Analysis of two published articles on research with children and young people The WritePass Journal

Analysis of two published articles on research with children and young people Summary of Main Argument Analysis of two published articles on research with children and young people ) focuses on the use of visual and play-based activities as a method of social science research with children and young people. Three case studies are presented within the article with each case study describing a different visual method. Lego Duplo toys were used by children to create a model of their own homes and to enact the roles of the different people within their home. An activity entitled ‘Rainbows and Clouds’ was used to allow children to express both the positive and negative feelings regarding their parents’ unemployment, and finally, mood-boards were used to allow children and young people to explore feelings about various experiences. Each visual method of research is claimed to be a useful and valid way of letting young people and children express their feelings and experiences. The relevance of our visual sense is discussed in the introduction and its importance in expressing ourselves is explored, for example through the medium of photography. A r ecent move away from seeing young people and children as subjects to be observed and interpreted at a distance, toward seeing them as subjects to work with and alongside is also discussed, a move that has allowed a more valid reflection of their real life experiences. The article concludes that visual research methods are able to improve the research process with young people and children and increase the ecological validity of such research as the young participants are more able to express their thoughts and feelings. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Research Methods Discussed The article by Pimlott-Wilson (2012) examines the usefulness of three different visual research methods all of which have both strengths and weaknesses. A key strength of all three of the visual research methods discussed in the article is their ability to give children and young people, who may struggle with verbal expression an opportunity to fully express themselves in a less pressurised way. Pimlott-Wilson (2012) also argues that the methods can overcome difficulties that children may have expressing themselves if their drawing skills are poor. It has been argued that un-reliable and poor data provided by children and young people is often the fault of the adult researchers who tend to treat children in an ‘adult-ist’ way, perhaps through intimidation or subjectivity in the interpretation of results (Alderson, 1995). The use of more child-friendly methods in the research described by Pimlott-Wilson (2012) allowed children to express themselves in a more familiar and comfortable way thus limiting the power gap between child and researcher and fostering a more collaborative relationship, a key strength in research with children and young people that has been advocated by Robinson and Gillies (2012). This more child-friendly approach also reduced the need for subjectivity in interpreting results. A child or young person who feels more comfortable and able to express their true thoughts, feelings and experiences is likely to produce a clearer and easier to interpret product because they are able to be more open and honest. In turn, this gives the study good content validity.   However, it should be noted that some children expressed worry about parents or carers seeing what had been written during the ‘Rainbows and Clouds’ activity. Therefore, in order to maximise these research methods’ abilities to make children and young people feel at ease, issues of confidentiality must be fully addressed. Despite the noted strengths of the research methods discussed, there are also a number of weaknesses that should be highlights. A key weakness of the research method using Lego Duplo toys is unknowingly identified by the author herself early on in the text when it is noted that the toy is an important cultural experience for Western children. This limits both the generalisability of any findings made through the use of Lego Duplo toys as well as the usefulness of the method with non-Western cultures. Furthermore, as is pointed out by the author, the use of Lego Duplo toys as a visual research method creates a blurry line between where a real life representation ends and a child’s imagination begins. Secondly, the research methods used appear quite time consuming and engaging young children especially can be challenging over a long period of time. Children or young people can become easily bored and may begin to fabricate answers. Furthermore, each visual research method discussed would require a reasonably detailed explanation of both the activity and what is required of the child. This could become extremely limiting when trying to use these types of research methods with children with communication disorders. This refutes that author’s argument that the methods are ideal for using with children who struggle with verbal communication. Task B Summary of Main Argument This article is a book review of â€Å"Children caring for parents with HIV and AIDS: Global issues and policy responses† by Evans and Becker (2009). The book discusses a comparative research project carried out in both the UK and Tanzania, which explored the global issues and policies surrounding the role of young people caring for parents diagnosed with HIV and AIDS. Robson (2009) critically evaluates the book and identifies the key strengths and limitations of both the study that was carried out and the subsequent book. The result is a short summary and review of the book that evaluates each chapter in its own right. The key strengths identified include a thorough and concise literature review and the clear lay-out of the book. The key limitations of the book identified by Robson (2009) include a somewhat misleading book title. Although the title suggests that the study investigated children caring for parents, in reality only children caring for mothers or female guardians were included. Overall, the main argument of the article is in favour of the study reported by Evans and Becker (2009). Robson (2009) concludes that the book provides â€Å"the most substantial research on children caring for adults with HIV and AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa to date,† and could be used to make valuable contributions to policies regarding young carers. Ethical Considerations There are a number of ethical considerations discussed by Robson (2009) regarding the study by Evans and Becker (2009). Firstly, Robson (2009) highlights Evans and Becker’s (2009) admittance that their sample â€Å"cannot be seen as representative of young people with caring responsibilities in families affected by HIV and AIDS across Tanzania and the UK.† Knowingly carrying out research with children that will be limited in its generalisability and contribution to improving the lives of such children could be argued to be unethical. Robson (2009) also notes that Evans and Becker (2009) fail to include a key text by Lather and Smithies (1997). Combined with a lack of generalisability, this has potential ethical implications as failure to review all the relevant literature for their topic may have led the authors to make un-sound policy recommendations. It is unclear from the Robson (2009) review whether the authors did so but it will have been essential for the authors to make it clear in any recommendations can be applied to children providing care for female relatives only. Beazley et al. (2009) advocate a rights-based approach when carrying out research with children. Such an approach views children as subjects and not just objects of research. The authors further argue that academic theories can often be ‘disconnected’ from the real life experiences of children because they are generated and developed through the eyes of adults. Although Robson (2009) does not provide details about the methods used by Evans and Becker (2009) it appears as though the information gathered may have been through observation or inference. For example, Robson (2009) notes that chapters six and seven of the book detail how the children’s carer roles impact on themselves, their families, their schools and communities, a topic that would be challenging for many children to grasp and to answer. Therefore, it seems likely that Evans and Becker (2009) did not respect children’s right to be properly researched and as a result, may not have gained a true reflection of the lives of these children or the support that they really require. Another ethical consideration discussed by Robson (2009) is the way in which participants were recruited for the study. All participants were recruited through non-government and statutory support organisations meaning that they were all receiving some kind of support. It could be argued that this was an unethical method of recruitment as through neglecting to find and research children and families without support, the authors were also neglecting to increase the awareness of support for children in such situations. It is also unclear as to the how consent was gained and whether it was made clear to the children involved that they were free to stop participation at any time, an important research element when working with children referred to as informed dissent (Ennew and Plateau, 2004). Despite these ethical considerations, overall Robson (2009) paints a picture of an ethically sound study commenting that the study by Evans and Becker (2009) used an â€Å"ethically sensitive part icipatory methodology.† However, there are no details given as to why Robson (2009) makes this statement. References Alderson, P. (1995) Listening to Children: Children, Ethics and Social Research. Ilford: Barnado’s. Beazley, H., Bessell, S., Ennew, J. and Waterson, R. (2009) The right to be properly researched: research with children in a messy, real world. Children’s Geographies, 7(4), pp. 365-378. Ennew, J. and Plateau, D.P. (2004) How to research the physical and emotional punishment of children. Bangkok: International Save the Children Southeast, East Asia and Pacific Region Alliance. Evan, R. and Becker, S. (2009) Children caring for parents with HIV and AIDS: global issues and policy responses. Bristol: Policy Press. Lather, P. and Smithies, C. (1997) Troubling the angels: women living with HIV/AIDS. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Robson, E. (2009) Children caring for parents with HIV and AIDS: global issues and policy responses. Children’s Geographies, 7(4), pp. 487-488. Robinson, Y. and Gillies, V. (2012) Introduction: developing creative methods with children and young people. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(2), pp. 87-89.

How Neil Armstrong Became the First Man on the Moon

How Neil Armstrong Became the First Man on the Moon For thousands of years, man had looked to the heavens and dreamed of walking on the moon. On July 20,  1969, as part of the Apollo 11 mission, Neil Armstrong became the very first to accomplish that dream, followed only minutes later by Buzz Aldrin. Their accomplishment placed the United States ahead of the Soviets in the Space Race and gave people around the world the hope of future space exploration. Fast Facts: First Moon Landing Date: July 20, 1969Mission: Apollo 11Crew: Neil Armstrong, Edwin Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins Becoming the First Person on the Moon When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1 on October 4, 1957, the United States was surprised to find themselves behind in the race to space. Still behind the Soviets four years later, President John F. Kennedy gave inspiration and hope  to the American people in his speech to Congress on May 25, 1961 in which he stated, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth. Just eight years later, the United States accomplished this goal by placing Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon. Portrait of American astronauts, from left, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, and Neil Armstrong, the crew of NASAs Apollo 11 mission to the moon, as they pose on a model of the moon, 1969. Ralph Morse / Getty Images Take Off At 9:32 a.m. on July 16, 1969, the Saturn V rocket launched Apollo 11 into the sky from Launch Complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. On the ground, there were over 3,000 journalists, 7,000 dignitaries, and approximately a half million tourists watching this momentous occasion. The event went smoothly and as scheduled. CAPE KENNEDY, UNITED STATES - JULY 16, 1969: Composite 5 frame shot of the gantry retracting while the Saturn V boosters lift off to carry the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Moon.   Ralph Morse / Getty Images After one-and-a-half orbits around Earth, the Saturn V thrusters flared once again and the crew had to manage the delicate process of attaching the lunar module (nicknamed Eagle) onto the nose of the joined command and service module (nicknamed Columbia). Once attached, Apollo 11 left the Saturn V rockets behind as they began their three-day journey to the moon, called the translunar coast. A Difficult Landing On July 19, at 1:28 p.m. EDT, Apollo 11 entered the moons orbit. After spending a full day in lunar orbit, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin boarded the lunar module and detached it from the command module for their descent to the moons surface. As the Eagle departed, Michael Collins, who remained in the Columbia while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the moon, checked for any visual problems with the lunar module. He saw none and told the Eagle crew, You cats take it easy on the lunar surface. Members of the Kennedy Space Center control room team rise from their consoles to see the liftoff of the Apollo 11 mission 16 July 1969.   NASA / Getty Images As the Eagle headed toward the moons surface, several different warning alarms were activated. Armstrong and Aldrin realized that the computer system was guiding them to a landing area that was strewn with boulders the size of small cars. With some last-minute maneuvers, Armstrong guided the lunar module to a safe landing area. At 4:17 p.m. EDT on July 20, 1969, the landing module landed on the moons surface in the Sea of Tranquility with only seconds of fuel left. Armstrong reported to the command center in Houston, Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed. Houston responded, Roger, Tranquility. We copy you on the ground. You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue. Were breathing again. Walking on the Moon After the excitement, exertion, and drama of the lunar landing, Armstrong and Aldrin spent the next six-and-a-half hours resting and then preparing themselves for their moon walk. At 10:28 p.m. EDT, Armstrong turned on the video cameras. These cameras transmitted images from the moon to over half a billion people on Earth who sat watching their televisions. It was phenomenal that these people were able to witness the amazing events that were unfolding hundreds of thousands of miles above them. This grainy, black-and-white image taken on the Moon shows Neil Armstrong about to step off the Eagle lander and onto the surface of the Moon for the first time. NASA   Neil Armstrong was the first person out of the lunar module. He climbed down a ladder and then became the first person to set foot on the moon at 10:56 p.m. EDT. Armstrong then stated, Thats one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. A few minutes later, Aldrin exited the lunar module and stepped foot on the moons surface. Working on the Surface Although Armstrong and Aldrin got a chance to admire the tranquil, desolate beauty of the moons surface, they also had a lot of work to do. NASA had sent the astronauts with a number of scientific experiments to set up and the men were to collect samples from the area around their landing site. They returned with 46 pounds of moon rocks. Armstrong and Aldrin also set up a flag of the United States. Armstrong and Aldrin unfurl the US flag on the moon, 1969. Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing mission, was launched on 16 July 1969 and Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin became the first and second men to walk on the moon on 20 July 1969. The third member of the crew, Michael Collins, remained in lunar orbit. Oxford Science Archive / Getty Images While on the moon, the astronauts received a call from President Richard Nixon. Nixon began by saying, Hello, Neil and Buzz. I am talking to you by telephone from the Oval Office of the White House. And this certainly has to be the most historic telephone call ever made. I just cant tell you how proud we are of what you have done. Time to Leave After spending 21 hours and 36 minutes upon the moon (including 2 hours and 31 minutes of outside exploration), it was time for Armstrong and Aldrin to leave. To lighten their load, the two men threw out some excess materials like backpacks, moon boots, urine bags, and a camera. These fell to the moons surface and were to remain there. Also left behind was a plaque which read, Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the moon. July 1969, A.D. We came in peace for all mankind. Apollo 11 lunar module rising above the moon to rendezvous with command module before heading home, with half Earth visible over horizon in background. Time Life Pictures / NASA / Getty Images   The lunar module blasted off from the moons surface at 1:54 p.m. EDT on July 21, 1969. Everything went well and the Eagle re-docked with the Columbia. After transferring all of their samples onto the Columbia, the Eagle was set adrift in the moons orbit. The Columbia, with all three astronauts back on board, then began their three-day journey back to Earth. Splash Down Before the Columbia command module entered the Earths atmosphere, it separated itself from the service module.  When the capsule reached 24,000 feet, three parachutes deployed to slow down the Columbias descent. At 12:50 p.m. EDT on July 24, the Columbia safely landed in the Pacific Ocean, southwest of Hawaii. They landed just 13 nautical miles from the U.S.S. Hornet that was scheduled to pick them up. astronauts wait in life raft for a helicopter to lift them to the U.S.S. Hornet after successful splashdown July 24th. Astronauts Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Buzz Aldrin successfully completed moon mission. Theyre wearing isolation garments.   Bettmann / Getty Images Once picked up, the three astronauts were immediately placed into quarantine for fears of possible moon germs. Three days after being retrieved, Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins were transferred to a quarantine facility in Houston for further observation. On August 10, 1969, 17 days after splashdown, the three astronauts were released from quarantine and able to return to their families. The astronauts were treated like heroes on their return. They were met by President Nixon and given ticker-tape parades. These men had accomplished what men had only dared to dream for thousands of years- to walk on the moon.