This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion
may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails.
Au ho (s):
Ti le:
Yea :
Ve sion:
Copy igh :
Righ s:
Righ s u l:
Please ci e he o iginal e sion:
CC BY 4.0
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Towa d e hical p axis in longi udinal esea ch wi h child en : Re lec ing on e hical
ensions in pa icipa o y esea ch
© 2024 The Au ho . Published by Else ie L d.
Published e sion
Inha, Ka oliina
Inha, K. (2025). Towa d e hical p axis in longi udinal esea ch wi h child en : Re lec ing on
e hical ensions in pa icipa o y esea ch. Resea ch Me hods in Applied Linguis ics, 4(1), A icle
100173. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j. mal.2024.100173
2025
Towa d e hical p axis in longi udinal esea ch wi h child en:
Re lec ing on e hical ensions in pa icipa o y esea ch
Ka oliina Inha
Cen e o Applied Language S udies, Uni e si y o Jy ¨
askyl¨
a, Ma ilanniemi 2, Jy ¨
askyl¨
a 40100, Finland
ARTICLE INFO
Keywo ds:
E hical ensions
Young o eign language lea ne s
Pa icipa o y me hods
Powe di e ences
ABSTRACT
The ield o ea ly o eign language lea ning esea ch has wi nessed an inc easing end o employ
pa icipa o y me hods, s emming om a pa adigm shi in how child en a e iewed in esea ch.
In con as o mo e adi ional app oaches ha place child en as he objec s o esea ch, child en
a e conside ed ac i e agen s and pa icipan s in esea ch wi h expe knowledge o hei own
li es. In his pape I discuss he e hical ensions ha su aced p io , du ing, and a e a esea ch
p ojec ha employed pa icipa o y me hods wi h young child en. I e lec on how he me h-
odology b oadened unde s anding o eme ging powe di e ences in he esea che –pa icipan
ela ionship, such as how asymme y in knowledge and pa icipa ion al e na e and mani es
du ing a longi udinal p ojec , engaging he esea che and he child en in ecu ing nego ia ion o
oles and powe . While e hical conside a ions a e o en p esen ed as a checklis wi h do’s and
don’ ’s o how o p oceed, wi h his a icle I d aw on expe iences om my own p ojec and aim
o disman le he complex and messy pic u e o he e hical p ocess in esea ch wi h young chil-
d en. I a gue ha while he applica ion o pa icipa o y me hods in ea ly o eign language
lea ning esea ch alle ia es e hical ensions o an ex en , such as by helping educe epis emic and
ins i u ional powe be ween he esea che and he pa icipan s, i is essen ial o epo and e lec
on he e hical weighing and e lec ion unde aken h oughou he s udy as unequal powe
s uc u es will emain ega dless o me hod.
1. In oduc ion
Resea ch on young o eign language (FL) lea ne s in p ima y school has g own in consequence o Eu opean educa ion policy
emphasizing an ea lie s a in FL educa ion as well as he g owing di e si y o child en’s home languages. The accumula ion o s udies
wi h young child en has led o he econside a ion o e hical issues in esea ch p axis (Pin e &Kuchah, 2021), while e hical ma e s
ha e also gained mo e gene al in e es as a opic o inqui y in linguis ics (De Cos a, 2024). Fu he mo e, esea ch in applied linguis ics
has wi nessed a pa adigm shi ega ding how child en a e no longe pe cei ed as he objec s o esea ch, bu as ac i e pa icipan s who
exe cise social agency in in e p e a ing he wo ld and p oducing knowledge (Pin e , 2022). In his a icle I claim ha in addi ion o
me hodological conside a ions, u he a en ion should be paid o he e hics o selec ed me hods and o he ela ionship buil be ween
he pa icipan s and esea che s.
In ea ly childhood educa ion and ca e, he ela ionship be ween me hods and e hical p ac ice has mo ed beyond he conside a ion
o me hods o placing a ocus on he union o me hodology and e hical p axis (Palaiologou, 2014). Simply applying pa icipa o y
me hods does no su ice, bu ins ead e hics should be he ocus poin . In applied linguis ics, discussions o e hics a e no a no el y, bu
E-mail add ess: [email p o ec ed].
Con en s lis s a ailable a ScienceDi ec
Resea ch Me hods in Applied Linguis ics
jou nal homepage: www.else ie .com/loca e/ mal
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j. mal.2024.100173
Recei ed 13 May 2024; Recei ed in e ised o m 22 No embe 2024; Accep ed 26 No embe 2024
Resea ch Me hods in Applied Linguis ics 4 (2025) 100173
A ailable online 30 No embe 2024
2772-7661/© 2024 The Au ho . Published by Else ie L d. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY license
( h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/ ).
he ield has wi nessed a ecen ‘e hical u n’which has aised new pe spec i es (De Cos a e al., 2021; see also Yaw e al. 2023). Pin e
(2022) sugges s ha e hics in esea ch on FL educa ion s udies may no ha e a consensus on he meaning o e hics in esea ch wi h
child en, as e hics is usually only b ie ly e iewed in publica ions (Pin e , 2022). Acco ding o Kubanyio a (2008), he lack o igo ous
epo ing may also be due o he ac ha esea ch in applied linguis ics gene ally may lead o only mino e hical issues, as opposed o,
o example, esea ch in he medical sciences. In consequence o sca ce epo ing o e hical conduc , Pin e (2022) calls o u he
“sha ing o expe iences in he esea ch communi y o unco e and explici ly examine app oaches and p inciples in esea ch e hics wi h
child en, which a e cu en ly kep unde w ap”(p. 23). In he same ein, De Cos a e al. (2021) call o aising unde s anding o how
esea che s nego ia e e hical ensions p io , du ing, and a e da a collec ion.
Mo e and mo e s udies in ea ly FL educa ion make use o pa icipa o y me hods. The aim o pa icipa o y esea ch is o gi e oice o
unde ep esen ed g oups by making use o me hods ha be e cap u e he pe spec i es o hose ha ye emain ma ginalized in
esea ch, such as child en. Such an app oach esembles ha o child-pe spec i e me hodology, which s i es o highligh child en’s
oles as knowe s and ac o s in hei own li es (Honkanen e al., 2018). Wi h child en, pa icipa o y me hods may e e o isual
me hods o , o example, s o yc a ing (Ka lsson, 2013). The no ion o ’pa icipa o y’should be unde s ood o exis on a con inuum;
s udies may include ea u es o bo h pa icipa o y and mo e adi ional app oaches as ega ds, o example, who design he ools o
da a gene a ion (Pin e , 2022). Fu he mo e, while a powe gap be ween child en and adul s may be ine i able in esea ch wi h
child en (Pin e , 2022), pa icipa o y me hods can help disman le possible hie a chical se ups. In his a icle I a gue ha while he
applica ion o pa icipa o y me hods in ea ly FL lea ning esea ch alle ia es e hical ensions somewha , such ensions and powe
di e ences will emain ega dless o me hod, whe eby i is essen ial o epo and e lec on he e hical weighing unde aken
h oughou he s udy.
In his a icle, a he han gi e an elabo a e o e iew o he mac oe hics o doing esea ch wi h child en, I will ocus on he mic o
(Guillemin &Gillam, 2004;Kubanyio a, 2008), ha is, he e e yday e hical ensions ha eme ge du ing a p ojec . The pape discusses
e hical ensions conside ed p io , du ing, and a e a esea ch p ojec I conduc ed wi h 7–9-yea -old Finnish lea ne s o English. The
aim o he longi udinal case s udy was o explo e he lea ne belie s 7–9-yea -old Finnish lea ne s o English hold ega ding English and
lea ning English. I exempli y each e hical ension wi h exce p s om ansc ip s o g oup discussions held wi h he pa icipan s o wi h
my own e lec ions du ing he p ojec . I espond o he ollowing esea ch ques ions:
1. Wha e hical ensions eme ged p io , du ing, and a e a esea ch p ojec ?
2. How did he use o pa icipa o y me hodology b oaden unde s anding o how powe di e ences eme ge in he esea ch-
e –pa icipan ela ionship?
Explo ing hese ques ions in he con ex o a longi udinal p ojec enables conside ing he de elopmen and ansi ions bo h he
child en and he esea che expe ience du ing a longi udinal p ojec , o example, he ma u a ion o he child en, hei socializa ion
in o he educa ion sys em, hei expec a ions o esea ch, and he coinciding de elopmen o he long- e m ela ionship be ween he
esea che and he child en and (see Ru anen e al., 2023 o a simila s udy). Long- e m esea ch ela ionships wi h child en a e
complex wi h inhe en powe di e ences and may en ail changes as ega ds, o example, social and epis emic powe (e.g., how he
child en espond o he esea che ) (Eina sd´
o i , 2007).
Conside ing powe di e ences is impo an because hey may a ec how and which child en pa icipa e in gene a ing esea ch
da a. In his a icle, I ocus on he powe di e ences be ween child en and he adul esea che , al hough hose be ween child en a e
also acknowledged. Based on wha I p esen in his pape , I sugges ha we should ocus mo e on he me hods used in child- ocused
esea ch and how e hical ensions a e epo ed in publica ions. This pape con ibu es o he de elopmen o e hical, child-o ien ed
me hodology in he ield o ea ly FL esea ch by add essing some o he successes and miss eps in he nexus o e hics and me hod-
ology o a longi udinal p ojec . This pape p o ides an opening and encou agemen o sha e expe iences o e hical ensions, as has been
done in childhood s udies (e.g., Hend y e al. 2024,Ru anen e al. 2023) bu a e ye sca cely epo ed in ea ly FL esea ch. Re lec ion o
e hics is an in eg al pa o esea ch. Shedding ligh on e hical ensions du ing esea ch is an a emp o s eng hen and u he de elop
me hodological and e hical in eg i y in he ield.
2. E hics in child- ocused esea ch
2.1. Backg ound
The Uni ed Na ions (1989) a icle 12 acknowledges ha child en ha e he igh o exp ess hei iews on ma e s ha conce n
hem. One o he main p inciples o he con en ion is he child’s igh o pa icipa e in decision-making ha in ol es hem. While
child en main ain ha igh , i is o en he adul s who decide who pa icipa es in esea ch, as i is he pa en s’dissen ha o e ules he
child’s consen . Linguis ics associa ions such as he Ame ican ins i u ion o Applied Linguis ics (AAAL) and he B i ish Associa ion o
Applied Linguis ics (BAAL) ha e published hei own e hical guidelines speci ically o esea ch in applied linguis ics. Fu he mo e,
handbooks o childhood s udies by Ch is ensen and James (2008),F ase e al. (2004),Sa gean and Ha cou (2012) p o ide mo e
K. Inha Resea ch Me hods in Applied Linguis ics 4 (2025) 100173
2
de ailed desc ip ions o wha should be conside ed when conduc ing esea ch wi h child en, hough in he ield o second and FL
esea ch, such handbooks a e a e (Pin e , 2022). A mo e ecen ly published book by Pin e and Kuchah (2021) ocuses speci ically on
he me hodological and e hical issues in esea ch wi h ea ly second o FL lea ne s. Las ly, in Finland, he Finnish Na ional Boa d on
Resea ch In eg i y (TENK) published he i s na ional guideline egula ing e hical esea ch wi h human pa icipan s in non-medical
esea ch in 2009, which was la e upda ed in 2019 (Finnish Na ional Boa d on Resea ch In eg i y TENK, 2019). In Finland, an e hical
e iew om he e hics commi ee is manda o y only in speci ic cases, o example, when sepa a e consen is no ga he ed om young
child en’s gua dians.
Howe e , he e hical and legisla i e guidelines do no conside ‘si ua ed e hics’(G aham e al., 2016), ha is, he esea che ’s
e e yday decisions made du ing da a gene a ion, no do hey gi e angible e hical guidelines o wha happens p io and a e esea ch
is conduc ed. They can be pa icula ly insu icien o mo e holis ic, class oom-based esea ch (Kubanyio a, 2008). Such ins ances
ha e been e e ed o, o example, as e hical ensions (De Cos a e al., 2021;Kubanyio a, 2008), e hically signi ican (Kubanyio a,
2008) o impo an momen s (Guillemin &Gillam, 2004), and e hical dilemmas (e.g., Ch is ensen and P ou 2002,Kubanyio a 2008,
Pin e 2022), o which he las appea s mos common. Howe e , Ennse -Kananen e al. (2018),Guillemin and Gillam (2004) ques ion
whe he he e m dilemma uly cap u es he na u e o he e e yday issues and ad hoc decisions esea che s mus make. Dilemma
sugges s a u ning poin whe e he esea che should make a di icul choice be ween op ions and weigh ad an ages and disad an ages
(Guillemin &Gillam, 2004), wi h possibly only ’w ong answe s’.Dilemma also sugges s ha e hics only come in o play when
some hing unexpec ed happens, pe haps because he inciden s all ou side he commonplace e hical checklis s, ein o cing he idea o
esea ch as a p ocess o icking boxes o mee e hical s anda ds. Ins ead, such ’dilemmas’should be unde s ood as no mal p oceedings
in a p ojec (Ennse -Kananen e al., 2018). In his a icle, hese inciden s a e unde s ood as eme gen e hical ensions and nego ia ion
o pa icipa ion, whe e in e ac ion plays a key ole. This does no unde mine he signi icance o c i icali y o he issues, bu ins ead
o eg ounds in e ac ion and nego ia ion.
The ollowing subsec ions ou line he backg ound behind he choices I made ega ding me hodology and e hical conduc . I d aw on
li e a u e om he ields o childhood s udies, an h opology, and esea ch in second and FL educa ion o ou line pe spec i es wi h
signi ican meaning o esea ch wi h child en.
2.2. Child en’s consen o pa icipa e
E hical issues in esea ch wi h child en a e o en conside ed om pe spec i es such as in o med consen , con iden iali y, ano-
nymi y, bene iciali y, and nonmale iciance (Kuchah &Pin e , 2021). Fu he e hical conce ns ela e o ques ions o powe ela ions
(adul –child, child–child) and he cul u al embeddedness o he me hodology chosen o he s udy. In jou nal a icles, esea che s
adi ionally epo gaining in o med consen om pa icipan s and hei pa en s o gua dians (Pin e , 2022). While he e hical
guidelines in Finland equi e in o med consen om he gua dian and he child, guidelines lack u he guidance on how child en
could be in o med and hei unde s anding o consen a i med. Indeed, when conduc ing esea ch wi h child en, i can be di icul o
asce ain child en’s willingness o pa icipa e in p ac ice, indica ing a need o modi ied p ac ices wi h child en. Especially wi h
child en, in o med consen should no be unde s ood as a one- ime decision ma ked wi h w i en a i ma ion, bu as some hing ha is
e lexi e (Palaiologou, 2014), ongoing dialogue (Kuchah &Pin e , 2021), and enego ia able (Bu le , 2021;G aham e al., 2016).
Howe e , no ma e he e o a esea che pu s in o eassu ing child en o hei igh s o e use, child en may eel hey a e no in a
posi ion whe e hey may sa ely e use o pa icipa e (Pin e , 2022).
Wi h young child en, he esea che mus speak o se e al s akeholde s, such as educa ion and school adminis a ion, eache s, and
gua dians be o e in oducing a s udy o po en ial pa icipan s. Eina sd´
o i (2007) no es ha such s akeholde s, including he e-
sea che s, ac as ga ekeepe s o child en’s pa icipa ion (see also Flewi 2005). Di e en s akeholde s make decisions on behal o he
child, o example, because hey may eel a gi en s uden o class is no sui able o a s udy. Indeed, pa icipa ion is no only a ques ion
o who pa icipa es, bu a ques ion o who does no . The e o e, esea che s should conside he impac hei ac ions ha e on hose no
gi en pe mission o pa icipa e, o example, how he c i e ion o nonmale iciance is me i non-pa icipa ing child en eel le ou
(Richa dson, 2019).
E hical p axis also ela es o he ad hoc decisions esea che s make ega ding unp edic able e hical ensions ha commonly eme ge
in esea ch wi h child en. Indeed, child en’s esponses and ac ions can o en su p ise he esea che , ega dless o how well hey ha e
p epa ed (Pin e , 2022). Such su p ises may la e be in e p e ed as e hical ensions ha ha e no been ecognized due o he o en
diso ganized na u e o da a gene a ion wi h child en. Di icul ies a ise, o example, in how child en may dig ess om he opic a
hand o how hey exp ess hei willingness o con inue pa icipa ing. Child en exp ess hei assen and dissen in much mo e a ied
and ambiguous ways han a simple ‘yes’o ‘no’(Huse e al., 2022). Ins ead, hey may use e bal o embodied ways o signaling
dissen , o else by wi hd awing o a silen and e asi e mode. Resea che s should he e o e be sensi i e o how he child en ac and
eac du ing da a gene a ion, including hei non- e bal communica ion and beha io used o exp ess hei com o in pa icipa ing
(Hend y e al., 2024;Pin e , 2022;Sa gean &Ha cou , 2012). The e o e, esea che s could p o ide pa icipan s wi h me hods o
exp essing assen o dissen ha do no equi e e bal exp ession, such as signs.
K. Inha Resea ch Me hods in Applied Linguis ics 4 (2025) 100173
3
2.3. Me hods o empowe child en’s pa icipa ion
Pa icipa o y me hods esul ed om de elopmen s in how child en ha e been concep ualized in esea ch and poli ics. The 1990s
wi nessed a pa adigm shi in seeing child en as social ac o s capable o exp essing hei iews, as ac i e agen s and con ibu o s in
hei li es, and impo an ly, wo hy o being hea d o be e unde s and hei li es and pe spec i es (James, 2007;James &P ou ,
1990). Hoh i and Ka lsson (2014) no e ha esea che s should gi e space and pay close a en ion o whose oices hey a e lis ening o
and legi imizing: hose ha speak he loudes o mos i in wi h an adul esea che ’s unde s anding, o he quie ones o hose whose
pe spec i es a e no as easy o unde s and as an adul . Fo example, Du a, Alanen, &M¨
an yl¨
a, 2001 ques ion whe he when e-
sea che s ha e c i iqued child en o no inding he ‘co ec esponse’, hey ha e in e ec mi o ed he idea ha child en should lea n
a speci ic way o hinking and ac ing be o e adul s conside hei iews wo hy o explo ing.
The u n o he cen u y led o concep ualizing child en as pa icipan s and co-p oduce s o knowledge in esea ch and hence o he
in oduc ion o pa icipa o y me hods (Ch is ensen &James, 2008;Ch is ensen &P ou , 2002;Robinson &Kelle , 2004). In he ield o
second and FL esea ch, da a gene a ion me hods wi h young child en ha e anged om mo e adi ional app oaches (e.g., ques-
ionnai es and in e iews) used wi h olde pa icipan s and which o en equi e some le el o li e acy o skills e bal exp ession, o
mo e pa icipa o y and child-cen e ed app oaches. The la e may make use o me hods such as g oup discussions, pho o-elici a ion,
d awings, o s o yc a ing o en o ce ecological alidi y (Pin e , 2022; see also B on enb enne 1974).
Bu le (2021) asse s ha simply choosing pa icipa o y me hods does no ende a s udy pa icipa o y, bu ins ead a en ion should
be paid o he “social ela ions be ween he esea che and esea ch pa icipan s ha enable he co-p oduc ion o knowledge”(p. 29),
unde sco ing he impo ance o conside ing he powe di e ences a play in esea ch wi h child en. Wi h young child en, powe
di e ences may s em om physical, emo ional, cogni i e, psychological, and social ac o s (Robinson &Kelle , 2004;Sa gean &
Ha cou , 2012). Mo eo e , powe ela ionships can be conside ed om di e en aspec s, such as social powe (e.g., powe be ween
child en and adul s o g oups o child en) epis emic powe (e.g., who is conside ed as knowledgeable o holding supe io knowledge),
and ins i u ional powe (e.g., he powe eache s hold in school) (Ch is ensen &P ou , 2002;F ase , 2004;Hoh i &Ka lsson, 2014;
Richa dson, 2019;Robinson &Kelle , 2004).
Resea che s may hold (also subconscious) belie s o how child en should ac and pa icipa e in esea ch, which may be cons uc ed
based on p e ious esea ch ames. The esea che ’s expec a ions pose a challenge o ‘ uly pa icipa o y’ esea ch, as esea che s may
limi child en’s powe o mee he aims o o o ensu e consis ency in a p ojec . Indeed, child en hold powe o e adul s and may e en
exe cise i in ways no ‘p e e able’ o he esea che . While seemingly happy o pa icipa e, child en may no ‘ac acco dingly’, by
ac ing ou , joking a ound, o discussing comple ely un ela ed opics. Bu le (2021) e e s o he nego ia ion o powe , indica ing how
powe is no s a ic bu dynamic and socially nego ia ed. In pa icipa o y esea ch, he esea che and child en oge he as pa icipan s
nego ia e how he p ojec p oceeds and wha hei sha ed objec i es a e. The lexibili y equi ed o esea ch conduc ed wi h child en is
i sel a cha ac e is ic o doing e hical esea ch, no a h ea o he iabili y o alidi y o esea ch (Palaiologou, 2014).
To b idge he gap in powe di e ences, esea che s may y, o example, pa icipa ing in he child en’s e e yday ac i i ies o by
building a ela ionship wi h hem be o e conduc ing a s udy. In an ea ly s udy, Mandell (1991) in oduced he concep o he leas adul
ole. I e e s o he idea ha ins ead o he esea che aking he ole o a de ached, adul obse e , hey blend in o he child en’s wo ld
and become ‘one o he kids’, an ac i e pa icipan in he child en’s ac i i ies wi h an aim o minimize he di e ences be ween child en
and he adul . Mayall (2008) asse s ha i is no possible o minimize he powe di e ence o such a le el ha child en migh ega d
he esea che as ‘one o hem’. Ins ead, powe di e ences should be acknowledged as a cen al cha ac e is ic and be u he wo ked
wi h and decons uc ed. Indeed, Mayall (2008) sugges s ha he use o mo e child- ocused me hods ha also change he ole o he
esea che migh inc ease he powe he child en hold and dec ease ha o he esea che . Mayall sugges s ha using pai and g oup
con e sa ions help child en eel mo e a ease wi h bo h da a gene a ion and he adul esea che as well as could ease hei join
e lec ion o a gi en opic.
While pa icipa o y me hods ha e been seen o p omo e e hics in esea ch wi h child en, esea che s ha e ques ioned whe he he
e hical side o pa icipa o y me hods a e aken o g an ed (G aham e al., 2016). Building on a s udy on adul -child ela ionships in
esea ch, Palaiologou (2014) ex ends he discussion o e hics beyond me e me hods and asse s ha esea che s should pe ain o
e hical engagemen h oughou he whole p ocess o a esea ch p ojec —e hical p axis. The eby ocus should be placed on he e hicali y
o he en i e me hodology applied in a p ojec ins ead o he e hics o dis inc me hods (Palaiologou, 2014; see also Flewi 2005).
Conside ing ha e hical esea ch assumes ha pa icipan s bene i om pa icipa ing, some esea che s ha e aised conce ns whe he
esea ch wi h child en is e e eally e hical, i child en do no bene i om i di ec ly (Pin e , 2023). Fo example, including he
pa icipan s also in he dissemina ion o indings and keeping hem in o med balances ou he unequal powe be ween he pa icipan s
and he esea che (Flewi , 2005). Bu le (2021) asse s ha applying pa icipa o y me hods no only leads o mo e e hical esea ch,
bu also has pedagogical me i s by ensu ing ha child en also bene i om pa icipa ing: nego ia ing powe and allowing ela ions o
lux among pa icipan s (including he esea che ) allows o mu ual lea ning o happen.
K. Inha Resea ch Me hods in Applied Linguis ics 4 (2025) 100173
4
3. The con ex : a longi udinal esea ch p ojec
3.1. Aim and pa icipan s
The p ojec is a longi udinal mul iple case s udy explo ing he belie s 7–9-yea -old lea ne s o English hold ega ding English and
lea ning English and how hei belie s de elop as he lea ne s p og ess om g ade 1 o g ade 3 o Finnish p ima y school. The aim is o
build knowledge on young lea ne s’concep ualiza ions o language and language lea ning a he e y beginning o o mal ins uc ion
o English wi h ega d o how he lea ne s encoun e English bo h in and ou side o school. The s udy builds on ea lie esea ch on
young child en’s belie s abou languages and language lea ning in Finland (e.g., A o, 2009,Du a and Alanen, 2004,Må d-Mie inen
e al., 2014).
The s udy was conduc ed in wo u al schools in Wes e n Finland. A he s a o he s udy, he pa icipan s (n=39) we e 7 yea s old
and in he i s g ade o p ima y school. All pa icipan s had s a ed lea ning hei i s o eign language, English, in he all e m o i s
g ade. The child en we e gi en one lesson o English eaching pe week. O he o iginal 39 child en, 21 pa icipa ed in he da a
gene a ion conduc ed in 2nd g ade, and 18 in he da a gene a ion in 3 d g ade.
Acco ding o he uni e si y guidelines o e hical esea ch (Finnish Na ional Boa d on Resea ch In eg i y TENK, 2019), wi h 7-yea --
old child en, in o med consen mus be a ained om bo h he gua dians and he child. Fu he mo e, in Finland, consen o conduc
esea ch in a school mus be a ained om he local educa ion adminis a ion. I acqui ed w i en in o med consen om he gua dians
and he child en each yea o da a gene a ion.
3.2. Da a gene a ion
My da a gene a ion me hods build on my heo e ical amewo k, e hical conside a ions, as well as my p e ious expe iences in
esea ch wi h young child en. An equally impo an , in e sec ing aspec was o conduc he s udy in as child-o ien ed a manne as
possible, and hus I decided o use pa icipa o y me hods:
(1) g oup discussions;
(2) pho o-elici a ion; and
(3) d awing.
Fi s ly, I designed my me hods o ollow my concep ualiza ion o he cons uc o belie s. Following he con ex ual app oaches,
belie s a e con ex ual, dynamic, and co-cons uc ed in social in e ac ion (Ba celos, 2003a). The e o e, explo ing belie s would be
ad an ageous o explo e using in e ac i e me hods ha conside he con ex (Ba celos, 2003b). I chose g oup discussions ins ead o
indi idual in e iews as my p ima y me hod o engage he pa icipan s in a wide a ay o discussion opics. I held he g oup discussions
du ing class ime and a e noon-school ac i i ies wi h each discussion including 2–4 child en. This allowed o all hose willing o
pa icipa e o do so du ing he school day. Howe e , i migh ha e caused some child en o eel le ou i hei pa en s had no gi en
pe mission o pa icipa e (Richa dson, 2019). I o med he g oups wi h he help o he eache s who knew which child en wo k well
wi h each o he and a emp ed o ha e he same g oups each yea . G oup discussions wo k well wi h child en, as hey may suppo
child en in exp essing hei iews as well as inc ease eelings o com o du ing he ask (Eina sd´
o i , 2007;Mayall, 2008). The
pa icipan s also comple ed a g oup ask, in which hey we e gi en ca ds ep esen ing di e en class oom ac i i ies and we e asked o
place hem in o de by p e e ence, as adap ed om Kolb (2007). In he i s yea , he g oup discussions (N=13) las ed app oxima ely
26 min.
In he second and hi d da a gene a ion, I decided o apply isual me hods o bo h p o ide he child en wi h mo e a ied me hods o
exp ession and o p omp discussion on hemes ha we e key o my esea ch. Visual me hods ha e es ablished a p ominen ole in
esea ching young child en’s belie s and may be especially bene icial o pa icipan s who may ha e di icul ies exp essing hemsel es
e bally (Kalaja &Melo-P ei e , 2019;Mhic Mha húna &Hayes, 2022). When he lea ne s we e in second g ade, I applied a
pho o-elici a ion ask and asked he child en o ake snapsho s o si ua ions whe e hey hea d, saw, o used English ou side school. The
pa icipan s ook 4 snapsho s on a e age. A e aking pho os o a week, we had g oup discussions (N=7, du a ion app oxima ely 14
min). I chose one snapsho pe pa icipan and asked he child en o elabo a e on and discuss hei snapsho s, a e which we had a
mo e gene al discussion on English and lea ning English ou side school based on my loose discussion empla e. Al hough ha ing he
child en choose he snapsho s hemsel es would ha e been mo e child-o ien ed, I decided o do his be o ehand o a oid o e ly long
discussions which would no ha e wo ked as well wi h young child en (Allen, 2012) as well as o b ing a ie y o he discussions.
Fo he hi d da a gene a ion, I chose o inco po a e ano he isual me hod and asked he pa icipan s o d aw hemsel es lea ning
English o cap u e an idea o hei belie s abou language lea ning. The d awings we e made du ing class ime and he pa icipan s
we e gi en 15 min o inish hei d awings. The child en we e allowed o discuss eely while d awing. I would hold g oup discussions
(N=6, du a ion app oxima ely 20 min) a week a e he d awings we e made and asked he pa icipan s o e lec on each o he ’s
d awings and o he adjacen hemes chosen by me.
Ano he guiding p inciple in my de elopmen o da a gene a ion me hods was e hical p axis. Tha is, conside ing whe he my
choice o me hods and essen ially he si ua ions I placed child en in would a ec how com o able hey el pa icipa ing. Fo example,
in a p ojec I had collec ed da a in be o e he cu en s udy, I el ha he one-on-one in e iews I had held wi h he 7-yea -olds
o en imes le me ques ioning whe he he pa icipan s would exp ess hemsel es mo e expansi ely we e hey p o ided wi h mo e
a ied ools o exp ession. E hically speaking, I el i would e en be mo e e hical o engage he pa icipan s—young child en—in
K. Inha Resea ch Me hods in Applied Linguis ics 4 (2025) 100173
5
ac i i ies ha we e mo e child-o ien ed and in ac i i ies whe e hey could e lec on ma e s wi h hei pee s and no be pu ‘on he
spo ’by he (s ange) adul esea che s (see Mayall 2008). In addi ion o choosing child- ocused me hods, I pilo ed each da a gen-
e a ion me hod wi h wo child en o he same age g oup as he pa icipan s o e ise he ins uc ions and con en acco ding o he
child en’s eedback. I asked he child en whe he hey unde s ood he asks and whe he hey enjoyed hem, because I deemed i an
impo an cha ac e is ic o my me hods.
4. Eme ging e hical ensions
In his sec ion, I will desc ibe e hical ensions ha eme ged in my p ojec and he esul ing sel - e lec ion o powe , ela ionships,
and oles. I make use o exce p s om g oup discussion as well as no es and obse a ions I ha e made du ing he p ojec . This sec ion
does no aim o be an exhaus i e lis o ho ough analysis o all e hical issues ha eme ged, bu ins ead o p o ide an accoun o selec
inciden s (1) I iden i ied when going h ough he ansc ip s om all da a gene a ions, (2) ha I had no ed down du ing he p ojec and
el uneasy abou , (3) as well as changes ha I iden i ied o be successes.
4.1. P io : ( he limi s o ) appo building
I s a ed designing my esea ch plan om he e y i s s age o in oducing mysel and my p ojec o he child en. In a simila
p e ious p ojec , ou p ojec eam had con ac ed child en and pa en s by sending ou a esea ch no i ica ion slip wi h he help o he
eache s o else by aking he slips o he child en alongside a b ie spoken desc ip ion o wha he p ojec would comp ise. As I isi ed
he class ooms in he p e ious s udy, I no iced ha a ound only a hi d o he child en in he class would pa icipa e in he s udy. As my
aim was o ec ui as many pa icipan s as possible, I el unce ain as o whe he all he child en, including hose ha chose o op ou
o pa icipa ing, unde s ood wha hey we e gi en he oppo uni y o pa icipa e in. Based on hese expe iences, I el I needed o
app oach he child en di e en ly and wo k on appo building al eady be o e in oducing my esea ch. Tha is, my main conce n in
his p ojec was ensu ing ha he child en unde s ood wha hey could o would be pa icipa ing in, because in my iew, pa icipa ion
was an oppo uni y. Fu he mo e, I wan ed o ensu e ha my way o in e ac ing wi h he child en el sa e o hem and helped build a
ela ionship o us wi h hem. I el i impo an o do my bi o make e e yone eel seen, hea d, and ea ed as indi iduals wi h
expe ise in hei own li es.
I began by isi ing he school and in oducing mysel o he child en. The idea was o build ini ial appo wi h hem. Du ing my
isi , I o ganized a language explo a ion session (du a ion a ound 15 min) wi h he whole class, du ing which we would discuss wha
languages he child en could speak o had knowledge o , whe e hey had lea ned hose languages, and whe e hey encoun e ed En-
glish. The idea was o app oach he child en in such a way ha hey could eely sha e hei knowledge and expe iences, wi h no ‘adul ’
judgmen o ‘w ong answe s’. I hoped hey would ega d me as a sa e adul ha encou ages hem o alk abou language, wi h no
p ede e mined concep ualiza ion o wha language is. The child en would ecoun a ious languages, such as o eign languages (some
associa ed wi h names o coun ies), as well as languages such as ‘dog’, ‘ca ’, and made-up languages. The child en men ioned ha ing
encoun e ed English in, o example, games and songs.
I hen isi ed he school a second ime o discuss wi h he child en wha esea ch is, wha a esea che does, and he p ojec I was
asking hem o emba k on. I pu e o in o e balizing all he s eps in he p ojec , o example, wha a ‘g oup discussion’is, how he
indings would be used, and why he child en we e he expe s o be hea d and expe s o knowledge I did no ha e. The child en could
ask any ques ions hey migh ha e had. I ga e hem esea ch no i ica ion slips w i en in plain Finnish I had p epa ed in ad ance. I
encou aged hem o go h ough he slip oge he wi h hei gua dians and o ca e ully conside pa icipa ing. I also ied o make su e
hey unde s ood hey could a any ime decide o wi hd aw om he p ojec and ha no one would ha e o pa icipa e. I s essed ha
e e y hing hey old me would be kep con iden ial. As ega ds in o ming he gua dians, I pu e o in o compiling a clea and concise
esea ch no i ica ion slip wi h con ac de ails and encou agemen o ask o mo e in o ma ion i needed.
A e hese isi s, I el I had o some ex en connec ed wi h he child en. I had also pu some e o in o he way I d essed and
po ayed mysel as an a emp o educe he dis ance and powe di e ence I (pe haps w ongly) assumed o be be ween mysel and he
child en, e lec ing o an ex en Mandell’s (1991) idea o he ‘leas adul ole’. Fo example, I wo e clo hing and jewel y wi h animals
and i id colo s. The child en clea ly esponded o his by commen ing on my appea ance, and some ga e me d awings as I was
lea ing. Fo example, one child ga e me a d awing co e ed wi h hea s and he ex “Oo ki a”, meaning “I like you”.
I also hough I had qui e ex ensi ely add essed he issue o in o med consen wi h he child en and ha he only s eps le we e o
make su e he pa en s ecei ed he esea ch no i ica ion slips. As I was walking ou o he class oom, one o he child en s opped me a
hei side o indica e ha hey s ill had a ques ion hey wan ed o ask in p i a e. I c ouched down so hey could whispe i in my ea and
was a he shocked o hea he ques ion “Does i cos o pa icipa e in he p ojec ?”. The ques ion h ew me, as Finnish school-based
esea ch p ojec s do no equi e a pa icipa ion ee. While I had hough we had co e ed all possible ques ions du ing he discussions, I
ealized ha wha I had el was a sa e, open discussion, was no he case o all in ol ed, and ha I had app oached he si ua ion wi h
dis ega d o how child en ega d any school-based p ojec —aspec s ha migh s op hem om e en handing ou he no i ica ion slip o
hei pa en s, i hey did no wan o bu den hem wi h ye ano he hing o pay o . I el discom o due o my appa en inabili y o
p epa e o he si ua ion and my lacking unde s anding o he social ac o s a hand. The ques ion also le me wonde ing abou o he
K. Inha Resea ch Me hods in Applied Linguis ics 4 (2025) 100173
6
ques ions ha had been le unasked and whe he my app oach should ha e been comple ely di e en o allow o mo e a ied
ques ions. I el ha I, as he esea che , had been in a posi ion o design his in oduc o y phase o p omo e a sa e and pa icipa o y
a mosphe e. Ins ead, I was bo h e y much in con ol o he si ua ion (and no he child en) and had ailed o conside possible di-
mensions o discom o he child en migh eel.
In e ms o in o med consen , he mos p ominen ques ions in my s udy ela ed o whe he child en unde s ood wha hey we e
gi ing hei consen o and whe he I managed o appeal o and mo i a e all child en. I would a emp o assess he lea ne s’will-
ingness o pa icipa e also jus be o e and du ing da a gene a ion, applying he idea o consen as ongoing dialogue and enego iable
(Bu le , 2021;Kuchah &Pin e , 2021). I would ask he child en whe he hey would like o pa icipa e in he da a gene a ion, and i
hey seemed a all uncom o able, I would ecoun ha i was no obliga o y and ha hey could op ou i hey wan ed. E en so, I el
he e we e child en who emained somewha e asi e, bu as I did no wan o discou age hem om pa icipa ing bu o ocus on
emphasizing ha e e yone was welcome o join, I el i was di icul o balance be ween emphasizing op ing in and ou . As he p ojec
was al eady ongoing, in e ospec I wonde whe he he p essu e o gene a e da a migh ha e a ec ed my de e mina ion o con i m
e e yone’s assen , as opposed o looking o clea signs o dissen , especially wi h hose child en ha may no ha e el sa e in e using
o pa icipa e (see Pin e 2022). To conclude, while I a emp ed o ollow he heo e ical unde pinnings I had se o my s udy, no ably
e hical p axis, I no iced ha my p epa a ions, buil on he basis o uni e si y guidelines and p io li e a u e, had le me wi h sub-
s an ial gaps in knowledge as ega ds he mic oe hics o wha happens p io o da a gene a ion— appo building, gaining consen ,
and inc easing child en’s pa icipa ion om he onse o he p ojec —especially as hey po en ially con lic ed wi h ma e s such as
ime cons ain s and esea ch aims.
4.2. Du ing: choice o me hods and my own ole
Fo my i s da a gene a ion wi h i s g ade s, I decided o use g oup discussions. I also inco po a ed an ac i i y ca d ask, whe e
he child en would place ca ds in o o de by p e e ence. The ca ds ep esen ed di e en class ac i i ies, such as ‘singing’o ‘games’, as
well as a ‘mys e y ca d’, o which he child en could decide an ac i i y o hei choice (such as Minec a , as one g oup sugges ed)
(Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. The ac i i y ca ds used in he g oup discussions held wi h he i s -g ade s.
K. Inha Resea ch Me hods in Applied Linguis ics 4 (2025) 100173
7
Howe e , I became achingly awa e o how while my choice o me hod led o some child en being e y ocal, o he s emained
a he quie . In he ollowing yea s, I decided o inco po a e isual me hods in my da a gene a ion o allow o mo e a ied ools o
exp ession. To exempli y his, I e e o wo pa icipan s, L56 and L36.
Sa e o he g oup discussion held a e pho o-elici a ion in g ade wo, L56 pa icipa ed in all h ee sessions o da a gene a ion. In
he discussions held in g ades 1 and 3, L56 was quie du ing he g oup discussions. The same goes o ano he child, L36, who was also
quie in he discussions, e en hough hey seemed happy o pa icipa e. Bo h pa icipan s would eply o ques ions posed di ec ly o
hem mos ly wi h one-wo d eplies. While I a emp ed o gi e he child en space o op ou , hey would say hey we e willing and ook
pa in he discussions.
While hese wo child en we e quie in he g oup discussions, hey we e a he ac i e in aking snapsho s ou side school as pa o
da a gene a ion in second g ade. While he child en sen on a e age 4 snapsho s, L36 was especially ac i e in his ac i i y: hey sen 9
snapsho s and one ideo. L56 sen ou snapsho s and would u he ma k he snapsho s by using he pho o edi o and include emojis.
Tha is, he non-commi al beha io hey exp essed du ing he g oup discussions did no su ace in his ac i i y, bu ins ead he ac i i y
empowe ed hem o exp ess hemsel es by using mo e a ied me hods o exp ession. O he pa icipan s also showed exci emen when
hey hea d o he ask, and one pa en ga e eedback ha hei child was pa icula ly exci ed o documen English ou side school.
Choosing me hods no only ela es o whe he pa icipan s ha e he ools o exp ess hemsel es, bu also o whe he hey eel
com o able pa icipa ing. As shown by he li e a u e e iew, he simple choice o use pa icipa o y me hods does no su ice o mee
e hical s anda ds. Si ua ed e hics is needed o a end o he emo ional s a e o he pa icipan s. The ollowing exce p om a g oup
discussion held wi h i s g ade s exempli ies wha I in e p e o be anxious beha io ( om L55) ha I did no no ice du ing da a
gene a ion. The g oup in ques ion was qui e ene ge ic and would o en dig ess comple ely om he discussion a hand. Tha is, he
child en’s beha io was a he unp edic able and diso de ly. While I wan ed o allow he child en o discuss opics hey we e in e -
es ed in, I s ill el I needed o keep o gi en opics a leas o some ex en due o my esea ch objec i es. In he case o one pa icipan ,
L55, I ound i di icul o keep hei a en ion o he subjec a hand.
Exce p 1
L55: I can coun o a million…in Finnish
R: Okay good. So how abou , so he English eache speaks o you in bo h English and Finnish?
L60: Yeah
L59: Yeah
R: Okay. Wha do hey say in English?
L55: One, wo, h ee, ou , i e, six, se en, eigh , nine, en…[coun s in English]
R: Wha kind o , I hink a leas when he lesson begins hey g ee you…
L60: … ou , i e, six, se en, eigh , nine, en
R: Okay, wha do hey in say in English in class?
L59: G ee ing and he like
[L55 keeps coun ing ou loud om 1 o 10 in English o some ime]
In he exce p , L55 e ains om he discussion and ins ead con inues o lis numbe s om 1 o 10. A such in e als, I hough he
bes solu ion would be o edi ec he con e sa ion. Finally, as he g oup became inc easingly owdy—mos likely disin e es ed—I
decided o end he discussion. I el discom o because I el he da a gene a ion had dig essed g ea ly and because I el unce ain o
my conduc in he si ua ion, which in e ospec migh ha e again been a ec ed by a eeling o p essu e o ‘succeed’and o gene a e
da a. Fu he mo e, i was clea he child en we e holding mo e powe o e da a gene a ion hen, which I had aimed o despi e my
eelings o anxie y. Mo eo e , while a he ime I pu my ene gy in o guiding he discussion so ha all child en we e encou aged o
pa icipa e equally, la e as I ansc ibed he discussion he e en el e y di e en . Ins ead o he ’ ague hassle’i had el a he ime,
i el mo e as i L55 was showing a eac ion esul ing om discom o , some hing I had no picked up on a he ime o he g oup
discussion. L55’s eac ion eminded me o a coping me hod: concen a ing on and epea ing some hing speci ic o igno e he su -
oundings and g owing anxie y.
Con e sely, nex yea L55 was once again willing o pa icipa e in he p ojec (pho o-elici a ion and g oup discussions). A e a
week o aking snapsho s, we would again ha e g oup discussions. In he second yea , howe e , L55 engaged in he discussion in a e y
di e en manne — hey we e mo e esponsi e and en husias ic abou desc ibing hei own snapsho . I in e p e ed ha L55 was much
mo e engaged because o he ac i i y. Taking he opics o discussion on a mo e conc e e and pe sonal le el seemed o ende i mo e
meaning ul, a icula ing he ine shades o wha i means o some hing o be angible enough o make he discussion engaging. These
examples led me o e lec on how young child en exp ess assen o dissen . When child en beha e e asi ely, he esea che should
s i e o asce ain whe he he child is s ill willing o pa icipa e. The challenge o he esea che s is o balance be ween encou aging
pa icipa ion and p essu ing in o in olun a y pa icipa ion, as encou agemen migh be el as p essu e due o powe ela ions.
Mo eo e , when e lec ing on-going, as -paced in e ac ion, how easible is i o a esea che o su ey and in e p e he emo ional
engagemen o he pa icipan s, especially i hey a e nea s ange s o he esea che ?
Las ly, especially he g oup discussions led me o e lec on my own ole in he discussions (James, 2007), and especially, whe he
my ole as he esea che is some hing ha I claim, ha he pa icipan s assign o me, o whe he i is join ly nego ia ed by all o us
in ol ed. Vice- e sa, wha was he pa icipan s’ ole? When I o iginally planned my i s da a gene a ion, I had hough o mysel as
he ‘objec i e bys ande ’, who would p omp discussion by guiding child en o e lec on gi en poin s o discussion. My ole would
hen esemble ha o he dis an esea che , an ou side asking ques ions who a oids ha ing any impac on wha he lea ne s migh
K. Inha Resea ch Me hods in Applied Linguis ics 4 (2025) 100173
8
