European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

ISSN: 1350-293X (Print) 1752-1807 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recr20

Young children are researchers: Children aged

four to eight years engage in important research
behaviour when they base decisions on evidence

Jane Murray

To cite this article: Jane Murray (2016) Young children are researchers: Children aged
four to eight years engage in important research behaviour when they base decisions
on evidence, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24:5, 705-720, DOI:
10.1080/1350293X.2016.1213565

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2016.1213565

Published online: 02 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 32

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=recr20

Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 13 September 2016, At: 17:55
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 2016
Vol. 24, No. 5, 705–720, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2016.1213565

Young children are researchers: Children aged four to eight years

engage in important research behaviour when they base decisions
on evidence
Jane Murray*

Centre for Education and Research, University of Northampton, Northampton, UK

Whilst young children are affected by educational policy decisions based on

research evidence, their abilities to make decisions based on evidence are often
disregarded by policymakers and professional adult researchers. This article
reports on elements of the Young Children As Researchers (YCAR) project, an
interpretive empirical study that sought social justice in the field of early
childhood by conceptualising ways in which young children aged four to eight
years are researchers and may be considered to be researchers. Adopting a
principled approach framed by a ‘jigsaw’ methodology, the YCAR study
engaged professional adult researchers (n = 34), young children aged four to
eight years (n = 138) and their practitioners (n= 15) in three English primary
schools. Drawing on the study findings, this aticle argues that decision-making
based on evidence is an important research behaviour undertaken by young
children that deserves recognition by policymakers, practitioners and the
academy as a potential vehicle for realising children’s participation rights.
Keywords: Young Children As Researchers; decision-making based on evidence;
young children’s participation rights; early childhood; epistemology; jigsaw
methodology

Introduction
Research evidence can be a powerful tool that often informs educational policymaking
(Bridges, Smeyers, and Smith 2008). Yet whilst children may be affected by edu-
cational policy decisions based on research evidence, they tend to be excluded from
educational policy-making and the ‘rarefied world’ of the academy: a hegemonic
‘score-keeping world’ where professional adult researchers separate themselves from
others (Bridges 1998; Lees 1999, 382; Redmond 2008, 17). Embedded in the right
of the:

… child who is capable of forming his or her own views … to express those views freely
in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accord-
ance with the age and maturity of the child. (OHCHR 1989)

is the view of children as ‘evolving’ (Lansdown 2005), so that the younger children are,
the less they tend to be regarded as capable of forming and expressing their own views.
However, as a teacher in English early childhood settings, every day I found young

*Email: jane.murray@northampton.ac.uk

© 2016 EECERA
706 J. Murray

children intuitively forming and expressing their own views in many different ways
(Gallas 1994), alongside acquiring information, planning, questioning, analysing, inter-
preting, solving problems, exploring and reporting new ideas and artefacts that they
created quite naturally, often in self-directed experiences. Moreover, children used
these behaviours as bases of evidence for forming their own views that underpinned
their own decision-making, leading to what they came to know and understand
(Feder 1996; Schmitt 2004). In other words, those young children naturally and volun-
tarily seemed to base decisions on evidence as a rational underpinning for forming epis-
temology – philosophies concerning what they counted as truth and knowledge (Strega
2005, 201).
Anecdotally, the children’s behaviours seemed similar to those of professional adult
researchers whose work informs policy. However, whilst there is limited recognition of
children as ‘experts in their own lives’ (Langsted 1994, 29) and practitioners and chil-
dren often recognise children’s behaviours as important and meaningful in settings
(Löfdahl and Hägglund 2006; Dunphy and Farrell 2011), such behaviours tend to be
side-lined by policymakers and professional adult researchers who prefer to impose
their agenda on matters affecting children, for example, as statutory centralised curri-
cula or research positioning children as data (Fielding 2001). Appadurai (2006) notes
that research is a ‘right of a special kind’ that it is not yet universally accessible
(167); equally, among powerful people making decisions for children, an assumption
appears to prevail that young children are not ‘social actors from the beginning of
life’ – a rights issue that the United Nations has begun to address (OHCHR 2005, 2).
These discontinuities became drivers for the Young Children As Researchers
(YCAR) study (Murray 2012a), an interpretive empirical study that sought social
justice in the field of early childhood by conceptualising ways in which young children
aged four to eight years are researchers and may be considered researchers. In YCAR,
professional adult researchers identified four research behaviours as ‘most important’
for professional research: exploration, finding solutions, conceptualisation and basing
decisions on evidence. This article provides a brief overview of the full YCAR
Study with focus on one of those research behaviours – basing decisions on evidence;
discussion about other YCAR research behaviours can be found elsewhere, framed by
consideration of the YCAR study’s methodology (Murray 2012a; 2012b; 2013; 2014;
2015a; 2015b). The present article draws on the YCAR study to argue that young chil-
dren engage in important research behaviour when they base decisions on evidence and
that this deserves recognition by policymakers, practitioners and the academy. To
develop this argument, two aspects of young children’s decision-making emerging
from YCAR are discussed: (1) decision-making based on evidence as a research behav-
iour undertaken by young children; and (2) young children’s decision-making as a
vehicle for their participation.
The article opens by defining the nature and importance of basing decisions on evi-
dence before considering literature surrounding children’s agency and decision-
making. Discussion then focuses on YCAR findings, especially those concerning
young children aged four to eight years basing decisions on evidence, before the argu-
ment is concluded.

The nature and importance of basing decisions on evidence

The importance of evidence as a basis for decision-making is recognised by researchers
across disciplines (Hansson 2005). Researchers’ uses of evidence combined with
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 707

reasoning as underpinning for judgement emerged strongly during the Enlightenment

when purely metaphysical accounts as the basis for truth began to be rejected in
favour of an empiricist view that reasoning should be based on ‘matter of fact and exist-
ence’ (Hume 1748, 123). In contemporary educational research, decision-making is
often correlated with policy, research and evidence (Biesta 2007).
Nevertheless, what counts as ‘evidence’ seems variable (Bridges et al. 2008). Our
senses supply information to warrant premises and conclusions which underpin claims
to knowledge: a posteriori reasoning (Bonjour 1998), whereas a priori – pure – reason-
ing is not informed by senses (Scruton 2001). Bridges (2003) suggests that either may
be warranted within educational contexts, but in recent years, policymakers seeking
‘what works’ have privileged educational research based on a posteriori reasoning dis-
playing ‘hard’ evidence (Biesta 2007; Goldacre 2013).
Equally, decision-making is defined as ‘acts or options among which one must
choose; the possible outcomes or consequences of these acts and the contingencies
or conditional probabilities that relate outcomes to acts’ (Tversky and Kahneman
1981, 453). ‘Decision theory’ is the interdisciplinary study of how decisions are
made (Kahneman and Tversky 1979). Whilst regarded as a socially situated activity
(Eisele 2003) decision-making is also seen as an internal reasoning process (Anand
1993; Johnson-Laird and Shafir 1993).
It may be argued, then, that the process of basing decisions on evidence is the use of
sensory information combined with reasoning, to identify a rationale for choice.
Decision-makers engage in the ‘art of the utilisation of knowledge’, identified as a
key aim for education (Whitehead 1929, 16). Behaviour observed in infants and
young children indicates functionings that enable rational decision-making (Anand
1993). Fantz (1965) found that infants show preference for one pattern over another
when presented with two images; Bruner, Olver, and Greenfield (1967) posit that in
doing so, babies discriminate between patterns, so adopt criteria as evidence for
making decisions. Furthermore, Levin and Hart (2003) found that children of four
years revealed understanding that decisions they made may be advantageous or
disadvantageous.

Children’s agency and decision-making

When children make decisions based on rational thought and sensory evidence, it can
be argued that they reveal competence ‘in the creation of themselves and their knowl-
edge’ (Dahlberg and Lenz Taguchi 1994, 2). When children make decisions based on
evidence they use knowledge they have acquired, reveal what they ‘value doing or
being’ and demonstrate capabilities (Sen 1999, 75; Nussbaum 2000).
Benefits flowing from children’s participation in decision-making about their edu-
cation include agency (Davies et al. 2006), social inclusion (Woodhead and Brooker
2008), shared pedagogical dialogue, care ethics, enhanced learning, self-esteem, auton-
omy and learner motivation (Rudduck and McIntyre 2007; Cox et al. 2010). Children’s
engagements in collective decision-making are valuable for them as learners, their tea-
chers, schools and wider communities (Davies et al. 2006); equally, skilled, principled
educators can support children in making genuinely meaningful decisions (Rudduck
and McIntyre 2007).
Lansdown (2010) recognises that children’s views deserve ‘serious consideration’
in community decision-making (12); many children want to make decisions
(Morrow 2008), yet the diverse nature of their participation and decision-making
708 J. Murray

sometimes confuses adults (Foley 2011). Adult discourse tends to focus on ‘adult-
initiated processes’ (Lansdown 2010, 26): adults’ taxonomies of children’s partici-
pation simultaneously highlight ways children are denied agency (Ackermann et al.
2003) and when adults deny children opportunities to make decisions in matters affect-
ing them they subjugate them (Levinas 1980).
Reasons adults give for denying children opportunities to make decisions about
their education include perceived immaturity, teachers’ professional protectionism,
hierarchical structures and scholarisation (Rudduck and McIntyre 2007; Whitty and
Wisby 2007; Shevlin and Rose 2008; Alexander 2010). Whilst school may be a ‘ …
crucial arena of a child’s life’, it remains the ‘ … domain of adult decision-making’
(Jones and Welch 2010, 25) where children are silenced (Cannella 2002). In
England, the ‘ … pernicious paradigm of school effectiveness’ militates against chil-
dren’s decision-making and participation (Fielding 2001, 134; Cox et al. 2010).
England seems characterised as a country where children’s perspectives are sidelined,
where education is valued in terms of economic return and where children’s rights
legislation is poorly implemented (Morrow 2008; Chowdry and Sibieta 2011;
UNICEF IRC 2012). This may be the case especially for younger children operating
in modes that adults struggle to recognise (Lansdown 2010). Nevertheless, the Norwe-
gian government has legislated for adults working with young children to ‘ … respect
[children’s] intentions and realms of experience’ (Norwegian Ministry of Education
and Research 2006).
The YCAR study revealed decision-making based on evidence as a research behav-
iour presenting in children aged four to eight years in their homes and in English
primary school contexts. This article focuses particularly on the latter.

The Young Children As Researchers (YCAR) study

Research with children requires particular ethical consideration (Fossheim 2013;
EECERA 2014). In form and function YCAR was underpinned by BERA’s revised
ethical guidelines (2004, 2011): given YCAR explored young children researching
in their everyday lives, its methodology encouraged young children and their prac-
titioners and parents to collaborate actively in democratic research. Additionally,
YCAR was framed by a value orientation committed to social justice, therefore,
although ethical challenges presented in securing equalised power relationships,
access, consent and data collection (Murray 2011) these were mitigated by the
study’s value orientation, shaped by three principles. An emancipatory principle
pursued equalised relationships (Habermas 1987) through ‘collectivity, reciprocity
and respect’ (Kovach 2005, 28), a participatory principle committed to ‘shared owner-
ship … and community action’ (Kemmis and McTaggart 2005, 560), whilst an induc-
tive principle elicited analysis from empirical data co-constructed with participants
(Charmaz 2006). These three principles combined with four methodologies to create
a syncretic ‘jigsaw’ methodology (Figure 1).
Constructivist grounded theory (CGT) underpinned YCAR throughout as it
accommodated the three principles, allowing collaborative constructions of data
that valued ‘participants’ implicit meanings and experiential views’ and the
assumption that all involved were ‘part of the world’ we studied (Charmaz 2006,
10). The full jigsaw methodology emerged as YCAR unfolded in response to par-
ticipants’ perspectives. Nevertheless, as CGT is a set of ‘principles and practices’,
ethnography is commonly adopted alongside to provide an organisational
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 709

Figure 1. Jigsaw methodology.

framework; YCAR’s social justice orientation indicated critical ethnography (CE)

(Carspecken 1996). Reflexivity with participants is common to both CGT and CE
and to the mosaic approach (MA) (Clark and Moss 2011), which supported colla-
borative constructions and interpretations of data. ‘Descriptive case study’ (Yin
2012) facilitated co-ordination of YCAR across multiple sites, whilst retaining
individual characteristics of each.
YCAR comprised three stages of data co-construction (Table 1).
Initially in Stage 1 the views of 14 professional early years and educational
researchers (PEYERs) regarding a definition of research were captured in interviews
and a focus group. The PEYERS were selected because their prior behaviours as
researchers privileged them as ‘academy’ members (Bridges 1998, 603). It was
reasoned that if young children’s activity could be identified as congruent with a defi-
nition of research made by academy members, the academy might reconsider young
children as researchers. However, rather than a single definition, a taxonomy of 39
research behaviours emerged from this process (Table 2).

Table 1. Three stages of data co-construction.

Stage 1: Professional Early Years and Educational Researchers (PEYERs) (n = 34);
Stage 2: Children (n = 138) and practitioners (n = 15) in early childhood settings;
Stage 3: Children and families at home (n = 5).
710 J. Murray

Table 2. Research behaviours framework (RBF).

1. Seek a solution 21. Investigate
2–7 Explore 2. Want to explore 22. Enquire
3. Explore with an aim 23. Test and check
4. Explore without an aim 24. Are systematic
5. Explore with an aim which changes 25. Are objective
during the process
6. Explore with a fine focus 26. Base decisions on evidence
7. Explore broadly 27. Use processes that are fit for
purpose
8. Find out why things happen 28. Can replicate process
9. Find out how things happen 29. Can replicate output
10. Examine problems 30. Use and apply findings in new
contexts
11. Increase understanding of the world through 31. Believe what they are doing is
exploration good
12. Increase knowledge 32. Are focused on their chosen
activity
13. Find a solution 33. Reflect on process
14. Go beyond instinct 34. Reflect on results
15. Gather data 35. Do no harm
16. Build on others’ work 36. Participate with others
17. Take account of context 37. Can communicate what they are
attempting to do
18. Plan 38. Can communicate what they have
achieved
19. Conceptualise 39. Make links
20. Question

PEYERs also indicated that Stage 2 should include young children and their prac-
titioners and Stage 3 should include young children and their parents. This article
focuses predominantly on Stage 2.
For both Stages 2 and 3, multiple case studies were co-constructed; for Stage 2, they
were co-constructed with children and practitioners in early childhood settings within
three state maintained primary schools serving predominantly A/B occupation group-
ings in an English midlands town (Market Research Society 2006) (Table 3).
Each case study was undertaken over six half-days and three full days and 138 chil-
dren and their 15 practitioners participated. Multi-modal methods focused on children’s
naturalistic behaviour enabled participants own data offerings to be included (Pelle-
grini, Symons, and Hoch 2004; Clark and Moss 2011) (Table 4). To represent partici-
pants’ subjective realities in the rich detail required to secure trustworthy output, Stage

Table 3. Stage 2 participants.

Ash Setting Seven- to eight-year-old boys and girls Pedagogic approach: formal
(n = 32) and their practitioners (n = 2) (Alexander, Rose, and
Woodhead 1992)
Beech Setting Four- to five-year old boys and girls (n = 46) Pedagogic approach: play-based
in an ECEC unit and their practitioners open framework (Halliwell
(n = 7) 1977).
Cherry Setting Four- to five-year old boys and girls (n = 60)
in an ECEC unit and their practitioners
(n = 6)
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 711

Table 4. Stage 2 multi-modal methods.

Stage 2 multi-modal methods
Naturalistic Observations
Documents
Video recordings
Field notes Interview Conversations
Focus groups Informal discussions
Children’s artefacts Photographs
Audio recordings Research Behaviour Framework
(RBF) analysis sheets

2 analysis and interpretation were undertaken by participating children, practitioners

and professional researchers, including myself, in an evolving, co-constructed, recur-
sive process guided principally by CGT procedures, so that analysis and interpretation
were interwoven with data collection (Charmaz 2006); alongside, analytical procedures
inherent in CE, MA and case study complemented CGT within the jigsaw method-
ology, further securing trustworthiness of findings (Table 5).
As the project unfolded, the volume of data grew quickly, making it necessary to
limit the range of research behaviours for full analysis. Therefore, in a nominal group-
ing exercise (Delbecq and VandeVen 1971), Stage 1 participants, alongside twenty
additional PEYERs (n = 34), were invited to rank research behaviours in the Research
Behaviour Framework (RBF) according to perceived importance for professional
research. Four research behaviours emerged: exploration, finding solutions, conceptu-
alisation and basing decisions on evidence so YCAR focused on these behaviours.
Cross-cutting the four YCAR research behaviours that were identified in participat-
ing children’s naturalistic activity, theoretical coding elicited 80 categories which were
factors that effected and affected the children’s research behaviours. These factors
seemed to act as ‘building blocks’ that children naturally adopted for constructing evi-
dence as their basis of justification for coming to know and understand (Feder 1996;
Schmitt 2004); they were, in other words, epistemological factors. The 80 epistemo-
logical factors were grouped into a typology of nine sets: applications of prior experi-
ence, innovation, social domains, autonomy, material contexts, cognitive domains,
dispositions and outliers; categories in the final factor – methodological issues –
arose from children’s interactions with YCAR (Table 6). Of the 80 building blocks,
14 were concerned with ‘basing decisions on evidence’ (Table 7).
The final analysis and interpretation task in the YCAR study was writing the draft
(Charmaz 2006). Across the four ‘most important’ research behaviours, each epistemo-
logical factor was deconstructed, evaluated and synthesised with extant literature. A
series of vignettes emerged, depicting participating children’s naturalistic activities
alongside what and how they came to know and understand through each epistemologi-
cal factor. This procedure exposed sophisticated processes adopted by the children
during their everyday activities, to reveal congruence with the research behaviours
academy members deemed ‘most important’.

Data presentation and discussion: children aged four to eight years based their
decisions on evidence
From 162 observations captured in the children’s settings and homes, 181 incidences of
children basing decisions on evidence were drawn from 129 observations in settings;
each incidence was developed into a vignette. Here, three vignettes are outlined, exem-
plifying this process and revealing three young children basing decisions on evidence in
their settings.
 712
J. Murray
Table 5. The recursive process of analysis and interpretation.
Transcribe data and apply numerical codes …
Constructivist Grounded Theory Critical Ethnography Analysis Mosaic Approach Case Study
Analysis and Interpretation Methods and Interpretation Methods (Clark and Moss (Yin 2012)
(Charmaz 2006) Carspecken (1996) Thomas (1993) 2011)
Constant Early Memo-writing Preliminary reconstructive analysis Repeated Child conferencing / Analytic
comparison Initial Coding Reconstructive analysis Dialogic data thinking listening statements
generation
Focused Coding Dialogic data generation Listening
Categories Discovering system relations
Axial coding Discovering system relations
Advanced Memo- Reconstructive analysis
writing
Theoretical coding Discovering system relations
Using system relations to explain
findings
Table 6. ‘Building blocks’: epistemological factors in young children’s everyday behaviours.

KEY: Explore: E Find a solution: FaS Conceptualise: C Base PROVOCATIONS BARRIERS in Resulting from
Decisions on italics YCAR research
Evidence:
BDoE

BDoE4. Acts on
adult opinion
BDoE2. Values peer

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

perspectives
BDoE10. C24. Adult stops
Extrapolates conceptualisation
BDoE6. Applies C22. Following
mental model adult’s direction
BDoE1. Applies C16. Works with BDoE13. Applies
prior others to develop Humean ‘reason’
experience conceptualisation
C21. Recalling FaS 32. Theory of BDoE8. Thinks
instructions mind strategically
C10. Linking prior FaS 30. Employs BDoE7. Trial and FaS 28. Excited
knowledge to others to help error by finding
new application with finding a solution
solution
C7. Synthesising FaS 26. Shares BDoE5. Meta- FaS 27.
concepts solution cognition Motivated by
finding
solution
C4. Thinking C19. Identifies FaS 25. Resolves BDoE9. Enacts C17. Making links – FaS 18.
tangentially anomaly another person’s personal ANALOGY Perseveres to
problem preference resolve
problem
C3. Thinking C11. Creating FaS 11. Solution not C23. Makes BDoE3. C15. Planning FaS 8.Believes s/
through a an shared with or decisions based Senses he has failed
problem by imagined witnessed by on own criteria provide
applying space / others evidence
concepts persona for action

713
 714
J. Murray
FaS 31. Able C8. FaS 10. Solution not C18. Autonomously C2. Creates a C14. Engaged in FaS 3.
reader Developing shared with or deciding what new use symbolic Unmotivated
own idea[s] witnessed by needs to be done for object representation
from others: and doing it [s]
external unconfirmed
stimulus
FaS 29. Wants to C1. Invents a FaS 9. Denied C6. Creating a FaS 22. C13. Using language FaS 2. Has
preserve what process / opportunity to problem Inductive to support become
s/he is doing method share solution reasoning thinking process disinterested
FaS 24. Finds FaS 23. Finds FaS 6. Responding FaS 16. Focused on FaS 21. C12. Using FaS 1. Gives up
practical use for own to adult’s semi- something of Deductive imagination
solution solution open questions personal interest reasoning
FaS 20. Applying FaS 19. FaS 5. Responding FaS 15. Time and FaS 17. C9. Involved in E6. Seeking BDoE14.
rule to create Devises to adult’s closed freedom to Exploring pursuing a train of BDoE =
solution practical questions explore, properties thought Research
method to investigate,
create experiment with
solution something of
personal interest
FaS FaS 14. FaS 4. Following FaS 13. Self- E4. Shows C5. Predicts E5. Curious BDoE12. C20. Applies
7. Reproducing Creates a adult’s direction regulates interest in Sampling issue anthropomorphism
knowledge s/he problem to materials
already had solve
E10.Patterned E9. E2. Social encounter E7.Develops own E1. E8. Cause and effect E3. Focused on BDoE11. FaS 12.
behaviour Experiment agenda Interested task Methodological Solution
in context issue unconfirmed

Applications of Innovation Social domains Autonomy Material Cognitive domains Dispositions Methodological Outliers
prior contexts issues
experience
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
Table 7. Epistemological ‘building blocks’ presenting in young children basing decisions on evidence.
Meta-cognition
Applies prior experience Trial and error Methodological
issue
Applies mental model Values peer Thinks strategically Sampling issue
perspectives
Extrapolates Acts on adult opinion Enacts personal Senses provide evidence for Applies Humean BDoE = Research
preference action ‘reason’

Applications of prior Social domains Autonomy Material contexts Cognitive domains Methodological
experience issues
Note: Categories within Methodological issues arose from children’s interactions with the YCAR study.

715
716 J. Murray

Annie and the spider: social domains – values peers’ perspectives

Sometimes, when children appeared to value their peers’ perspectives, this correlated
with them basing decisions on evidence (Eisele 2003). For example, during a formal
art lesson in Ash Setting, children aged seven to eight years were tasked by their prac-
titioner to make an undersea picture. Later, Annie (girl, eight-years-old) saw eight of
her peers move one-by-one to look at something near the class bookcase. Annie left
her prescribed work and also moved to the bookcase; her peers had found a spider
behind it. Here, Annie developed her own philosophy of ‘what counts as knowledge
and truth’ (Strega 2005, 201); having observed her peers (Tversky and Kahneman
1981), Annie used information from her observation as a basis to decide to give
primacy to her peers’ perspectives rather than her practitioner’s plans (Löfdahl and Häg-
glund 2006).

Oscar and his friends: autonomy – enacts personal preferences

When they experienced autonomy (Deci and Ryan 1987), YCAR children often
enacted personal preferences that revealed them basing decisions on evidence.
During free-flow play in Cherry Setting’s undercover outdoor area, Oscar (boy, five-
years-old) held a toy elephant at one end of a plastic drainpipe and asked children at
the other end to see what was there. Subsequently, Oscar stood aside and watched
other children playing with tube, returning later to play himself with a toy zebra.
Oscar‘s preference for playing with his peers seemed guided by a cognitive need along-
side an socio-emotional need to engage with others (Johnson-Laird and Shafir 1993).
Equally, his play was ‘goal-directed behaviour in the presence of options’ (Deci and
Ryan 1987; Hansson 2005, 6): his decision to resume playing was predicated on his
observation of his peers and his consideration of that observation. This behaviour is
congruent with decision theory (Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky 1982; Eisele 2003).
Oscar was working on developing his own philosophy of ‘what counts as knowledge
and truth’ (Strega 2005, 201) when he enacted personal preferences to make decisions.

Gemma tidies up: cognitive domains – trial and error

Cognitive functionings that led children to base their decisions on evidence included
trial and error-elimination: the ‘tentative proposal of various possibilities and elimin-
ation of those which are not adequate’ (Popper 1972/1979, 242). One day in Beech
Setting, Gemma (girl, five-years-old) had offered to tidy the book box. She attempted
to slide a book in sideways; it would not slide in so Gemma tried another way round –
the book still would not go in so she tried another space. Gemma continued to try to fit
books into the book box; if a book did not fit she used that experience as a basis of evi-
dence for trying to fit the book into the box in a different way. She proposed ‘new
forms’ of arranging the books and ‘new hypotheses’ about how she might fit books
into the book box, moving onto the next ‘form’ and ‘hypothesis’ when she found
one that did not work, until she found one that did: error-elimination’ (Popper 1972/
1979, 242). It can be argued that Gemma’s behaviour was congruent with the schema:

P1 . TS . EE .P2
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 717

Where ‘P represents a problem, TS a trial solution applied to the problem, and EE

stands for error-elimination’ (Swann 2009, 260). Gemma decided new ways to tidy the
books based on outcomes that emerged from trialling and eliminating unsuccessful
methods (Tversky and Kahneman 1981). In this example of trial and error, Gemma
developed her own philosophy of ‘what counts as knowledge and truth’ (Strega
2005, 201) to construct new understanding.

Conclusion
This article has drawn on YCAR to argue that young children engage in important
research behaviour when they base decisions on evidence: this deserves recognition
by policymakers, practitioners and the academy. YCAR established that professional
researchers regard decision-making based on evidence as important research behaviour.
Young children participating in YCAR showed how they based decisions on evidence
quite naturally by combining sensory information with reasoning to identify a rationale
for choice. This behaviour indicates congruence with formal decision theory (Tversky
and Kahneman 1981). In these ways YCAR provides evidence that young children base
decisions on evidence and this is research behaviour.
Furthermore, when YCAR children engaged in making decisions based on evidence,
contemporaneously they often displayed their agency (Davies et al. 2006). This outcome
adds to literature documenting decision-making as a factor in children’s participation
rights (Rudduck and McIntyre 2007; Morrow 2008; Cox et al. 2010). Not only did
YCAR children act as researchers, basing decisions on evidence to construct and apply
understanding, but they also acted as co-researchers for the YCAR Study itself,
gathering, analysing and interpreting evidence. Thus it can be argued that children
aged four to eight years participating in the YCAR Study behaved as researchers, and
demonstrated sufficient ‘age and maturity’ to show themselves ‘capable of forming
their views’ in ‘matters affecting them’ (OHCHR 1989). Given that premise, it may be
argued further that YCAR provides a rationale for young children’s capability as research-
ers to be accorded ‘due weight’, particularly in regard to matters affecting young children.
The YCAR findings carry messages for the academy, for parents and for policy-
makers and practitioners working in the field of early childhood. Firstly, the YCAR
Research Behaviours Framework may have useful applications in many research con-
texts, whether or not children are involved. Moreover, there will be value in developing
further the research behaviours that it was not possible to develop fully within the scope
of YCAR. Secondly, although YCAR was conceived before EECERA’s recently pub-
lished Ethical Code (2014), its principled approach demonstrates an authentic way to
research democratically with young children in ways that align with the Code
(EECERA 2014). Thirdly, YCAR highlights young children’s natural behaviour and
shows how links to extant literature can reveal highly sophisticated processes underpin-
ning those behaviours. Young children can and do behave in ways that are congruent
with adult researchers’ behaviours; for future research, YCAR methodological prin-
ciples and approaches may prove helpful to academy members in understanding
other aspects of young children’s worlds. Equally, YCAR reveals key epistemological
factors that affect and effect young children’s high quality constructions of knowledge.
For practitioners supporting and assessing young children’s constructions of knowl-
edge, referencing the YCAR epistemological factors may be useful. Moreover, for
early childhood education policymakers, YCAR epistemological factors may prove
equally valuable in policy development concerning statutory curriculum and
718 J. Murray

assessment. Finally, by revealing the value of young children’s agency in their own
constructions of knowledge, the YCAR Study indicates to the academy, parents, prac-
titioners and policymakers the importance of respecting and affording that agency.
Such respect and affordance is a matter of social justice.

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Professor Richard Rose and Professor Philip Gammage for their support in the
preparation of this paper.

References
Ackermann, L., T. Feeny, J. Hart, and J. Newman. 2003. Understanding and Evaluating
Children’s Participation. London: Plan International.
Alexander, R. J. 2010. Children: Their World, their Education. London: Routledge.
Alexander, R. J., J. Rose, and C. Woodhead. 1992. Curriculum Organisation and Classroom
Practice in Primary Schools. London: DES.
Anand, P. 1993. “The Philosophy of Intransitive Preference.” The Economic Journal 103 (417):
337–346.
Appadurai, A. 2006. “The Right to Research.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 4 (2):
167–177.
Biesta, G. 2007. “Why ‘What Works’ won’t Work: Evidence-based Practice and the Democratic
Deficit in Educational Research.” Educational Theory 57 (1): 1–22.
Bonjour, L. 1998. In Defense of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bridges, D. 1998. “Research for Sale: Moral Market or Moral Maze?” British Educational
Research Journal 24 (5): 593–607.
Bridges, D. 2003. Fiction Written Under Oath? Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bridges, D., P. Smeyers, and R. Smith. 2008. “Educational Research and the Practical
Judgement of Policymakers.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 42 (51): 5–14.
British Educational Research Association. 2004; 2011. Ethical Guidelines for Educational
Research. London: British Educational Research Association
Bruner, J., R. Olver, and P. Greenfield. 1967. Studies in Cognitive Growth. New York: John
Wiley.
Cannella, G. S. 2002. Deconstructing early Childhood Education. New York: Peter Lang.
Carspecken, P. 1996. Critical Ethnography in Educational Research. London: Routledge.
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage.
Chowdry, H., and L. Sibieta. 2011. Trends in Education and Schools Spending. London:
Institute of Fiscal Studies.
Clark, A., and P. Moss. 2011. Listening to Young Children. 2nd ed. London: National Children’s
Bureau.
Cox, S., A. Robinson-Pant, C. Dyer, and M. Schweisfurth, eds. 2010. Children as Decision
Makers in Education. London: Continuum.
Dahlberg, G., and H. Lenz Taguchi. 1994. Förskola och skola och om visionen om en mötesplats
[Preschool and school and the vision of a meeting-place]. Stockholm: HLS Förlag.
Davies, L., C. Williams, H. Yamashita, and K.O. Man-Hing. 2006. Inspiring Schools: Impact
and Outcome. Taking up the challenge of pupil participation. London: Carnegie UK Trust.
Deci, E. L. and R. M. Ryan. 1987. “The Support of Autonomy and the Control of Behavior.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (6): 1024–1037.
Delbecq, A. L., and A. H. VandeVen. 1971. “A Group Process Model for Problem Identification
and Program Planning.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7 (4): 466–492.
Dunphy, L., and T. Farrell. 2011. “Eliciting Young Children’s Perspectives on Indoor Play
Provision in their Classroom: Reflections and Challenges.” In Researching Young
Children’s Perspectives, edited by D. Harcourt, B. Perry, and T. Waller, 128–142.
London: Routledge.
EECERA. 2014. Ethical code for Early Childhood Researchers: 1.1. http://www.eecera.org/
documents/pdf/organisation/EECERA-Ethical-Code.pdf.
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 719

Eisele, P. 2003. “Groups, Group Members and Individual Decision Processes: The Effects of
Decision Strategy, Social Interaction Style and Reception of Decision-Threatening
Information on Post-Decision Processes.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 44 (5): 467–477.
Fantz, R. L. 1965. Visual Perception from Birth as shown by Pattern Selectivity. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences: New Issues in Infant Development 118: 793–814.
Feder, K. L. 1996. Frauds, Myths and Mysteries. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing
Company.
Fielding, M. 2001. “Students as Radical Agents of Change.” Journal of Educational Change 2
(2): 123–141.
Foley, P. 2011. “Democratic Spaces.” In Children and Young People’s Spaces, edited by P.
Foley and S. Leverett, 89–101. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Fossheim, H., ed. 2013. Cross-cultural Child Research: Ethical issues. Oslo: NESH.
Gallas, K. 1994. The Languages of Learning. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Goldacre, B. 2013. Building Evidence into Education. http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/
files/pdf/b/ben%20goldacre%20paper.pdf
Habermas, J. 1987. Knowledge and Human Interests. Oxford: Blackwell.
Halliwell, G. 1977. Open Framework Approaches to Developing Programs for Early Childhood
Education. Brisbane: Queensland Dept. of Education, Brisbane.
Hansson, S. O. 2005. Decision Theory: A Brief Introduction. Stockholm: Royal Institute of
Technology. http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/120b/Hansson_05.pdf.
Hume, D. 1748. “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.” In David Hume: An Enquiry
Concerning Human Understanding, edited by T. Beauchamp, 5–123. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P., and E. Shafir. 1993. “The Interaction between Reasoning and Decision-
Making: An Introduction.” Cognition 49 (1–2): 1–9.
Jones, P., and S. Welch. 2010. Rethinking Children’s Rights. London: Continuum
Kahneman, D., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky. 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and
Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under
Risk.” Econometrica 47 (2): 263–291.
Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart. 2005. “Participatory Action Research: Communicative Action
and the Public Sphere.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research (3e), edited by N. Denzin and
Y. Lincoln, 559–603. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Kovach, M. 2005. “Emerging from the Margins: Indigenous Methodologies.” In Research as
resistance, edited by L. Brown and S. Strega, 19–36. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Langsted, O. 1994. “Looking at Quality from the Child’s Perspective.” In Valuing Quality in
Early Childhood Services, edited by P. Moss and A. Pence, 28–42. London: PCP.
Lansdown, G. 2005. The Evolving Capacities of Children: Implications for the Exercise of
Rights. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
Lansdown, G. 2010. The Realisation of Children’s Participation Rights. In A Handbook of
Children and Young People’s Participation, edited by B. Percy-Smith and N. Thomas,
11–23. London: Routledge.
Lees, L. 1999. “Critical Geography and the Opening Up of the Academy: Lessons from ‘Real
Life’ Attempts.” Area 31 (4): 377–383.
Levin, I. P., and S. Hart. 2003. “Risk Preferences in Young Children: Early Evidence of
Individual Differences in Reaction to Potential Gains and Losses.” Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making 16 (5): 397–41.
Levinas, E. 1980. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Löfdahl, A., and S. Hägglund. 2006. “Spaces of Participation in Pre-School: Arenas for
Establishing Power Orders?” Children and Society 21: 328–338.
Market Research Society. 2006. Occupation Groupings. London: MRS. http://www.mrs.org.uk/
publications/publications.htm.
Morrow, V. 2008. “Dilemmas in Children’s Participation in England.” In Children and
Citizenship, edited by A. Invernizzi and J. Williams, 120–130. London: Sage.
Murray, J. 2011. “Knock, Knock! Who’s there? Gaining Access to Young Children as
Researchers: A Critical Review.” Educate∼ 11 (1): 91–109.
720 J. Murray

Murray, J. 2012a. “An Exploration of Young Children’s Engagements in Research Behaviour.”

Thesis. (PhD)., University of Northampton, UK.
Murray, J. 2012b. “Young Children’s Explorations: Young Children’s Research?” Early Child
Development and Care 182 (9): 1209–1225.
Murray, J. 2013. Young Children’s Research Behaviour? Children Aged Four to Eight Years
Finding Solutions at Home and at School. Early Child Development and Care 183 (8):
1147–1165. ISSN 0300-4430.
Murray, J. 2014. “Researching Young Children’s Worlds.” In An Introduction to Early
Childhood, 3e, edited by T. Waller and G. Davis, 325–345. London: Sage.
Murray, J. 2015a. “Can Young Children be Researchers?” In Children and Young People’s
Participation in Policy, Practice and Research, edited by H. McLaughlin, 48–63.
London: National Children’s Bureau.
Murray, J. 2015b. “Young Children as Researchers in Play.” In The Excellence of Play, 4e,
edited by J. Moyles, 106–124. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. 2006. Kindergarten Act. 2006. Oslo:
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.
Nussbaum, M. C. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights). 1989. The United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child. http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/
pages/crc.aspx
OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights). 2005. Convention on the Rights
of the Child: General Comment No 7. Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood.
Geneva: United Nations. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/
AdvanceVersions/GeneralComment7Rev1.pdf
Pellegrini, A. D., F. J. Symons, and J. Hoch. 2004. Observing Children in their Natural Worlds.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Popper, K. R. 1972/1979. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Redmond, G. 2008. Children’s Perspectives on Economic Adversity: A Review of the Literature.
Innocenti Discussion Paper No. IDP 2008-01. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research
Centre.
Rudduck, J., and D. McIntyre. 2007. Improving Learning through Consulting Pupils. London:
Routledge.
Schmitt, F. F. 2004. “Epistemology and Cognitive Science.” In Handbook of Epistemology,
edited by I. Niiniluoto, M. Sintonen and J. Woleński, 841–948. AA Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Scruton, R. 2001. Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. K. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shevlin, M., and R. Rose. 2008. “Pupils as Partners in Education Decision-Making: Responding
to the Legislation in England and Ireland.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 23
(4): 423–430.
Strega, S. 2005. “The View from the Post-Structural Margins.” In Research as Resistance,
edited by L. Brown and S. Strega, 199–236. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Swann, J. 2009. “Learning: An Evolutionary Analysis.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 41
(3): 256–269.
Thomas, J. 1993. Doing Critical Ethnography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of
Choice.” Science 211 (4481): 453–458.
UNICEF IRC (United Nations Children’s Fund Innocenti Research Centre). 2012. Measuring
Child Poverty: New League Tables of Child Poverty in the World’s Rich Countries.
Innocenti Report Card 10. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
Whitehead, A. N. 1929. The Aims of Education. New York: Mentor Books.
Whitty, G., and E. Wisby. 2007. Real Decision Making? School Councils in Action. Annesley:
DCSF.
Woodhead, M., and L. Brooker. 2008. “A Sense of Belonging.” Early Childhood Matters 111:
3–6.
Yin, R. K. 2012. Applications of Case Study Research. London: Sage.