1. Introduction
Ethical research involving young children requires methodologies that prioritize their voices, agency, and developmental needs, ensuring they are active participants rather than passive subjects in research processes that impact them (Graham et al., 2016; Horgan, 2024; Watson, 2025). However, assent procedures commonly used in research ethics have been largely adapted from adult-centered models, where assent is equated with a simple verbal or written confirmation of willingness to participate (Berson et al., 2019b; Kirby, 2020; Mayne et al., 2016; Waters, 2024). While these approaches meet legal and ethical requirements set by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), they often reflect a procedural compliance model that prioritizes parental consent over direct engagement with children (Dockett & Perry, 2011; Hulston, 2023; Truscott & Benton, 2024).
Under most IRB protocols, parental consent is typically regarded as the primary ethical safeguard, assuming that parental authorization sufficiently protects children’s rights in research. However, securing parental permission alone does not ensure that children themselves understand, agree to, or feel comfortable with participation (Coyne & Carter, 2024; Mayne et al., 2016; Moore et al., 2018; O’Farrelly & Tatlow-Golden, 2022). Standard assent procedures often fail to accommodate young children’s multimodal ways of communicating agency, reinforcing a compliance-oriented model that does not reflect children’s everyday decision-making processes (Huser et al., 2022; Jewitt et al., 2025; Mayne & Howitt, 2021; Moore et al., 2018). This exclusion raises critical ethical concerns, as children’s participation in research should align with their communicative competencies and developmental capacities (Arnott et al., 2020; Blaisdell et al., 2021; Ceballos & Susinos, 2022; Flewitt, 2005; Hulston, 2023).
Recent revisions in international ethical standards for early childhood research highlight the need for methodological shifts that foreground children’s perspectives and position children as active collaborators. The EECERA Ethical Code for Early Childhood Researchers (Bertram et al., 2025) explicitly calls for greater visibility of children’s voices in research decision-making, the integration of multimodal engagement strategies, and the development of participatory methodologies. Similarly, the revised ethical standards for early childhood research communities (Gaywood & Lyndon, 2025; Watson, 2025) emphasize ethical responsiveness, contextual adaptability, and the role of researchers in fostering equitable, trust-based relationships with child participants. These shifts underscore the need to move beyond procedural assent models to embrace relational, situated, and dialogic ethics in research involving children (Barblett et al., 2023; Inha, 2025; Lyndon, 2023; Ólafsdóttir et al., 2024). Research practices must now account for ethical tensions that emerge in real time and respond flexibly to children’s participation, attentiveness, and dissent (Hendry et al., 2024; Quinones et al., 2023; Southgate & Smith, 2017).
While much research in early childhood relies on adult consent, fewer studies examine how children themselves understand and negotiate their participation. This article addresses this gap by exploring how young children navigate assent within digitally mediated classroom activities. Specifically, it presents a cross-case analysis of three previously conducted studies exploring children’s negotiation of assent in digital research contexts. Two of the studies have been previously published (Berson et al., 2018, 2019a), and one is an unpublished doctoral dissertation (Mirabella, 2025). While each study pursued distinct research aims, this synthesis focuses specifically on how assent was enacted across these diverse contexts.
2. Participatory Research and Child Agency
Participatory research frameworks position young children as capable agents in knowledge production, challenging traditional adult-driven consent models that prioritize regulatory compliance over relational engagement (Dockett & Perry, 2011; Huser et al., 2022; Pascal & Bertram, 2012). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) affirms that children have the right to participate in decisions affecting them, a principle that should extend into research practices (Colliver, 2017; Hayes, 2024; Horgan, 2024). Despite this, children’s multimodal communicative repertoires—including gestures, silence, spatial movement, play, and gaze—are often excluded from conventional assent processes, limiting children’s ability to actively negotiate participation (Hulston, 2023; Jewitt et al., 2025; McFadden et al., 2023; Spiteri, 2024).
A growing body of scholarship emphasizes that assent should not be perceived as a single procedural event but as an ongoing, relational process that unfolds through children’s everyday social interactions (Dockett et al., 2012; Harcourt & Conroy, 2005; Sun et al., 2023). Ethical participation requires researchers to be continually attuned to children’s changing modes of engagement, recognizing expressions of assent or dissent that may emerge nonverbally, playfully, or even through withdrawal (McFadden et al., 2023; Watson, 2025). This requires a heightened attentiveness to the ways children signal agency and the contexts in which these expressions unfold (Ceballos & Susinos, 2022; McFadden et al., 2023). Participation, when grounded in ethical responsiveness, means creating conditions where children can ask questions, opt-out, renegotiate, or re-engage throughout the research process (Arnott et al., 2020; Clark & Moss, 2011; Dockett et al., 2013; Mayne et al., 2016).
3. Conceptual Play as a Vehicle for Assent
Play is not only foundational to children’s learning and development but also central to how they communicate agency and negotiate meaning (Blaisdell et al., 2021; Fleer, 2021; Martinez-Iejarreta et al., 2024). Rooted in Vygotskian sociocultural theory, conceptual play provides a cognitive and social space where children explore ideas, test boundaries, and express their perspectives (Hedges & Cooper, 2016; Vygotsky, 1978). In research settings, play becomes a meaningful space through which children can engage, resist, or reinterpret the research process (Patton & Winter, 2023; Shengjergji, 2024).
Scholars have shown that symbolic and small-world play affords children the opportunity to dramatize consent, dissent, or uncertainty—offering insight into their evolving stance toward research participation (Hulston, 2023; Pyle & Danniels, 2016). Children may role-play the researcher, explore materials on their own terms, or retreat into play scenarios that reflect their feelings about the research setting (Blaisdell et al., 2021; Fleer & Ridgeway, 2014). When researchers interpret these play-based behaviors seriously, they are better equipped to design and adapt assent processes that are flexible, meaningful, and developmentally appropriate (Clark & Moss, 2011; Hayes, 2024).
4. Theoretical Framework: Multimodal Assent and Meaning-Making in Research with Young Children
This cross-case synthesis is grounded in theoretical perspectives that recognize young children as competent, communicative, and relational participants in research. Drawing from social semiotics and multimodal interaction theory (Jewitt et al., 2025; Norris, 2011), this synthesis views assent as a form of meaning-making that extends beyond speech. In this view, children communicate understanding, comfort, hesitation, or dissent through gestures, gaze, posture, touch, and interaction with materials or technologies (Hulston, 2023; Potter, 2024). These semiotic resources are not supplementary to verbal language but constitute primary modes of engagement through which children participate and assert agency in research contexts. This approach calls for researchers to attend closely to the affordances of the physical and social environment—including how children use space, tools, and relationships—to construct and communicate meaning.
The synthesis also draws on conceptual play theory (Fleer, 2021), which positions play as a central mechanism through which young children explore and negotiate roles, test boundaries, and process complex ideas. In this context, play is not merely a developmental tool but a methodological resource that enables children to enter the research encounter on their own terms. When children engage in symbolic or small-world play, they often perform their perspectives and choices in ways that are rich with affect and intention, offering insight into their evolving stance on participation (Hedges & Cooper, 2016; Patton & Winter, 2023).
Together, these theoretical perspectives support a relational and processual view of assent—one that is co-constructed through ongoing interaction, embedded in the research environment, and expressed across a constellation of communicative modes. In practice, this means that children’s assent is not assessed through isolated consent moments but through sustained observation and interpretation of how children engage with researchers, peers, tools, and tasks over time (McFadden et al., 2023; Watson, 2025). Researcher reflexivity is essential to this process, as the interpretation of children’s meaning-making must be situated within the relational dynamics of the encounter and attuned to power, context, and positionality (Coyne & Carter, 2024; Graham et al., 2016; Quinones et al., 2023).
By integrating social semiotics, conceptual play, and participatory theory, this synthesis frames assent as a dynamic, multimodal, and ethically situated process—one that reflects children’s right to be heard and their capacity to express assent or dissent in developmentally and culturally meaningful ways.
5. Study Objectives
As research on early childhood participation in technology-rich environments expands (Liu et al., 2024), new questions arise about how children experience and express their roles within research that includes digital tools, play-based learning, and social interaction. This cross-case synthesis takes a child-centered approach to examining assent as a dynamic and multimodal process that unfolds through ongoing interaction and engagement.
Grounded in participatory research methodologies, conceptual play theory, and social semiotics, the synthesis explores how young children make meaning, express agency, and negotiate their involvement in research through a range of communicative modes—including embodied action, symbolic representation, and interaction with digital technologies.
This article presents a retrospective cross-case synthesis of three previously conducted studies that examined young children’s participation in digital research activities. While each original study had broader aims, this analysis focuses specifically on how assent was enacted, negotiated, and expressed by children in each setting. Drawing on case examples from kindergarten and first-grade classrooms with children aged 5 to 7, the current study investigates how play-based interactions, social engagement, and digital tools influence children’s ability to negotiate participation. While the case examples vary in thematic focus, each study shared methodological similarities and incorporated creative uses of digital technologies and interactive methods to support children’s agency and comfort throughout the research process.
This retrospective synthesis is guided by the following objectives:
To explore how young children express assent and dissent beyond verbal agreement using multimodal forms of communication.
To examine how participatory methods—such as play, interactive storytelling, and digital exploration—enhance children’s agency in research settings.
To identify ethical and methodological shifts that support young children’s rights to be informed, engaged, and empowered as research participants.
By addressing these objectives, the synthesis aims to inform the development of ethically grounded, developmentally appropriate assent practices that reflect the lived realities of young children in digitally mediated learning environments.
6. Methods
6.1. Study Design and Context
This qualitative study synthesizes data from three early childhood studies that, while focused on varied research topics, shared a commitment to elevating children’s agency within the research process (Berson et al., 2018, 2019a; Mirabella, 2025). Conducted in public and private kindergarten and first-grade classrooms in the Southeastern United States—with one study incorporating a cross-national component in Ghana—the studies used interactive, multimodal, and play-based methods to engage children with digital tools. Each project embedded intentional strategies to support and observe children’s assent as an integral aspect of their participatory design. This synthesis draws on those opportunities to explore how technology integration and child-centered approaches shaped children’s expressions of assent in early learning environments.
The original studies were conducted in classroom settings with teachers present, focusing on children’s engagement with digitally mediated research activities. For the purposes of this cross-case synthesis, each study is treated as a distinct case reflecting young children’s negotiation of assent in these contexts. The number of participating children ranged from four to seventeen, depending on the setting.
The first case (Berson et al., 2018) investigated how first-grade students in a public school used virtual reality (VR) to explore historical narratives of resilience and overcoming prejudice. It examined how VR could foster empathy while also considering how young children navigated participation in a highly immersive digital environment. The VR experience featured a six-minute animated film narrated by Holocaust survivor Roman Kent, depicting his childhood in the Lodz Ghetto and his connection to his dog, Lala. Researchers explored how children’s emotional engagement, curiosity, and multimodal interactions influenced their sense of agency within the research process.
The second case (Berson et al., 2019a) was a cross-national study of kindergarteners in Ghana and the U.S., examining how children engaged in participatory video elicitation to reflect on their classroom experiences. Video-cued interviews allowed children to revisit moments from their school day and discuss their participation. The study explored how young children demonstrated agency in research through verbal reflections, gestures, and embodied interactions. By integrating video elicitation methods, the research positioned children as active participants in the data analysis process, ensuring their perspectives informed the study’s findings.
The third case (Mirabella, 2025), conducted in a private first-grade classroom, examined how children used touchscreen devices and interactive eBooks to navigate digital literacy experiences while also negotiating their assent to participate in research. Children engaged with digital storytelling formats, enabling researchers to investigate how interactive technology influenced their ability to express preferences, demonstrate understanding, and make decisions about participation. Given these students’ prior exposure to digital learning tools, the study also considered how familiarity with technology shaped their engagement with research methodologies.
Each of the three studies received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval through the University of South Florida (Case Study 1: Pro00013017; Case 2: Pro00032383; Case 3: STUDY007803) and was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines for research with young children. Data collection included video recordings, field notes, and action-oriented transcripts, with all procedures designed to center children’s agency and multimodal communication.
6.2. The Role of Interactive Storytelling in Assent Processes
Across all three studies, an interactive PowerPoint storytelling format was used to introduce young children to the research process in a developmentally appropriate way. This approach was inspired by early childhood pedagogical practices that use visual storytelling as a means of engaging children in learning (Arnott et al., 2020) and was further informed by research on using picture books to support informed assent (Pyle & Danniels, 2016). The storytelling method aimed to bridge the gap between complex research concepts and young children’s cognitive and communicative abilities by presenting study details in an accessible, engaging format.
The development of the assent storytelling process was guided by principles from early childhood literacy research, which suggests that children better comprehend new information when it is presented through familiar storytelling structures and visual representations (Arizpe & Styles, 2003; Carney & Levin, 2002). Each PowerPoint-based story included a combination of images, simple text, and interactive discussion prompts designed to capture children’s attention and encourage them to ask questions. The stories mirrored the format of familiar children’s books, incorporating photographs of other children engaged in research-related activities, ensuring that participants could visually connect the presented concepts to their own experiences (Pyle & Danniels, 2016).
During the informational sessions, the storytelling format allowed for an interactive dialogue rather than a one-directional explanation of research procedures. Children were introduced to key research elements such as video recording devices, VR headsets, and interactive digital tools, with researchers explicitly demonstrating their use. These sessions were structured around child-friendly language and multimodal engagement, giving children opportunities to express understanding, curiosity, and potential concerns in ways beyond verbal confirmation (Jewitt et al., 2025). Research suggests that young children often demonstrate comprehension through nonverbal cues, such as pointing, nodding, or engaging with materials, rather than relying solely on spoken language (Harcourt & Conroy, 2005). By incorporating these interactional opportunities, the storytelling process validated children’s agency by allowing them to negotiate their participation in ways that felt natural to them (Dockett et al., 2012).
An important feature of this approach was the hands-on exploration of research tools. Children were invited to interact with cameras, VR headsets, and touchscreen devices before formal data collection began, helping to reduce apprehension and demystify the research process. Allowing children to physically engage with research equipment also enabled them to make informed choices about their participation, reinforcing the idea that assent is an ongoing process rather than a singular event (Gallagher et al., 2010). Research has shown that when young children have the opportunity to engage with research tools in a play-based, low-pressure setting, they are more likely to express genuine assent or dissent rather than feeling obligated to comply with adult expectations (Moore et al., 2018).
The multimodal storytelling approach was particularly effective in ensuring that children understood their right to withdraw from the study at any time. The final portion of each story explicitly stated that children had the option to stop participating at any point, with no negative consequences. This was reinforced through follow-up discussions in which researchers revisited children’s rights, ensuring that the message was understood. Research on child assent emphasizes that children often need multiple opportunities to process information before they can fully grasp the implications of research participation (Lindeke et al., 2000). The interactive storytelling format, therefore, functioned as an iterative process, with children revisiting and reflecting on their participation across multiple sessions (Dockett et al., 2013).
By integrating narrative-based engagement, multimodal interactions, and play-based exploration, the original studies provided a developmentally appropriate framework for young children to meaningfully engage in the research assent process. This approach aligns with broader participatory research principles that recognize children as capable decision-makers, advocating for ethical research practices that respect their agency and communicative preferences (Flewitt, 2005; Pyle & Danniels, 2016).
7. Data Collection and Analysis
This cross-case synthesis was conducted within a relational ethics framework, positioning assent as an evolving process shaped by trust, familiarity, and sustained interaction. Drawing retrospectively on three case studies situated in kindergarten and first-grade classrooms (children aged 5 to 7) in the southeastern United States, the synthesis integrated qualitative, participatory, and multimodal data collection strategies originally employed to explore how young children engaged in research involving digital tools. While each case featured distinct research foci—ranging from interactive eBooks and video elicitation to virtual reality storytelling—all three emphasized ethical responsiveness and child-centered design.
Data collection in the original studies was intentionally designed to capture the complexity and fluidity of children’s communicative practices during research participation. Multiple opportunities were embedded for children to revisit and reconsider their participation over time. In alignment with ethical guidelines emphasizing informed and voluntary participation (Graham et al., 2016), children engaged in interactive storytelling sessions and play-based introductions to the research tools and procedures. These methods helped scaffold understanding and foster relational trust, offering a developmentally appropriate foundation for assent. Children participated in multiple 20 min sessions across each original study period, allowing time for familiarity, reflection, and evolving engagement.
Field notes documented children’s spontaneous interactions with digital tools (e.g., iPads, VR headsets), research equipment (e.g., tripod cameras), and the social dynamics of the research setting. These notes offered insight into how children’s comfort and agency shifted over time. Video recordings captured assent sessions, classroom interactions, and participatory research activities, enabling close analysis of how children expressed assent and dissent through multimodal behaviors—such as gesture, gaze, posture, silence, or movement. Photographs of key moments provided further visual context and were used to support the interpretation of children’s responses.
To analyze the data for this cross-case synthesis, Multimodal Interaction Analysis (MIA) and thematic analysis were applied to the original datasets. Participants in the original studies were selected through purposive sampling in collaboration with classroom teachers. Data sources included video recordings, child interviews, and classroom observations. To support trustworthiness in the retrospective analysis, data were triangulated across modalities, and reflexive field notes from the original studies were reviewed to contextualize interpretations.
MIA, based on the work of Jewitt et al. (2025) and Norris (2011), guided the systematic examination of how children used a constellation of communicative modes—including facial expressions, body positioning, manipulation of materials, and spoken language—to negotiate their participation. Thematic analysis was used to identify patterns in how children asserted agency, established boundaries, and responded to the social, material, and technological dimensions of the research environment.
We developed action-oriented transcripts of assent sessions, annotating both verbal and nonverbal communication. These transcripts informed the interpretation of children’s engagement with research tools, storytelling prompts, and peer and adult interactions. Across the three case studies, 27 video segments were selected for close analysis, each representing moments where children demonstrated curiosity, withdrawal, inquiry, or play-based negotiation. These focal clips highlighted children’s diverse pathways into and through the research process.
Since the children were under the age typically required for formal assent, the IRBs for each study did not mandate assent procedures. Nevertheless, the original research teams prioritized developmentally appropriate and responsive approaches to participation, embedding evolving assent practices throughout the studies in recognition of children’s capacities, agency, and rights.
Throughout the retrospective analysis, we remained reflexive about how power dynamics, digital literacy, and social interactions shaped children’s participation. In the original studies, procedures were adapted in real time to better align with children’s preferences, levels of comfort, and communicative strategies. In some cases, this meant slowing the pace of data collection, pausing to revisit explanations, or engaging in parallel play to create a more comfortable and equitable research dynamic. The unpredictability of young children’s engagement was not treated as a methodological obstacle but as an opportunity to practice ethical responsiveness and reaffirm children’s right to agency and autonomy (McFadden et al., 2023; Watson, 2025).
8. Findings
Synthesizing data across the three original studies illustrates that assent in research with young children is best understood as a child-centered, ongoing, and multimodal process. Rather than a single moment of agreement, children negotiated, expressed, and adjusted their participation through verbal dialogue, embodied actions, imaginative play, and engagement with research tools. Across three distinct studies involving digital technologies—interactive eBooks, virtual reality (VR), and video elicitation—children reflected on their experiences, shaped the research process, and positioned themselves as active contributors.
8.1. Building Comfort, Trust, and Readiness for Participation
Children’s willingness to engage in research depended on trust, comfort, and clear communication. To reduce the “stranger effect” (Shin, 2010) and ease initial hesitations, the researchers fostered a welcoming and playful environment. Across all three cases, assent emerged not as a singular moment but as a series of interactions through which children oriented themselves to the research setting, the tools, and the researcher. Through warm-up activities, relational dialogue, peer modeling, and hands-on engagement with familiar and unfamiliar materials, children gradually built a sense of safety and readiness to participate.
In the digital literacy study (Mirabella, 2025), for example, when the researcher introduced herself, the children eagerly shared their names, turning the moment into an engaging and playful interaction. When the first child introduced herself with her full name—first, middle, and last—the others enthusiastically followed suit, proudly offering their full names as well. The researcher reacted with awe, complimenting the sound of their first, middle, and last names together, which reinforced the tone of mutual curiosity and relational connection. These early exchanges—smiles, laughter, eye contact, and relaxed postures—signaled the children’s comfort and growing trust in the setting.
As the session progressed, children responded with delight when introduced to the digital reading platform. One child waved his hands and exclaimed, “I love Epic!” while another nodded excitedly. During a quiz activity, the label “quiz crusher” was playfully applied to a participant who completed the task quickly and accurately. His shoulders lifted, and he grinned in response, visibly affirming a sense of pride and positive association with the research activity. These small interactions—facial expressions, body posture, and verbal affirmations—offered multimodal indicators of emotional investment and comfort.
Similarly, in the VR study (Berson et al., 2018), readiness was built through careful pacing and embodied observation. When the headset was introduced, one child stood at a distance, arms crossed and gaze averted. Rather than prompting him directly, the researcher allowed time and space for exploration. As his peers tried the VR headset and expressed excitement—“It’s like you’re inside the story!”—the child gradually moved closer, shifting his weight, peeking over the researcher’s shoulders, and eventually reaching out to touch the equipment. When he finally asked, “Can I try next?” it was the culmination of a slow process of observational engagement, trust-building through peer modeling, and relational encouragement. The researcher’s kneeling posture, soft voice, and open-ended invitation allowed the child to approach the experience on his own terms.
In the cross-national video elicitation study (Berson et al., 2019a), comfort was established through relational proximity and shared viewing experiences. As children watched clips of their classroom routines on a tablet, one child scooted his chair closer and pointed, smiling, “That’s me at the table!” Another leaned in and tapped the screen, requesting, “Can we watch that again?” Their relaxed postures, gentle vocal tones, and unprompted engagement demonstrated both familiarity with the content and trust in the process. These interactions reinforced the importance of positioning the child as a co-viewer and co-narrator rather than a subject being observed.
To support children’s understanding of the study across all contexts, researchers used visual and interactive scaffolds. In the digital literacy study (Mirabella, 2025), a child-friendly slideshow featuring icons, images, and simplified language was used to explain concepts such as data, recording, and participation. Children responded by pointing, nodding, asking clarifying questions, and connecting the content to prior experiences—“Like when my mom takes videos at the zoo!” These verbal and embodied responses demonstrated conceptual engagement. When the researcher introduced the dual-camera setup, children were invited to examine the phones mounted on tripods. One child touched the lens and asked, “Is it recording both sides?”—a question that prompted a brief explanation and served as an invitation to the ethical transparency of the process.
In the VR study (Berson et al., 2018), similar curiosity was observed. Children were given time to handle the headset before donning it. One child rotated it in her hands, trailing her fingers along the contours of the device. Looking up, she asked, “Can it see me?” Her tilted head, raised eyebrows, and quiet voice suggested cautious interest. The researcher responded by demonstrating the headset and explaining what the child would see. This exchange, grounded in co-inquiry, allowed the child to build understanding at her own pace.
Emotional safety and relational affirmation also shaped how children approached participation. In one video elicitation session (Berson et al., 2019a), a child noticed himself sitting silently during group time. He whispered, “I was thinking about the story”, while gazing at the screen. The researcher, seated beside him, gently replied, “That’s an important part too”. This brief moment—a quiet voice, softened eye contact, and affirming response—underscored the significance of attuned listening and reciprocal meaning-making in establishing comfort.
Across the three case studies, children communicated their readiness through a constellation of multimodal signals—curious questions, exploratory gestures, expressive glances, physical proximity, and narrative contributions. These moments of interaction were not framed by procedural scripts but emerged from ethically grounded relationships and responsive pedagogies. The researchers remained reflexive throughout, adapting their approaches to accommodate shifting comfort levels, uncertainty, and enthusiasm. Together, these layered examples illustrate that assent readiness is built through ongoing, situated engagement—where children feel seen, heard, and safe to explore the possibilities of research participation on their own terms.
8.2. Assent as an Interactive and Multimodal Process
Assent was not a one-time event but an evolving process continuously co-constructed through children’s verbal, nonverbal, and playful interactions across all three studies. Rather than relying solely on spoken agreement, children confirmed and renegotiated their participation using a rich constellation of communicative modes—including gaze, gesture, body movement, facial expression, proximity, and manipulation of materials. These embodied expressions of agency demonstrated that assent was not a fixed state but a dynamic interaction unfolding over time and shaped by relational, material, and contextual factors.
In the digital literacy study (Mirabella, 2025), children expressed assent through spontaneous participation in shared routines and game-like engagement strategies. While the researcher introduced attention cues like “laser eyes” and “bubbles in cheeks” to direct focus in a playful, non-coercive manner, children quickly adapted and personalized these strategies. Milo, who had initially shown hesitance, later offered “laser eyes” unprompted—an act accompanied by a shift in posture, alert eye contact, and playful curiosity. His transformation from quiet observer to active participant unfolded across multiple interactions, underscoring how children internalized research routines at their own pace and according to their own comfort. When the researcher asked, “Who remembers what my job is?” all four children raised their hands with enthusiasm, grinning and leaning forward. While this was not a formal reaffirmation of assent, their animated participation illustrated embodied engagement and a sense of ownership in the research space.
Children also demonstrated their role as co-constructors of the process. During one exchange, when the researcher said, “You’re the teacher now!” The children laughed and responded with disbelief—“We’re the teachers?!”—but immediately took up the role with excitement, shifting their language and posture to mirror the tone of authority and curiosity modeled earlier. These performative shifts, subtle body cues, and verbal affirmations showed how assent was reinforced through reciprocal roles and relational alignment.
In the VR study (Berson et al., 2018), assent unfolded through embodied exploration and sensory interaction. The virtual reality experience transported children into a narrated animation about a Holocaust survivor’s childhood in the Lodz Ghetto, including a rainy street scene that evoked emotional and physical responses. As children entered the virtual world, they moved their bodies in synchrony with what they saw. One child began stomping in place and exclaimed, “I’m walking through the rain!” Another reached out repeatedly, fingers splayed, trying to “catch” raindrops that were not physically present—an act of immersive engagement that also indicated sustained assent. These interactions, while nonverbal, demonstrated attentiveness, willingness, and curiosity. For another child who hesitated to use the headset initially, engagement emerged gradually. He stood nearby, watched a peer exclaim, “It’s like you’re in the movie!” and then inched closer, eventually brushing his fingers against the strap of the headset. His gaze tracked the researcher, then the equipment, and finally, his peer’s animated movements. After being invited—but not pressured—he nodded once, took the headset, and slid it on, signaling consent through motion rather than speech.
While the digital tools were familiar to children, our analysis suggests that their assent was context-sensitive and shifted over time. Children demonstrated increased metacognitive awareness of their role as research participants, particularly when engaging in activities such as wearing headsets or narrating their actions for recording.
In the video elicitation study (Berson et al., 2019a), children expressed assent through their control over the pace and direction of the data analysis process. One child leaned forward during playback, tapped the screen, and said, “That’s when we were painting”. His words were accompanied by a wide smile and a tapping gesture that paused the video. Another child, rather than engaging vocally, simply pointed to a clip, looked at the researcher, and raised her eyebrows—prompting the researcher to respond, “You want to go back?” A subtle nod followed. These embodied, minimally verbal interactions were integral to their agency, illustrating that children negotiated how and when they participated in meaning-making. When a child refused to engage with a clip showing a conflict with a peer, she turned her body away from the tablet and shook her head—an unmistakable act of dissent that was respected by the researcher. These micro-moments reinforced that assent was not binary but rather a fluid and revisitable process embedded in interaction and attentiveness.
Across all three contexts, children communicated assent through an ongoing dialogue of participation that was mediated by social relationships, material artifacts, and researcher sensitivity. Whether through imaginative play, cautious exploration of technology, or embodied choices during video elicitation, their engagement emerged from a continual negotiation of comfort, curiosity, and control. Rather than seeking a singular verbal “yes”, researchers listened for the rhythms of assent across modes—how children oriented their bodies, asked questions, engaged tools, redirected attention, and collaborated with peers.
Alongside these expressions of assent, instances of dissent included verbal refusals and silent withdrawal from the activity. These choices were honored by providing children with alternative play options or roles as observers. Recognizing classroom power dynamics, we remained attentive to ensuring that participation was voluntary and evolving.
By attending to these multimodal signals and providing space for agency, the research designs supported a more inclusive and ethically responsive approach to informed assent. Participation became not just a moment of agreement but a process of becoming—of discovering what it means to be a participant, to co-create knowledge, and to be seen and heard on one’s own terms.
8.3. Play, Imagination, and Agency in Participation
Across all three studies, play functioned as both a mode of participation and a medium for expressing agency. Children did not simply follow the procedures set out for them; instead, they actively reinterpreted, reshaped, and personalized their participation using humor, movement, language, and imagination. These multimodal interactions revealed the ways in which children negotiated their roles in the research and asserted their autonomy throughout the process.
In the digital literacy study (Mirabella, 2025), humor played a key role in disrupting hierarchical dynamics and fostering shared agency. During one small group discussion, a child suddenly asked, “Can you buy me a pet turtle?” The unexpected question caught the group off guard, leading to an eruption of laughter. This brief, unscripted moment shifted the power dynamic: the children took the conversational lead, transforming the space from researcher-directed to peer-driven. Rather than redirecting the exchange, the researcher joined in the laughter, reinforcing that participation included space for spontaneity and joy. Such moments were not distractions but embodied expressions of trust, comfort, and relational engagement.
Imaginative engagement emerged prominently during the VR study (Berson et al., 2018). Children’s play was physical and immersive, shaped by the sensory-rich environment of the headset experience. As they explored scenes from the animated narrative, children used movement to explore the virtual world and make sense of the story on their own terms. In one instance, a child removed the headset and said, “I think I’d help the boy find his dog”, followed by a quiet reenactment of walking and calling for a pet. This performance, shared in both verbal and nonverbal modes, signaled emotional investment and empathetic engagement, showing how children used play to process complex content.
In the video elicitation study (Berson et al., 2019a), children frequently took control of the tablet used to replay footage of their daily routines. They paused, rewound, narrated, and even imitated themselves, using gestures, facial expressions, and movements to elaborate on what was captured in the video. One child paused the footage and asked, “Can I do that part again?” before reenacting a classroom activity while giggling. These performative acts not only provided insight into their thought processes but also demonstrated their ease in asserting control over the research environment. Rather than passive viewers, children positioned themselves as analysts and storytellers—deciding what to share, how to share it, and when to pause or redirect the flow of the session.
In each case, play extended beyond structured research tasks. It became a mechanism through which children articulated their understanding, tested ideas, and exercised decision-making. Children asked questions about the equipment (“Can I hold the camera next?”), suggested changes to the pacing (“Can we watch that again later?”), or proposed imaginative extensions of the research (“Let’s make our own story after this!”). These moments—often delivered with animated gestures, shifting gaze, and expressive tone—revealed agency through both linguistic and embodied communication.
Importantly, these interactions emerged through iterative, relational engagement. Children’s improvisations were not interruptions but essential to the assent process, offering evidence of how they internalized their roles, made meaning of the research activities, and expressed comfort or hesitation. Play thus functioned as a barometer of trust and investment. It allowed children to try on roles, test boundaries, and signal their willingness to continue.
8.4. Social and Relational Engagement in Research Participation
Children’s participation was shaped not only by individual decisions but also by their interactions with peers, shared social norms, and the relational dynamics of the research setting. Across all three studies, children engaged with one another in ways that reinforced, challenged, and redefined their involvement. These interactions extended beyond individual assent and reflected how participation was socially negotiated through embodied, verbal, and affective modes of communication.
In the video elicitation study (Berson et al., 2019a), peer discourse emerged as a central mechanism for deepening children’s engagement. As children watched footage of themselves in classroom activities, they frequently turned to one another to comment, question, and elaborate on shared experiences. For instance, during a playback of a group circle time, one child exclaimed, “That’s when we were singing the welcome song!” Another nodded and added, “Yeah, but you forgot the funny dance part”, before reenacting a brief segment with exaggerated movements and a laugh. This moment triggered a cascade of related memories among the group, with each child building on the previous speaker’s recollection through gestures, facial expressions, and vocal inflection. Rather than merely responding to the researcher’s prompts, the children collaboratively constructed meaning, validating each other’s experiences and co-authoring the narrative of the classroom scene. These exchanges illustrated how children’s social relationships and shared contexts shaped their interpretation of the research material and affirmed their agency in representing their lived realities.
In the VR study (Berson et al., 2018), peer interactions also played a key role in fostering engagement and supporting children’s participation. While the headset experience was technically individual, children created a shared dialogue around it. As one child exited the virtual experience and described the rainy street scene from the animation, she exclaimed, “It looked like real rain!” A peer waiting for their turn jumped in: “Did you splash in it?” The first child laughed and replied, “I stomped through it!” then demonstrated with exaggerated foot stomps across the rug. This spontaneous performative reenactment became a moment of shared humor and empathy as others echoed rain sounds or mimicked stomping. Through these co-constructed acts of imagination and embodiment, children collectively extended the experience beyond the screen, affirming each other’s participation and turning solitary engagement into social play. These physical responses—laughter, mimicry, coordinated stomping—were key indicators of attunement and mutual recognition, signaling that children understood participation as something collaborative and relational.
Similarly, in the digital literacy study (Mirabella, 2025), children drew on peer interactions to support their understanding of the study and manage their own participation. During a moment when the researcher referenced her role, asking, “Who remembers what my job is?” the children looked at each other with excitement before responding in chorus. Their shared glances and synchronized responses demonstrated how the group dynamic supported individual engagement. At another point, when a child seemed uncertain about a question related to the eBook interface, a peer leaned over and whispered, “It’s the button with the star”. This quiet prompt—accompanied by a subtle hand gesture—enabled the child to respond confidently, reinforcing how peers helped scaffold one another’s participation. These small moments of support reflected a collective ethic of care and co-regulation within the group.
Expressions of trust, affection, and humor further reinforced the social fabric of participation. In all three studies, children initiated small but meaningful gestures—like offering a hug, gently patting a peer’s shoulder, or sharing a joke—that indicated comfort with both the researcher and one another. In the video elicitation study (Berson et al., 2019a), one child leaned against the researcher while watching the footage, occasionally glancing up to gauge her reaction. The researcher’s attentive posture and affirming nods contributed to a sense of reciprocal trust, allowing the child to remain close and engaged without verbalizing consent at every moment. In the digital literacy study (Mirabella, 2025), humorous interactions, such as the unexpected question, “Can you buy me a pet turtle?” led to shared laughter that lightened the tone and allowed children to assert their voices in unscripted ways. These spontaneous exchanges served as affective cues—smiles, giggles, widened eyes—that signaled emotional attunement and mutual comfort.
Children’s social and relational behaviors were central to how they navigated participation. Across the three studies, they co-constructed understanding, regulated each other’s attention, validated shared experiences, and engaged with the research process in dialogic and reciprocal ways. Rather than viewing assent as an isolated act, these findings support a relational conceptualization—one in which agency, trust, and decision-making are continually negotiated within peer groups and supported by researcher responsiveness. Attending to these social dynamics through multimodal analysis allows for a deeper understanding of how children enact participation in collaborative, emotionally resonant, and developmentally meaningful ways.
8.5. Engaging with Research Tools and Methods
As children became more familiar with the structure and rhythm of each study, their curiosity about the research process itself began to surface in tangible and meaningful ways. Moving beyond passive participation, children engaged directly with the tools and methods of data collection—initiating questions, manipulating equipment, and constructing their own interpretations of what it meant to be a research participant. These actions signaled a shift in role—from being the “observed” to becoming collaborators in the research process.
In the video elicitation study (Berson et al., 2019a), children took an active interest in the process of recording and replaying footage. After viewing a clip of their classroom activity, one child pointed to the angle of the shot and asked, “Was that camera on the shelf?” This question led to a discussion about how different camera positions captured different perspectives. The researcher encouraged the child to look at the tripod setup and explained how wide-angle versus close-up footage could be used. The child then mimicked the angle with her hands, saying, “Like this?”—demonstrating embodied comprehension. Another child tapped the screen during playback and asked, “Can we make a new one?” suggesting a desire not only to interpret video data but to co-create it. These moments revealed how children interpreted research tools as dynamic instruments for communication and reflection rather than static devices for observation.
In the digital literacy study (Mirabella, 2025), children’s engagement with research methods also extended to logistical and procedural elements. When the researcher referenced “collecting data”, one child furrowed his brow and asked, “Like collecting bugs?”—prompting a group discussion about what the term meant in this context. The researcher used a visual from the study’s introductory slideshow to explain, and children responded with analogies from their everyday experiences (“Like when I count how many toys I have”). Later, children adjusted the height of the tripod cameras, checked whether the devices were “on”, and examined the recording screens. Their interaction with the technology included turning knobs, looking into the lenses, and speculating aloud about “what it sees”. These embodied engagements signaled not only growing familiarity but also an emergent sense of ownership over the research tools.
In the VR study (Berson et al., 2018), interest in the technological apparatus itself shaped children’s understanding of the research process. Before donning the headset, children asked about the equipment’s capabilities: “Can it hear me?” and “Does it take pictures?” One child crouched down and peered up into the lenses, tilting his head and then turning to a peer to explain, “It’s like goggles, but with a screen”. After completing the VR experience, children gathered around the headset and suggested who should go next based on “who hasn’t had a turn” or “who’s going to help find Lala”. This spontaneous turn-taking and peer coordination reflected their grasp of participation not only as an individual experience but as something structured and shared. Children’s manipulation of the headset—adjusting straps, angling it for better fit—also indicated a growing comfort with and control over the tools shaping their participation.
Across all three studies, children’s verbal inquiries were closely tied to multimodal forms of exploration. They used touch to explore the weight and material of research equipment, gaze to assess its function, and body movement to test spatial relations. These embodied acts of inquiry revealed how children used all available semiotic resources to interpret their role in the research environment. Their questions about what was being studied, how the footage would be used, or how the technology worked reflected a developing metacognitive awareness of the study’s aims and their own positioning within it.
Importantly, children’s engagement with research tools was not limited to task compliance—it was an avenue for agency, imagination, and critical thinking. In one instance from the digital literacy study (Mirabella, 2025), a child pointed to the camera and asked, “Does it remember everything we say?” When the researcher responded, “It records so I can watch and listen later”, the child nodded and whispered to a peer, “We’re in a movie”. This comment reframed the child’s understanding of participation, not as surveillance but as co-authorship in a shared narrative—an interpretation that shaped how he approached subsequent sessions.
Children’s engagement with research tools and methods revealed their evolving conceptual, social, and technological understanding of the research process. Through multimodal interactions—questions, gestures, manipulations, and social exchanges—they demonstrated a desire to make sense of their role, influence how the study unfolded, and challenge traditional adult-led dynamics. These findings affirm that participatory research with young children must account not only for what children say, but for how they explore, test, and reflect on the tools and methods that structure their involvement.
9. Implications for Research and Ethical Practice
This cross-case synthesis examined how young children express assent within research contexts that incorporate digital tools, participatory methods, and play-based engagement. In doing so, it responds to calls from scholars such as Arnott et al. (2020), Huser et al. (2022), and McFadden et al. (2023) to move beyond adult-centric and procedural models of consent. Our findings show that assent is a fluid, relational process rather than a singular verbal agreement. While Quinones et al. (2023) also recognize the importance of children’s everyday expressions of assent and dissent, our analysis extends this by illustrating how these expressions emerge and evolve in digitally mediated, play-based research settings.
By integrating conceptual play theory, social semiotics, and participatory frameworks, this synthesis contributes new insights into how assent operates in real-world research encounters with young children. The findings demonstrate that children actively negotiated their participation using gesture, movement, silence, humor, and peer interaction—often in ways that went unrecognized by traditional models. In contrast to static approaches that emphasize regulatory compliance, the children in these studies co-constructed the research space, shaped the pacing of activities, and voiced assent or dissent through relational cues and embodied engagement.
These findings carry several implications for ethical research practice with young children. First, researchers must design assent procedures that are continuous rather than one-time occurrences. Across all three studies, children shifted in and out of engagement, sometimes hesitating or withdrawing before re-entering the research process. Building in multiple checkpoints—such as momentary pauses for reflection, renewed invitations to participate, or opportunities to opt-out—allowing children to make decisions in alignment with their comfort and understanding (Dockett et al., 2012; Watson, 2025).
Second, our synthesis illustrates the importance of recognizing multimodal expressions of assent. Verbal affirmation was only one of many ways children signaled interest or readiness. Actions such as leaning toward the screen during video elicitation, manipulating the VR headset with curiosity, or initiating questions about the camera setup were not peripheral to participation; they were central expressions of agency. These forms of engagement call for ethical responsiveness and attunement to children’s communicative repertoires (Jewitt et al., 2025; Potter, 2024).
Third, creating emotionally safe and relationally supportive environments is essential. Trust-building emerged as a precondition for meaningful assent. Children engaged more fully when they could interact on their own terms and when their emotional cues were validated rather than redirected. The researchers’ efforts to foster warmth and flexibility—through shared laughter, peer-led routines, and opportunities for exploration—deepened participation and reflected ethical principles grounded in children’s rights and well-being (Barblett et al., 2022; Truscott & Benton, 2024). This approach aligns with Hendry et al. (2024), who emphasize the importance of relational ethics in early childhood research and call for ethical practices that evolve in response to the dynamic nature of researcher–child interactions.
Fourth, familiarity with digital tools supported children’s sense of confidence and control. In all three studies, the use of everyday technologies (e.g., tablets, smartphone cameras, and VR headsets) provided a sense of continuity between school, home, and research settings. Children’s existing digital literacies became a bridge into the research process, allowing them to navigate tools with fluency and integrate their knowledge into the session (Hulston, 2023; Liu et al., 2024). This suggests that ethical research with young children must consider not only developmental appropriateness but also cultural and contextual familiarity.
Finally, this synthesis highlights the value of child-led pacing and co-construction of research tasks. As children became more comfortable, they took the initiative—redirecting discussions, asking questions, and guiding peers. This evolution of participation reflected assent not as a static condition but as a dynamic process of negotiation. Recognizing these shifts required ongoing researcher reflexivity and a willingness to adapt structures to better support children’s rhythms of engagement (Graham et al., 2016; McFadden et al., 2023).
Taken together, these findings call for a reframing of assent as an evolving practice—embedded in the interplay of relational trust, material interaction, and children’s growing ownership of the research space. Future research should continue exploring how children express dissent and disengagement, particularly in contexts that may be unfamiliar, emotionally complex, or shaped by power asymmetries. Additional attention is also needed to ensure inclusive practices for children with varying levels of verbal or cognitive development, as well as those from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Ceballos & Susinos, 2022; Ólafsdóttir et al., 2024). As Ólafsdóttir et al. (2024) point out, cultural and linguistic contexts shape children’s participation in distinct and often subtle ways, and inclusive methodologies must be sensitive to these dimensions in order to support meaningful agency across diverse settings.
Rather than relying on standardized scripts or adult-driven timelines, ethical research with young children must prioritize flexibility, responsiveness, and respect for children’s own ways of being and knowing. In doing so, we not only meet ethical standards—we reimagine research as a collaborative space where children’s agency is not granted but recognized and upheld from the outset.
10. Conclusions
Insights drawn from the cross-case synthesis provide empirical evidence that young children’s assent is best conceptualized not as a fixed point but as a dynamic process—interwoven with play, social engagement, and multimodal expression. By retrospectively analyzing three case studies that varied in context and method, we have shown that children communicate assent through a constellation of actions: a glance toward a peer, a touch on the research tool, a question posed mid-session, or a quiet reenactment of a VR narrative. These expressions carry ethical significance and deserve recognition within research protocols.
The findings extend the existing literature on participatory ethics (Fleer & Ridgeway, 2014; Mayne & Howitt, 2021) by showing that meaningful assent is built through sustained, responsive interaction. They affirm that researchers must remain reflexive—not only in how they interpret children’s behaviors but in how they design environments that invite co-construction, transparency, and trust. Children’s willingness to participate was never guaranteed—it was earned through iterative engagement, and it evolved through reciprocal acts of care, humor, questioning, and shared attention.
This synthesis also contributes to the growing field of child-led research by foregrounding the ethical potential of play and digital tools. Whether stomping through VR rain scenes, narrating over classroom videos, or proposing their own imaginative extensions of the study, children consistently enacted agency in ways that surpassed formal consent processes. These actions serve as a reminder that ethical participation is not only about what is permitted—it is about what is possible when children are genuinely included.
Looking forward, we urge researchers to further develop multimodal, play-based, and culturally responsive approaches to assent—particularly for children with diverse communication styles, experiences, and access to digital resources. Doing so will deepen our collective understanding of what it means to conduct ethical, inclusive, and participatory research with young children.
By treating assent not as a threshold to be crossed but as a relationship to be nurtured, we honor children’s rights, respect their agency, and open space for research that is not only about children—but with them and for them.
Conceptualization, I.R.B.; Methodology, A.M.M., I.R.B. and M.J.B.; Formal analysis, A.M.M., I.R.B. and M.J.B.; Data curation, A.M.M., I.R.B. and M.J.B.; Writing—original draft preparation, A.M.M., I.R.B. and M.J.B.; Writing—review and editing, A.M.M., I.R.B. and M.J.B.; Supervision, I.R.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This retrospective synthesis was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All three original studies included in the synthesis received approval from the Institutional Review Board of the University of South Florida: Pro00013017 (approved and updated on 27 July 2024), Pro00032383 (approved and updated on 27 July 2024), and STUDY007803 (approved on 30 October 2024).
Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the original studies included in this retrospective synthesis.
The data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions. This research is based on three previously approved studies, and in order to comply with institutional ethical guidelines and protect participant privacy, the data cannot be shared.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Arizpe, E.; Styles, M. Children reading pictures: Interpreting visual texts; Routledge: 2003.
Arnott, L.; Martinez-Lejarreta, L.; Wall, K.; Blaisdell, C.; Palaiologou, I. Reflecting on three creative approaches to informed consent with children under six. British Educational Research Journal; 2020; 46,
Barblett, L.; Barratt-Pugh, C.; Killoran, A. Ethical research practices with young children: Building authentic relationships. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood; 2022; 47,
Barblett, L.; Bobongie-Harris, F.; Cartmel, J.; Hadley, F.; Harrison, L.; Irvine, S.; Lavina, L. ‘We’re not useless, we know stuff!’ Gathering children’s voices to inform policy. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood; 2023; 48,
Berson, I. R.; Berson, M. J.; Carnes, A. M.; Wiedeman, C. R. Excursion into empathy: Exploring prejudice with virtual reality. Social Education; 2018; 82,
Berson, I. R.; Berson, M. J.; Etsey, K. F.; Bronteng, J. E. Berson, I. R.; Berson, M. J.; Gray, C. Hu m’ani so ma me nti na atwe mmienu nam (blow the dust from my eyes): Making the voices of Ghanaian kindergarteners visible through the use of video-cued ethnography in a study of citizenship. Participatory methodologies to elevate children’s voice and agency; Information Age Publishing: 2019a; pp. 369-382.
Berson, I. R.; Berson, M. J.; Gray, L. Participatory methodologies to empower young children in research. Global Studies of Childhood; 2019b; 9,
Bertram, T.; Pascal, C.; Lyndon, H.; Formosinho, J.; Gaywood, D.; Gray, C.; Koutoulas, J.; Loizou, E.; Vandenbroeck, M.; Whalley, M. EECERA ethical code for early childhood researchers. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal; 2025; 33,
Blaisdell, C.; McNair, L. J.; Addison, L.; Davis, J. M. ‘Why am I in all of these pictures?’ From learning stories to lived stories: The politics of children’s participation rights in documentation practices. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal; 2021; 30,
Carney, R. N.; Levin, J. R. Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review; 2002; 14, pp. 5-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1013176309260]
Ceballos, N.; Susinos, T. Do my words convey what children are saying? Researching school life with very young children: Dilemmas for ‘authentic listening’. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal; 2022; 30,
Clark, A.; Moss, P. Listening to young children: The Mosaic approach; National Children’s Bureau: 2011.
Colliver, Y. From listening to understanding: Interpreting young children’s perspectives. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal; 2017; 25,
Coyne, I.; Carter, B. Being participatory: Researching with children and young people; Springer: 2024.
Dockett, S.; Einarsdóttir, J.; Perry, B. Young children’s decisions about research participation: Opting out. International Journal of Early Years Education; 2012; 20,
Dockett, S.; Perry, B. Researching with young children: Seeking assent. Child Indicators Research; 2011; 4,
Dockett, S.; Perry, B.; Kearney, E. Promoting children’s informed assent in research participation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education; 2013; 26,
Fleer, M. Conceptual playworlds: The role of imagination in play and learning. Early Years; 2021; 41,
Fleer, M.; Ridgeway, A. Engaging young children in multimodal research methods: A cultural-historical perspective. International Journal of Early Childhood; 2014; 46,
Flewitt, R. Conducting research with young children: Some ethical considerations. Early Child Development and Care; 2005; 175,
Gallagher, M.; Haywood, S. L.; Jones, M. W.; Milne, S. Negotiating informed consent with children in school-based research. Children & Society; 2010; 24,
Gaywood, D.; Lyndon, H. The visibility of ethics within early childhood research; revised standards for our international community of practice. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal; 2025; 33,
Graham, A.; Powell, M. A.; Truscott, J. Exploring the nexus between participatory methods and ethics in early childhood research. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood; 2016; 41,
Harcourt, D.; Conroy, H. Informed assent: Ethics and processes when researching with young children. Early Child Development and Care; 2005; 175,
Hayes, N. ‘It’s not fair’: Hearing the voices of young children. Education 3-13; 2024; 52,
Hedges, H.; Cooper, M. Inquiring minds: Theorizing children’s interests. Journal of Curriculum Studies; 2016; 48,
Hendry, H.; Teszenyi, E.; Rodriguez-Leon, L.; Maynes, M. L.; Dorrian, J.; Edwards, T. Tensions, assumptions and situated ethics: Attuning to the unpredictability of ethics in early childhood research participation. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal; 2024; pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2024.2387570]
Horgan, D. A literature review on methodologies for consulting with children aged birth to 5 years; Hub na nÓg: 2024; Available online: https://hubnanog.ie/a-literature-review-on-methodologies-for-consulting-with-children-aged-birth-to-5-years/ (accessed on 25 March 2025).
Hulston, S. J. Embodied meaning-making: Using literacy-as-event to explore a young child’s small world play. Literacy; 2023; 57,
Huser, C.; Dockett, S.; Perry, B. Young children’s assent and dissent in research: Agency, privacy and relationships within ethical research spaces. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal; 2022; 30,
Inha, K. Toward ethical praxis in longitudinal research with children: Reflecting on ethical tensions in participatory research. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics; 2025; 4,
Jewitt, C.; Bezemer, J.; O’Halloran, K. Introducing multimodality; 2nd ed. Routledge: 2025.
Kirby, P. Assent and children’s participation rights: Beyond tokenism and towards meaningful engagement. Children & Society; 2020; 34,
Lindeke, L. L.; Hauck, M. R.; Tanner, M. Practical issues in obtaining child assent for research. Journal of Pediatric Nursing; 2000; 15,
Liu, S.; Reynolds, B. L.; Thomas, N.; Soyoof, A. The use of digital technologies to develop young children’s language and literacy skills: A systematic review. SAGE Open; 2024; 14,
Lyndon, H. Embracing the breadth of ethical complexities in early childhood research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal; 2023; 31,
Martinez-Iejarreta, L.; Arnott, L.; Wall, K. Detective mystery play: Play-based research methods for facilitating young children’s critical thinking. International Journal of Early Years Education; 2024; 32,
Mayne, F.; Howitt, C. The narrative approach to informed consent: Empowering young children’s rights and meaningful participation; Routledge: 2021.
Mayne, F.; Howitt, C.; Rennie, L. Meaningful informed consent with young children: Looking forward through an interactive narrative approach. Early Child Development and Care; 2016; 186,
McFadden, A.; Varcoe, C.; Brown, H. Examining child-led tours and child standpoint theory as a methodological approach to mitigate asymmetrical adult-child power dynamics in ethnographic research: A child-led tour of elfish antics and sensorial knowledge. International Journal of Qualitative Methods; 2023; 22, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/16094069231182878]
Mirabella, A. From flipping pages to scrolling screens: Exploring emergent digital literacy behaviors of young children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation; University of South Florida: 2025.
Moore, T. P.; McArthur, M.; Noble-Carr, D. More a marathon than a hurdle: Towards children’s informed consent in a study on safety. Qualitative Research; 2018; 18,
Norris, S. Identity in (inter)action: Introducing multimodal (inter)action analysis; De Gruyter Mouton: 2011; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781934078280]
O’Farrelly, C.; Tatlow-Golden, M. It’s up to you if you want to take part. Supporting young children’s informed choice about research participation with simple visual booklets. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal; 2022; 30,
Ólafsdóttir, S. M.; Danby, S.; Theobald, M. Making connections with children: Children’s rights, ethics and research methods. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal; 2024; pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2024.2437777]
Pascal, C.; Bertram, T. Praxis, ethics and power: Developing praxeology as a participatory paradigm for early childhood research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal; 2012; 20,
Patton, K.; Winter, K. Researcher positionality in eliciting young children’s perspectives. Journal of Early Childhood Research; 2023; 21,
Potter, J. Children’s multimodal participation in research settings: New directions in social semiotics. Multimodal Communication; 2024; 13,
Pyle, A.; Danniels, E. Using a picture book to gain assent in research with young children. Early Child Development and Care; 2016; 186,
Quinones, G.; Rutanen, N.; Revilla, Y. L. A cultural-historical exploration of relational ethics in research involving children. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction; 2023; 42, 100756. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100756]
Shengjergji, S. “Yeah, I am making new stuff!”: Responsivity to and negotiations of agency during digital storytelling in preschool. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal; 2024; 32,
Shin, M. Peeking at the relationship world of young children: How research can inform practice. Early Childhood Education Journal; 2010; 38,
Southgate, E.; Smith, S. P. Ethical considerations in researching children’s digital lives. Journal of Children and Media; 2017; 11,
Spiteri, J. Children’s voices and agency: Ways of listening in early childhood quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research; Cambridge University Press: 2024.
Sun, Y.; Blewitt, C.; Edwards, S.; Fraser, A.; Newman, S.; Cornelius, J.; Skouteris, H. Methods and ethics in qualitative research exploring young children’s voice: A systematic review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods; 2023; 22, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/16094069231152449]
Truscott, J.; Benton, L. ‘But, what is a researcher?’ Developing a novel ethics resource to support informed consent with young children. Children’s Geographies; 2024; 22,
United Nations. Convention on the rights of the child; United Nations General Assembly: 1989.
Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes; Harvard University Press: 1978.
Waters, T. Coyne, I.; Carter, B. Ethical issues in participatory research with children and young people. Being participatory: Researching with children and young people; Springer: 2024; pp. 39-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47787-4_3]
Watson, L. Visualising the ephemeral ‘noticings’ of children’s assent and participation during research. Sociological Research Online; 2025; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13607804241311834]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
This article examines how young children express informed assent in research settings that incorporate digital tools, participatory methods, and play-based approaches. Drawing on data from three studies involving kindergarten and first-grade children (ages 5 to 7) in the southeastern United States, this cross-case analysis explores how children navigated their participation using multimodal and relational strategies. Conceptual play theory, social semiotics, and participatory research frameworks guided the analysis, emphasizing assent as an evolving, co-constructed process rather than a singular verbal agreement. Through video recordings, field notes, and action-oriented transcripts, we investigated how children expressed comfort, curiosity, and agency across diverse contexts—including virtual reality storytelling, video-cued reflection, and interactive eBooks. Findings illustrate that assent was negotiated through gesture, movement, silence, humor, and peer interaction, often extending beyond adult-defined research routines. Children reinterpreted their roles, shaped the pace of sessions, and co-constructed meaning through play and dialogue. This retrospective synthesis of three previously conducted studies offers practical and ethical insights for researchers working with young children, including the importance of ongoing assent checkpoints, developmentally appropriate explanations, and flexible research environments. We argue that ethical research with children must prioritize multimodal communication, child-led pacing, and relational trust to support authentic and meaningful participation. By reframing assent as a dynamic and multimodal process, this research contributes to emerging conversations about ethical responsiveness, agency, and inclusive practices in early childhood research.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Berson, Ilene R
; Berson, Michael J