŽĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶĂŐĞĚƐĞǀĞŶĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌ ? x Can children aged seven and under have an informed voice?  x In what areas  Wand in what areas might they not  W have an informed voice, and how is this decision made? [Type here]  x How are current practices (pedagogic and methodological) being used to elicit voice with young children? x What range of specific tools and practices are there that facilitate the elicitation of voices when researching the perspectives of children aged seven and under?  x What are the overarching ethical considerations of eliciting voice?  The commitment in the seminars was for open dialogue; this was achieved through creating spaces with minimum structure so as not to curtail or limit conversations. Although challenging in many ways, this was an attempt to allow for a natural evolution in discussions. This was particularly important, given that the group had previously not worked together in this form and represented a diversity of approaches in working with young children. To predetermine activities and topics would have limited the authenticity of the exploratory intent. On reflection, and this can be seen in some of the discussion represented by the fourth graphic, most participants could see that there were interesting parallels in the way we worked in this academic context, to the methods and approaches used with young children, for example, in the kinds of scaffolding used and the dispositions facilitated in participants. This meant that there were aspects of the way meaningful dialogue was created that were essentially consistent regardless of age, such as the use of open questions, tools that are supportive of thinking and speaking, avoidance of jargon and shared vocabulary, the importance of authenticity and recognition of the listener an equally important to the speaker.  In this vein, a productive parallel to the visual techniques used by many of us to elicit voice with children, was the participation of a graphic facilitator1 to support reflective and strategic thinking across the days within each seminar and to create the link between the seminars in January and July. She created graphic minutes of each of the individual sessions by capturing and representing the key ideas, points of discussion and the flow of concepts.  These were reviewed regularly by symposium participants. The graphics presented here are from the first event, one per day of the first three and a half-day seminar, focusing predominantly on mapping the field, sharing and discussing experiences and practices and exploring the affordances and constraints of participants ? experiences.   There are four graphics organised under the following loose headings: 1. Introductions. This was the first time we had all met, the first session of the first seminar, ĂŶĚĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚŵĂŶǇŽĨƵƐǁĞƌĞĨĂŵŝůŝĂƌǁŝƚŚĞĂĐŚŽƚŚĞƌ ?ƐǁŽƌŬ ?ŽŶůǇƐŽŵĞof us had met previously and so this element of the seminar was characterised by a sharing of tentative thinking and ways of working, a general familiarisation process. In the graphic, it is possible to see us playing with terminology common to the field, such as participation, civic engagement, voice, rights, democracy and co-construction. This allowed us tentatively to debate and question each oƚŚĞƌ ?Ɛunderstandings. It was very evident at this point that the term voice was challenging, not just with regards the target age group, but also in our conceptual understandings of what it means to have a voice, to be listened to and what it meant in regards                                                      1 http://www.albitaylor.com [Type here]  ĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚĐŽŶƚĞǆƚƐĂŶĚŝŶƌĞůĂƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞ ?ůŝƐƚĞŶĞƌ ? ?dŚĞĨĂǀŽƵƌŝƚĞĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞǁĂƐ ?perspectives ?, but we could not reach an agreement.  Although the conversation was very conceptual, we could not move too far away from the practices we had seen that facilitated voice and this is where we decided, as a group, to head. 2. Starting with practice. After day one ?ƐƋƵŝƚĞconceptual examination of the topic, and with better knowledge of each other, it was decided that day two should focus on practice, although whether this should be research or pedagogic practice, or both, was an early aspect of the conversation. The discussion revolved around our own experiences of eliciting voice, successes and failures. Particular attention was given to the Scottish system, which has enshrined the UNCRC within its policy guidelines, although the extent to which this manifests in practice across institutions and age phases is open to debate. From this we were able to look at the characteristics of spaces, of adults and of the children involved. A variety of examples were given and explored critically. This allowed, as evidenced in the graphic minutes, key characteristics of contexts and associated practices to emerge. 3. Reflecting. In the morning of day three we all visited Glasgow City Council early years or primary school settings that were identified as having interesting practice around eliciting voice. For example, these settings included Family Learning Centres that were committed to community participation and support, and Right ?ƐRespecting Schools.  This proved to be very motivational and inspiring for the ĂĨƚĞƌŶŽŽŶ ?ƐĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶ.I  It is interesting to note that the graphic minutes only represent half a day ?s dialogue and yet is the same length as those recording a full ĚĂǇ ?ƐƐĞƐƐŝŽŶ. The focus for the discussion was our observations from the morning visits. Within the graphic minutes, it is possible to see that the beliefs, dispositions, understandings and skills of the adults working with the young children were very much foregrounded in our reflections of what we had seen. It often came down to whether the adults themselves had a voice, within their organisation or more widely, as to whether they reciprocated in providing spaces for the children. The role that they took in modelling, encouraging, supporting and facilitating a child to take an active role and how they provided a response or shared action based on this dialogue was fundamental. The extent to which this role was more or less important with young children was discussed with quite a lot of disagreement, once more highlighting our different understandings of the term  ?voice ?.  As a result, the last part of the afternoon was dedicated to a Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CoPI) session (Cassidy, 2007) where we engaged with the question, what do we mean by voice? This can be seen documented in the last third of the graphic minute.  This process was particularly fruitful in allowing delegates to challenge their own conceptualisation of  ?ǀoice ? because structure of CoPI necessitated that individualsmake connections with previous contributions to the dialogue, therefore placing a relational expectation on our thinking.  We were unable to argue a stance in isolation, or to refer to external authority for our reason-[Type here]  giving, so the understanding that emerges is genuinely co-constructed. There need not be a final consensus or agreement, but the dialogue served to make transparent assumptions and where terms were being conflated, confused, elucidated and consistent, thereby facilitating future discussions in the seminar by engaging in a more thorough interrogation of the key concepts.  4. Planning: In the last day of the January seminar, graphic four, we looked forward, considering how we should develop and share our thinking over the short term (between the two seminars), at the June event and beyond. A key consideration was how to include the voices of children and practitioners in our musings and to fulfil a commitment to partnership working. tĞǁĞƌĞŬĞĞŶƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐǁĂƐŶ ?ƚƐŽůĞůǇĂŶacademic exercise and that we took opportunities to share what we had been talking about with colleagues, students and practitioners in an attempt to codify our outcomes and also to explore further areas of dissonance. There was a strong ethical and moral prerogative about this.   The next seminar will be held in June 2017 when these conversations will be developed and extended. Key to this event will be the input of practitioners whose views will be solicited in a range of different ways. In addition, we will be presenting at conferences to further validate and also challenge the group ?s thinking. The project will soon have a website on which these discussions can be shared and wider participation prompted. We encourage you to share your experiences: http://www.voicebirthtoseven.co.uk (coming May 2017).  References  Cassidy, C. (2007). Thinking Children. London: Continuum 

Look who's talking : eliciting the voices of children from birth to seven

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

This is a peer-reviewed accepted author manuscript of the following output: Wall, K., Arnott, L., Cassidy, C., Beaton, M., Christensen, P., Dockett, S., ... Robinson, C. (2017). Look who's talking : eliciting the voices of children from birth to seven. International Journal of Student Voice. (In press) Lﾗﾗﾆ Wｴﾗげゲ T;ﾉﾆｷﾐｪぎ EﾉｷIｷデｷﾐｪ デｴW ┗ﾗｷIWゲ ﾗa IｴｷﾉSヴWﾐ aヴﾗﾏ Hｷヴデｴ デﾗ ゲW┗Wﾐ Kate Wall, Lorna Arnott and Claire Cassidy, University of Strathclyde, UK Mhairi Beaton, Aberdeen University, UK Pia Christensen, Leeds University, UK Sue Dockett, Charles Sturt University, Australia Elaine Hall, University of Northumbria, UK Jﾗｴﾐ IげAﾐゲﾗﾐが University of Stirling, UK Mallika Kanyal, Anglia Ruskin University, UK Gerard McKernan, Glasgow City Council, UK Ingird Pramling, Gothenburg University, Sweden Carol Robinson, Brighton University, UK Lﾗﾗﾆ ┘ｴﾗげゲ デ;ﾉﾆｷﾐｪぎ EﾉｷIｷデｷﾐｪ デｴW ┗ﾗｷIWゲ ﾗa IｴｷﾉSヴWﾐ aヴﾗﾏ Hｷヴデｴ デﾗ ゲW┗Wﾐ was an international seminar series funded by the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, that brought together researchers and practitioners who work with young children (birth to seven) to ｪｷ┗W ;ﾐS ゲ┌ヮヮﾗヴデ け┗ﾗｷIWげ ｷﾐ ヴWゲヮWIデ デﾗ SｷaaWヴWﾐデ ;ゲヮWIデゲ ﾗa デｴWｷヴ ﾉｷ┗WS W┝ヮWヴｷWﾐIW; in other words, to elicit voice. The intention was to create a space for individuals working in this relatively underdeveloped field to work in a collaborative process, engaging with associated theory and practice. The aims of the seminars were: to move debate forwards; to develop guidelines and provocations for practice; and to advance understanding of the affordances and constraints on the implementation of Article 12 of the UNCRC with young children. The series comprises two seminars of three and a half days each, one in January and one in June 2017. The first focused predominantly on mapping the field, sharing and discussing experiences and practices and exploring the affordances and constraints of eliciting the voices of those under seven years-old. This is the seminar on which this submission focuses. The second, held in June 2017, aimed to synthesise participantsげ thinking and identify the needs and opportunities for development within the field.  Each seminar started from a range of prompt questions, the ones relevant to the January seminar are below, but there was a freedom and openness to the sessions that meant the discussions should be flexible to the needs of the group. These prompts were a guide only, developed by a sub-set of the participants at the point of applying for funding. They were used as a prompt to engage potential participants and then as an aide memoire within the discussion. They are useful here as providing a snapshot of the kinds of enquiries that were ongoing.  Hﾗ┘ Sﾗ W┝ヮWヴデゲ ┌ﾐSWヴゲデ;ﾐS デｴW IﾗﾐIWヮデ ﾗa け┗ﾗｷIWげ ふｷﾐ デWヴﾏゲ ﾗa AヴデｷIﾉW ┘ｴWﾐ working with young children?   Wｴ;デ SﾗWゲ け;┌デｴWﾐデｷI ┗ﾗｷIWげ ﾏW;ﾐ ｷﾐ ヴWﾉ;デｷﾗﾐ デﾗ IｴｷﾉSヴWﾐ ;ｪWS ゲW┗Wﾐ ;ﾐS ┌ﾐSWヴ Can children aged seven and under have an informed voice?   In what areas にand in what areas might they not に have an informed voice, and how is this decision made? [Type here]   How are current practices (pedagogic and methodological) being used to elicit voice with young children?  What range of specific tools and practices are there that facilitate the elicitation of voices when researching the perspectives of children aged seven and under?   What are the overarching ethical considerations of eliciting voice?  The commitment in the seminars was for open dialogue; this was achieved through creating spaces with minimum structure so as not to curtail or limit conversations. Although challenging in many ways, this was an attempt to allow for a natural evolution in discussions. This was particularly important, given that the group had previously not worked together in this form and represented a diversity of approaches in working with young children. To predetermine activities and topics would have limited the authenticity of the exploratory intent. On reflection, and this can be seen in some of the discussion represented by the fourth graphic, most participants could see that there were interesting parallels in the way we worked in this academic context, to the methods and approaches used with young children, for example, in the kinds of scaffolding used and the dispositions facilitated in participants. This meant that there were aspects of the way meaningful dialogue was created that were essentially consistent regardless of age, such as the use of open questions, tools that are supportive of thinking and speaking, avoidance of jargon and shared vocabulary, the importance of authenticity and recognition of the listener an equally important to the speaker.  In this vein, a productive parallel to the visual techniques used by many of us to elicit voice with children, was the participation of a graphic facilitator1 to support reflective and strategic thinking across the days within each seminar and to create the link between the seminars in January and July. She created graphic minutes of each of the individual sessions by capturing and representing the key ideas, points of discussion and the flow of concepts.  These were reviewed regularly by symposium participants. The graphics presented here are from the first event, one per day of the first three and a half-day seminar, focusing predominantly on mapping the field, sharing and discussing experiences and practices and exploring the affordances and constraints of participantsげ experiences.   There are four graphics organised under the following loose headings: 1. Introductions. This was the first time we had all met, the first session of the first seminar, ;ﾐS ;ﾉデｴﾗ┌ｪｴ ﾏ;ﾐ┞ ﾗa ┌ゲ ┘WヴW a;ﾏｷﾉｷ;ヴ ┘ｷデｴ W;Iｴ ﾗデｴWヴげゲ ┘ﾗヴﾆが ﾗﾐﾉ┞ ゲﾗﾏW of us had met previously and so this element of the seminar was characterised by a sharing of tentative thinking and ways of working, a general familiarisation process. In the graphic, it is possible to see us playing with terminology common to the field, such as participation, civic engagement, voice, rights, democracy and co-construction. This allowed us tentatively to debate and question each oデｴWヴげゲ understandings. It was very evident at this point that the term voice was challenging, not just with regards the target age group, but also in our conceptual understandings of what it means to have a voice, to be listened to and what it meant in regards                                                      1 http://www.albitaylor.com [Type here]  SｷaaWヴWﾐデ IﾗﾐデW┝デゲ ;ﾐS ｷﾐ ヴWﾉ;デｷﾗﾐ デﾗ デｴW けﾉｷゲデWﾐWヴげく TｴW a;┗ﾗ┌ヴｷデW ;ﾉデWヴﾐ;デｷ┗W ┘;ゲ けperspectivesげ, but we could not reach an agreement.  Although the conversation was very conceptual, we could not move too far away from the practices we had seen that facilitated voice and this is where we decided, as a group, to head. 2. Starting with practice. After day oneげゲ ケ┌ｷデW conceptual examination of the topic, and with better knowledge of each other, it was decided that day two should focus on practice, although whether this should be research or pedagogic practice, or both, was an early aspect of the conversation. The discussion revolved around our own experiences of eliciting voice, successes and failures. Particular attention was given to the Scottish system, which has enshrined the UNCRC within its policy guidelines, although the extent to which this manifests in practice across institutions and age phases is open to debate. From this we were able to look at the characteristics of spaces, of adults and of the children involved. A variety of examples were given and explored critically. This allowed, as evidenced in the graphic minutes, key characteristics of contexts and associated practices to emerge. 3. Reflecting. In the morning of day three we all visited Glasgow City Council early years or primary school settings that were identified as having interesting practice around eliciting voice. For example, these settings included Family Learning Centres that were committed to community participation and support, and Rightげゲ Respecting Schools.  This proved to be very motivational and inspiring for the ;aデWヴﾐﾗﾗﾐげゲ SｷゲI┌ゲゲｷﾗﾐ.I  It is interesting to note that the graphic minutes only represent half a dayげs dialogue and yet is the same length as those recording a full S;┞げゲ ゲWゲゲｷﾗﾐ. The focus for the discussion was our observations from the morning visits. Within the graphic minutes, it is possible to see that the beliefs, dispositions, understandings and skills of the adults working with the young children were very much foregrounded in our reflections of what we had seen. It often came down to whether the adults themselves had a voice, within their organisation or more widely, as to whether they reciprocated in providing spaces for the children. The role that they took in modelling, encouraging, supporting and facilitating a child to take an active role and how they provided a response or shared action based on this dialogue was fundamental. The extent to which this role was more or less important with young children was discussed with quite a lot of disagreement, once more highlighting our different understandings of the term けvoiceげ.  As a result, the last part of the afternoon was dedicated to a Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CoPI) session (Cassidy, 2007) where we engaged with the question, what do we mean by voice? This can be seen documented in the last third of the graphic minute.  This process was particularly fruitful in allowing delegates to challenge their own conceptualisation of け┗oiceげ because structure of CoPI necessitated that individualsmake connections with previous contributions to the dialogue, therefore placing a relational expectation on our thinking.  We were unable to argue a stance in isolation, or to refer to external authority for our reason-[Type here]  giving, so the understanding that emerges is genuinely co-constructed. There need not be a final consensus or agreement, but the dialogue served to make transparent assumptions and where terms were being conflated, confused, elucidated and consistent, thereby facilitating future discussions in the seminar by engaging in a more thorough interrogation of the key concepts.  4. Planning: In the last day of the January seminar, graphic four, we looked forward, considering how we should develop and share our thinking over the short term (between the two seminars), at the June event and beyond. A key consideration was how to include the voices of children and practitioners in our musings and to fulfil a commitment to partnership working. WW ┘WヴW ﾆWWﾐ デｴ;デ デｴｷゲ ┘;ゲﾐげデ ゲﾗﾉWﾉ┞ ;ﾐ academic exercise and that we took opportunities to share what we had been talking about with colleagues, students and practitioners in an attempt to codify our outcomes and also to explore further areas of dissonance. There was a strong ethical and moral prerogative about this.   The next seminar will be held in June 2017 when these conversations will be developed and extended. Key to this event will be the input of practitioners whose views will be solicited in a range of different ways. In addition, we will be presenting at conferences to further validate and also challenge the groupげs thinking. The project will soon have a website on which these discussions can be shared and wider participation prompted. We encourage you to share your experiences: http://www.voicebirthtoseven.co.uk (coming May 2017).  References  Cassidy, C. (2007). Thinking Children. London: Continuum 

Look Who’s Talking: Eliciting the Voices of Children from Birth to Seven

Stirling Online Research Repository

This is a peer-reviewed accepted author manuscript of the following output: Wall, K., Arnott, L., Cassidy, C., Beaton, M., Christensen, P., Dockett, S., ... Robinson, C. (2017). Look who's talking : eliciting the voices of children from birth to seven. International Journal of Student Voice. (In press) >ŽŽŬtŚŽ ?ƐdĂůŬŝŶŐ ?ůŝĐŝƚŝŶŐƚŚĞǀŽŝĐĞƐŽĨĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶĨƌŽŵďŝƌƚŚƚŽƐĞǀĞŶ Kate Wall, Lorna Arnott and Claire Cassidy, University of Strathclyde, UK Mhairi Beaton, Aberdeen University, UK Pia Christensen, Leeds University, UK Sue Dockett, Charles Sturt University, Australia Elaine Hall, University of Northumbria, UK :ŽŚŶ/ 嬀AŶƐŽŶ 唀 University of Stirling, UK Mallika Kanyal, Anglia Ruskin University, UK Gerard McKernan, Glasgow City Council, UK Ingird Pramling, Gothenburg University, Sweden Carol Robinson, Brighton University, UK >ŽŽŬǁŚŽ 嬁退 ƚĂůŬŝŶŐ 圀 ůŝĐŝƚŝŶŐƚŚĞǀŽŝĐĞƐŽĨĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶĨƌŽŵďŝƌƚŚƚŽƐĞǀĞŶwas an international seminar series funded by the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, that brought together researchers and practitioners who work with young children (birth to seven) to ŐŝǀĞĂŶĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ 威?ŽŝĐĞ 嬀 ŝŶƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƚŽĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚĂƐƉĞĐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞŝƌůŝǀĞĚĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ; in other words, to elicit voice. The intention was to create a space for individuals working in this relatively underdeveloped field to work in a collaborative process, engaging with associated theory and practice. The aims of the seminars were: to move debate forwards; to develop guidelines and provocations for practice; and to advance understanding of the affordances and constraints on the implementation of Article 12 of the UNCRC with young children. The series comprises two seminars of three and a half days each, one in January and one in June 2017. The first focused predominantly on mapping the field, sharing and discussing experiences and practices and exploring the affordances and constraints of eliciting the voices of those under seven years-old. This is the seminar on which this submission focuses. The second, held in June 2017, aimed to synthesise participants ? thinking and identify the needs and opportunities for development within the field.  Each seminar started from a range of prompt questions, the ones relevant to the January seminar are below, but there was a freedom and openness to the sessions that meant the discussions should be flexible to the needs of the group. These prompts were a guide only, developed by a sub-set of the participants at the point of applying for funding. They were used as a prompt to engage potential participants and then as an aide memoire within the discussion. They are useful here as providing a snapshot of the kinds of enquiries that were ongoing. x ,Žǁ ĚŽ ĞǆƉĞƌƚƐ ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ĐŽŶĐĞƉƚ ŽĨ  威쀁?ŝĐĞ 嬀  縁?Ŷ ƚĞƌŵƐ ŽĨ ƌƚŝĐůĞ ǁŚĞŶworking with young children?  x tŚĂƚĚŽĞƐ ?ĂƵƚŚĞŶƚŝĐǀŽŝĐĞ 嬀 ŵĞĂŶŝŶƌĞůĂƚŝŽŶƚŽĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶĂŐĞĚƐĞǀĞŶĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌx Can children aged seven and under have an informed voice?  x In what areas  Wand in what areas might they not  W have an informed voice, and how is this decision made? [Type here]  x How are current practices (pedagogic and methodological) being used to elicit voice with young children? x What range of specific tools and practices are there that facilitate the elicitation of voices when researching the perspectives of children aged seven and under?  x What are the overarching ethical considerations of eliciting voice?  The commitment in the seminars was for open dialogue; this was achieved through creating spaces with minimum structure so as not to curtail or limit conversations. Although challenging in many ways, this was an attempt to allow for a natural evolution in discussions. This was particularly important, given that the group had previously not worked together in this form and represented a diversity of approaches in working with young children. To predetermine activities and topics would have limited the authenticity of the exploratory intent. On reflection, and this can be seen in some of the discussion represented by the fourth graphic, most participants could see that there were interesting parallels in the way we worked in this academic context, to the methods and approaches used with young children, for example, in the kinds of scaffolding used and the dispositions facilitated in participants. This meant that there were aspects of the way meaningful dialogue was created that were essentially consistent regardless of age, such as the use of open questions, tools that are supportive of thinking and speaking, avoidance of jargon and shared vocabulary, the importance of authenticity and recognition of the listener an equally important to the speaker.  In this vein, a productive parallel to the visual techniques used by many of us to elicit voice with children, was the participation of a graphic facilitator1 to support reflective and strategic thinking across the days within each seminar and to create the link between the seminars in January and July. She created graphic minutes of each of the individual sessions by capturing and representing the key ideas, points of discussion and the flow of concepts.  These were reviewed regularly by symposium participants. The graphics presented here are from the first event, one per day of the first three and a half-day seminar, focusing predominantly on mapping the field, sharing and discussing experiences and practices and exploring the affordances and constraints of participants ? experiences.   There are four graphics organised under the following loose headings: 1. Introductions. This was the first time we had all met, the first session of the first seminar, ĂŶĚĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚŵĂŶǇŽĨƵƐǁĞƌĞĨĂŵŝůŝĂƌǁŝƚŚĞĂĐŚŽƚŚĞƌ ?ƐǁŽƌŬ ?ŽŶůǇƐŽŵĞof us had met previously and so this element of the seminar was characterised by a sharing of tentative thinking and ways of working, a general familiarisation process. In the graphic, it is possible to see us playing with terminology common to the field, such as participation, civic engagement, voice, rights, democracy and co-construction. This allowed us tentatively to debate and question each oƚŚĞƌ ?Ɛunderstandings. It was very evident at this point that the term voice was challenging, not just with regards the target age group, but also in our conceptual understandings of what it means to have a voice, to be listened to and what it meant in regards                                                      1 http://www.albitaylor.com [Type here]  ĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚĐŽŶƚĞǆƚƐĂŶĚŝŶƌĞůĂƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞ ?ůŝƐƚĞŶĞƌ ? ?dŚĞĨĂǀŽƵƌŝƚĞĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞǁĂƐ ?perspectives ?, but we could not reach an agreement.  Although the conversation was very conceptual, we could not move too far away from the practices we had seen that facilitated voice and this is where we decided, as a group, to head. 2. Starting with practice. After day one ?ƐƋƵŝƚĞconceptual examination of the topic, and with better knowledge of each other, it was decided that day two should focus on practice, although whether this should be research or pedagogic practice, or both, was an early aspect of the conversation. The discussion revolved around our own experiences of eliciting voice, successes and failures. Particular attention was given to the Scottish system, which has enshrined the UNCRC within its policy guidelines, although the extent to which this manifests in practice across institutions and age phases is open to debate. From this we were able to look at the characteristics of spaces, of adults and of the children involved. A variety of examples were given and explored critically. This allowed, as evidenced in the graphic minutes, key characteristics of contexts and associated practices to emerge. 3. Reflecting. In the morning of day three we all visited Glasgow City Council early years or primary school settings that were identified as having interesting practice around eliciting voice. For example, these settings included Family Learning Centres that were committed to community participation and support, and Right ?ƐRespecting Schools.  This proved to be very motivational and inspiring for the ĂĨƚĞƌŶŽŽŶ ?ƐĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶ.I  It is interesting to note that the graphic minutes only represent half a day ?s dialogue and yet is the same length as those recording a full ĚĂǇ ?ƐƐĞƐƐŝŽŶ. The focus for the discussion was our observations from the morning visits. Within the graphic minutes, it is possible to see that the beliefs, dispositions, understandings and skills of the adults working with the young children were very much foregrounded in our reflections of what we had seen. It often came down to whether the adults themselves had a voice, within their organisation or more widely, as to whether they reciprocated in providing spaces for the children. The role that they took in modelling, encouraging, supporting and facilitating a child to take an active role and how they provided a response or shared action based on this dialogue was fundamental. The extent to which this role was more or less important with young children was discussed with quite a lot of disagreement, once more highlighting our different understandings of the term  ?voice ?.  As a result, the last part of the afternoon was dedicated to a Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CoPI) session (Cassidy, 2007) where we engaged with the question, what do we mean by voice? This can be seen documented in the last third of the graphic minute.  This process was particularly fruitful in allowing delegates to challenge their own conceptualisation of  ?ǀoice ? because structure of CoPI necessitated that individualsmake connections with previous contributions to the dialogue, therefore placing a relational expectation on our thinking.  We were unable to argue a stance in isolation, or to refer to external authority for our reason-[Type here]  giving, so the understanding that emerges is genuinely co-constructed. There need not be a final consensus or agreement, but the dialogue served to make transparent assumptions and where terms were being conflated, confused, elucidated and consistent, thereby facilitating future discussions in the seminar by engaging in a more thorough interrogation of the key concepts.  4. Planning: In the last day of the January seminar, graphic four, we looked forward, considering how we should develop and share our thinking over the short term (between the two seminars), at the June event and beyond. A key consideration was how to include the voices of children and practitioners in our musings and to fulfil a commitment to partnership working. tĞǁĞƌĞŬĞĞŶƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐǁĂƐŶ ?ƚƐŽůĞůǇĂŶacademic exercise and that we took opportunities to share what we had been talking about with colleagues, students and practitioners in an attempt to codify our outcomes and also to explore further areas of dissonance. There was a strong ethical and moral prerogative about this.   The next seminar will be held in June 2017 when these conversations will be developed and extended. Key to this event will be the input of practitioners whose views will be solicited in a range of different ways. In addition, we will be presenting at conferences to further validate and also challenge the group ?s thinking. The project will soon have a website on which these discussions can be shared and wider participation prompted. We encourage you to share your experiences: http://www.voicebirthtoseven.co.uk (coming May 2017).  References  Cassidy, C. (2007). Thinking Children. London: Continuum 

A summary of the 'Look Who's Talking' seminar series funded by the University of Strathclyde. Researchers and practitioners who work with children from birth to 7 years of age collaborated to explore the elicitation of voice in this age group with the aim of establishing best practice, especially in light of Article 12 of the UNCRC

Arnott, Laura

Northumbria University Research Portal

http://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/26600/1/Wall_etal_IJSV_2017.pdf

Look Who’s Talking: Eliciting the Voices of Children from Birth to Seven

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Strathclyde Institutional Repository

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

Stirling Online Research Repository

Northumbria University Research Portal