Are MethodologiesforChildren keepingthemin their Place?

Abstract As participatory methodologies gain popularity and are increasingly adapted to carry out research with ‘children’, I return to the methodological question: is doing research with children different from doing research with adults? (Punch, 2000 Punch, S. 2000. Research with children the same or different from research with adults?. Childhood, 9(3): 321–341. Web of Science ® , Google Scholar). As a participatory researcher, I raise concerns around methods designed for ‘children’ that stamp a ‘how-to-research’ label upon a diverse group of individuals prior to entering the research space. Rather than continue the well-worn debate around the incompetent/competent/powerless child versus the competent all-powerful adult, I attempt a different approach that aims to dissolve this dichotomy. I draw on hybrid theories of identities (Benhabib, 1992 Benhabib, S. 1992. Situating the Self, New York: Routledge. Google Scholar; Butler, 1990 Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, London: Routledge. Google Scholar; Adams, 2006 Adams, M. 2006. Hybridising habitus and reflexivity: towards an understanding of contemporary identity?. Sociology, 40(3): 511–528. Crossref , Google Scholar), that recognise identities as multiple and fluid, and present social identities as unhelpful guides in designing participatory methods, principally the mythical notion of the competent all-powerful adult (Lee, 2001 Lee, N. 2001. Childhood and Society: Growing Up in an Age of Uncertainty, Milton Keynes: OUP. Google Scholar). I present the case that pre-labelling participants contradicts the bottom-up approach of participatory methodologies, particularly when Participation is understood as spatial practice (Kesby, 1999 Kesby, M. 1999. Beyond the Representational Impasse? Retheorising Power, Empowerment and Spatiality, mimeo Google Scholar; Cornwall, 2000), and participants are invited into a research space, where identities are performed (Thrift, 2000) and are, therefore, something we ‘do’ not ‘have’ (Butler, 1990 Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, London: Routledge. Google Scholar).