1. Research Question 4
How can the most vulnerable children be reached/included by data collection systems and instruments?

2. Barriers to include vulnerable children in data collection
Categorization. We have a concept for some vulnerabilities, but no name or category for other, which are even more invisible. For example: children with no access to ICT, children feeling unsafe, children “out of the system” or not belonging to any organization, like children in prostitution. Some categories are rather new in history and have not yet a word in many languages, like “emotional bullying” (children left out by peers). Public opinion tends to think only about a few of the “traditional” categories of vulnerability (“they are always the same”).

3. Barriers to include vulnerable children in data collection
Accessibility, recognition and identification. We know how to reach children of some “traditional” categories of vulnerability, but sometimes government or institutions do not allow researchers to reach them (i.e: children in residential or foster care), and they act as “gate-keepers”. In other cases we do not know how to reach them, or we do not have the resources. Sometimes there is shared vulnerability of children and their own families and researchers need people acting as “bridgers” (i.e.: children from excluded communities). With few resources we can only reach categories of children that we may find “all together” somewhere (i.e.: at school, at some community or neighbourhood, at some institution, etc.).

4. Barriers to include vulnerable children in data collection
Resources and time. Researchers have problems to reach children when data gathering is expensive, because budgets for child research are not usually high or a priority. If a category of vulnerability does not imply children can be found “all together” somewhere, research tends to be expensive (i.e.: homeless children, children with no-birth registration). But also when a budget to travel is need, i.e.: children from rural or remote areas. In some occasions. Multi-lingual, cross-cultural research is also expensive. Sometimes time (including children’s time) is the problem to reach children, i.e.: children in poverty going to school and working.

5. Barriers to include vulnerable children in data collection
Political and social will. Sometimes adults do not support reaching children to ask them. Some adults argue children have no “competence”. Sometimes they argue about children’s privacy should not be disturbed (like in adopted children, or children in kinship foster care).

6. Barriers to include vulnerable children in data collection
Methodology (language and communication). Language is sometimes a limitation. A more child-friendly approach is needed to reach certain categories of vulnerable children, using their own language (i.e.: children with disabilities, with specific needs), particularly to understand their opinions and points of view (i.e.: children from different cultures, from different living-experiences). They must feel safe and not judged. We should understand how and by which means they prefer to communicate, including non-verbal participation. They should feel they are agents, not passive people in front of adults. Sometimes is the first time children are approached to participate and/or give their opinion, and it may be difficult to break the ice (i.e.: young children in remote areas). Sometimes they may even have a negative preliminary experience (i.e.: in touch with justice or even with unfriendly social services). There are also age limits for self-reporting.

7. Barriers to include vulnerable children in data collection
Methodology (indicators and technical aspects). New barriers and opportunities with on-line surveys. We must respect children that do not want to participate, but we should also try to understand their reasons. In some situations there is a need to focus on the child in particular rather than on the group of “vulnerable group” as a whole. It is needed to find the balance between generic vs. targeted indicators. It is often difficult to identify common indicators because children are often very different in the “vulnerable” group: there is a need of specific indicators and specialised researchers with specific competencies.

8. Barriers to include vulnerable children in data collection
Ethical considerations. When addressing vulnerable groups of children we may risk stigmatization/labelling. We should not raise false hopes (i.e.: among migrant children or refugees). Children may not be aware they are vulnerable. Children are not used to adults taking into account their opinions and they may not understand what we are doing, or even feel manipulated. We should not approach children from a “higher adult status”, but asking for help/cooperation/advise.

9. Example of CFA: Affect scales

10. Actions to be taken
Categorization. We should challenge the “traditional” categorisation and be open to discuss on other kinds of vulnerability. We need complicity with the media.

11. Actions to be taken
Accessibility, recognition and identification. We must promote visibility of the different categories of vulnerability. We should illustrate how many they are and give importance to small %. But we should also seek complicity of sensitive adults and of adults in situations of vulnerability. We should promote trust and confidence and be “bridgers” instead of keepers. We need well-trained facilitators, and also peer-facilitators.

12. Actions to be taken
Resources and time. We need a time-frame but we also need to take time: Ignore deadlines and complain. We need to identify who should be involved to reach certain vulnerabilities, for example, we may need informal mediators.

13. Actions to be taken
Political and social will. Put social and media pressure on politicians and other stakeholders. We need more reporting on the costs of not doing anything. Communicate to other stakeholders using inclusive language. We need allies. Communicate research results in plane language to all stakeholders, including children. Create networks of professionals in order to promote a public opinion about the different vulnerabilities. Advocacy with government for more investment in positive data collection from children, i.e., children’s subjective well-being.

14. Actions to be taken
Methodology (I). We need to promote different methodological skills/knowledge. Promote inclusive ways of speaking. We need technical and practical advice to reach vulnerable children and adapted approaches. We need to appropriately train researchers. Never underestimate small %. Involve children in research (at least as advisers). Create “children’s rights moments” during data collection. More affirmative action is needed. Research and researcher should promote children as social agents. Vulnerability should not shadow their agency.

15. Actions to be taken
Methodology (II). We should search for conciliation of the “paradox” between meaningful data collection to in-depth understanding of different life experiences and large scale data collection for macrosocial analysis in order to propose political action. Multiple tools and approaches (pluralistic approaches, multi-disciplinary, multi-method) are needed. Should we have a specific approach different from the other fields on rights than the children rights?: The point is that we want to know about situations or people that other people do not want to know or even to change. In the case of the children rights the process is as important as the outcome.

16. Actions to be taken
Ethical considerations. Identify ethical challenges and openly debate. In the design of the data gathering children should be advisers. After data gathering, we should check children are left with positive feelings about the research they have been involved (the impact of “asking children” should be positively evaluated by children). Feed-back of research results should be always given to children and to all stakeholders.

17. Actions to be taken