Digital by default: the new normal of family life under COVID-19

Sonia Livingstone (@Livingstone_S) leads the MacArthur Foundation-funded Parenting for a Digital Future project in the LSE Department of Media and Communications. Her Ted Talk on Parenting in the digital age, and recent podcast for Good Thinking explain some of these ideas further, and her book on Parenting for a Digital Future: How hopes and fears about technology shape children’s lives will be out in the summer.

This blog was originally posted on LSE on 5 May 2020 who have kindly allowed for it to be reposted here. 

Digital by default: the new normal of family life under COVID-19

Just a few weeks ago, children went to school, parents worried about their screen time at home, and the digital future was the stuff of science fiction. Under COVID-19, school has gone online, worries about screen time have gone through the roof, and life is fast becoming digital by default. Technology is the taken-for-granted means of playing, seeing family, doing schoolwork, hanging out with friends. Teachers, babysitters, museums, youth clubs, social workers – the whole infrastructure of childhood has moved online. So have the threats to childhood – bullies, scammers, groomers, fake news manufacturers and manipulators of all kinds.

No wonder that anxieties about the future are rising. As I learned when researching my forthcoming book with Alicia Blum-Ross, Parenting for a Digital Future, parents make sense of parenting by looking back to their own childhood and forward to their children’s adulthood. In that intergenerational space of recollection and imagination, parents frame their hopes and fears for their children, and figure out the steps they can and should take, given their particular circumstances.

But under Covid-19, it’s not just our childhood that feels far away, but our lives just a few months back. Our future just a few months hence is equally unclear – “when this is all over” is the new mantra, but we don’t know how to plan for it, and uncertainty is stressful.

What’s striking when people compare their own childhoods to those of today’s children – and never more so than now – is that digital technologies seem to crystallise the difference. Compared with earlier times, digital devices absorb children’s attention, dangle from their ears and accompany them everywhere. They clutter our homes, drain our finances, and seem to have become the focus of pleasures and worries, the means of delivering rewards and punishments, and the occasion for both family conflicts and shared togetherness. As we argue in our book, the very visibility of these technologies, along with a lively public and media debate over how parents are supposedly mis/managing them, gets everyone talking about them, keeping them top of mind.

But these highly visible digital innovations risk obscuring many other important influences on family life. Recent generations have seen many transformations – in demography, stratification, job security, welfare provision, family structure, migration, identity politics, and more. It is these that predominantly shape parental expectations and fuel their anxieties. It is these that imbue everyday technological decisions and conflicts with such emotional intensity. And it is these, far more than their screen time or social media habits, that account for the problems children and young people experience. It is, therefore, these major societal transformations that have resulted in families being so unequally positioned when faced with the challenge of being locked down, including as regards their capacity to embrace a digital-by-default life.

Perhaps because society has preferred to treat parents as a homogenous group, criticising their digital parenting while averting its gaze from the fundamentally unequal difficulties that beset them, that recent headlines have betrayed some surprise in reporting, among other Covid-19 news, the discovery that not all families can afford the technology or connectivity to support home-schooling, or that at-risk children are vulnerable to intensifying levels of offline and online abuse, or that children with special educational needs or other needs cannot be reached online by the systems of care that previously supported them offline.

While I have argued that the digital is sometimes too salient, distracting us from the fundamental social and political challenges that families face, that is not to say that the digital is irrelevant. Covid-19 has triggered a step-change in our digital lives, as in our health, economy and world politics. To support parents, and reduce their anxieties, we are witnessing an explosion of online resources for parents promising to optimise children’s online opportunities and help them combat the risks. For the most part this is exciting and welcome, though undoubtedly many organisations have an eye to their bottom line too. But much of this may not be as helpful as hoped.

As we heard in our fieldwork, parents can feel oppressed by generalised injunctions and exhortations about what they should do, especially when these are accompanied by tacit judgments about good and bad parenting – and good and bad parents. Parents are more often spoken for than heard – recipients of advice on all sides but too rarely invited to discuss their needs or co-produce resources. As a result, much of this online provision is created for “everychild” (typically an able-bodied middle-class child living in a nuclear family home with technologically-competent parents and fast broadband). Meanwhile, real parents are likely finding it difficult to locate, evaluate and select resources and guidance appropriate for their child and their family’s circumstances.

On the one hand, the new normal of digital family life is unfolding organically, as people adapt to unprecedented circumstances. A key message from our research is that the consequences will be diverse, as parents variously embrace, resist or find ways to balance the digital and non-digital, as well as the different dimensions of the digital. Geeky families may relish the chance to share their passion for technology and develop new expertise. Others will be resisting the onslaught of digital-by-default, whether because of the dystopian associations of a digital future, or because they are determined to hold onto other ways of living. Most will seek some kind of balance, though balancing, we learned from our research, can be as effortful as staying upright on a rolling log, and require a constant – and exhausting – monitoring of events and outcomes.

On the other hand, digital-by-default has long been government policy: a gradual but determined shift away from (expensive) in-person state provision towards all things digital. Among many other consequences of Covid-19, we are living through an extraordinary experiment in relying on our national digital infrastructure. And it is problematic in many ways. A long-standing concern has centred on the ways in which socio-economic inequalities mean that not all benefit fairly, with the resulting digital inequalities fuelling further socio-economic inequalities in a vicious cycle.

A more recent concern centres on datafication and digital surveillance, whether by the government or businesses or both, as ever more of our private lives move online, mediated by proprietary platforms whose activities are far from transparent and whose business interests may be quite different from the interests of children.

“When this is all over,” will we find that families’ well-meaning efforts to find ways for children to play, see family, do schoolwork and hang out with friends online under lockdown have hastened a digital future in which our lives are tracked and monetised in ways that few fully understand? Or will we find the public more resistant to all things digital, more aware of the value of alternative ways of living, more determined to find their own balance and have their voices heard?

Making Scotland an ACE informed nation: continuing the conversation - an event summary

CRFR co-director Dr Emma Davidson summarises the key themes emerging from our recent seminar reflecting on the emergent ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) and resilience agenda in Scotland.

We began a conversation on ACEs and resilience in December 2017 at the seminar, ‘The Troubling Concept of Resilience’, where Dr Eric Carlin and myself voiced our concerns that the dominant narrative on resilience could obscure inequalities; penalising individuals by making them responsible for their own wellbeing. Since then, we have witnessed the mounting influence of ACE and resilience-focused policy in Scotland. It is now even more important to provide a space in which popular rhetoric on ACEs and resilience can be constructively and respectfully critiqued.

Our event on 6^th November 2018 aimed to reignite that process. We welcomed three speakers: Dr Amy Chandler, Dr Cara Blaisdell and Laura Wright, each of whom talked from their perspective of their own field of research.

Amy’s presentation (which you can watch here) examined the potentially counter-productive ways ACEs are used in research on suicide and self-harm. Early experiences, Amy noted, are undeniably important in shaping later risks of, or experiences with, suicide and self-harm. However, there is a tendency to rely on a mechanical or ‘addictive’ analysis, with a correlation drawn between early adversity and later problems. The work of explaining what these correlations actually mean, or understanding the mechanisms behind them, are less well developed. Drawing on her own research, Amy highlighted that this focus can mean that interpretation and meaning is omitted – what do adverse experiences mean and feel like to different people, at different times? And how are social and political conditions implicated in this? Also absent, Amy suggested, is the role of agency. The popular narrative of resilience plays into the long standing stigmatisation of mental health problems as being associated with weakness. This way of thinking about resilience implies that those experiencing self-harm and suicide are not resilient.  The reverse can in fact be true, with the practice of self-harm being evidence of extreme resilience in extreme circumstances.

Dr Cara Blaisdell’s work picked up on this critique within an early years setting (read Cara’s new blog here). She highlighted the potential for the ACE agenda in Scotland to reinforce what Tuck (2009) refers to as a ‘damage narrative’. Rather than holding those in power to account, these narratives can reinforce particular ideas about children and society: where the ‘poor’ child is a site of damage to self and society; where professional labels children and seek to ‘fix’ them; and where structures of oppression remain unchallenged and unchanged. Cara’s made the acute observation ‘what you focus on is what grows’. This is not a denial that bad things happen, but rather an acknowledgement that deficit based models can label, provoke normative ideas (of family, of parenting, of childhood). Ultimately deficit models stigmatise, and they leave little room for the complex meaning making emphasised by Amy as being so crucial.

Our final speaker was Laura Wright who raised what is an under-acknowledged issue within ACEs – and that is the role and status of children’s rights. Scotland is, noted Laura, a country recognised as a global leader in children’s meaningful participation. This work is supported by multiple organisations, initiatives (we are now coming to the end of the Year of Youth People) and legislation (i.e. Children and Young People (Scotland_ Act 2014). A tension, nonetheless, remains between participation and protectionism – with the latter superseding the former. The implications of this, argues Laura, requires exploration. At present, children and young people have not been given the opportunity to meaningfully participate in discussions about what is included or excluded from the list of ‘adverse childhood experiences’. Indeed, at an individual level, adults are completing checklists for children and young people, and using this to make decisions about possible interventions. What, asked Laura, does such an approach look like, and how it is given meaning by children and young people? Critically, how can a plan designed to be child-centred, like Getting it Right for Every Child, better engage children and young people in active conversations about their own well-being?

There is – as Laura concluded – no magic bullet. However, the speakers agreed that the way forward is not simply to shift from asking ‘what’s wrong with you’, to ‘what happened to you’. Rather, what is required is a move towards a strengths approach which asks what is right with you, your family, your community and your society. On a practical and pragmatic note, more reflection and time needs to be spent on how complex ideas – such as meaning, context and interpretation – be meaningfully incorporated in institutional structures and practices already under incredible pressure.

We intend to continue these conversations and look forward to seeing you at our forthcoming events. There are four more seminars planned for 2019. Each will consider ACEs and resilience through a different conceptual lens. These are: 

·        ACEs and foetal & infant development

·        ACEs, resilience and gender

·        Resilience in the Majority World

·        ACEs and resilience in Scottish schools

We will be announcing dates for these seminars in the New Year. Please subscribe to the CRFR website for updates on this, and CRFR’s other events and research activities.

Further links

Drs Emma Davidson and Eric Carlin reflect on their CRFR Informal Seminar ‘The Troubling Concept of Resilience’.
Resilience – continuing the conversation

CRFR Associate PhD student Ariane Critchley provides her thoughts on resilience in response to the recent CRFR Seminar ‘The Troubling Concept of Resilience’ given by Eric Carlin and Emma Davidson.
How resilient do we want our children and young people to be?

Dr Caralyn Blaisdell from the University of Strathclyde continues our discussion on the theme of resilience and how this term is being used, with specific reference to early years.  
Resilience in early years – continuing the conversation

ACE Awareness,damage narratives and social justice in early years practice: personal andprofessional reflections

Laura Wright, University of Edinburgh talks about engaging children in the ACE agenda.

ACE Aware Nation: Engaging Children in the Conversation

Intimate and family practices, generational justice, environmental justice and global inequalities

CRFR co-director Professor Lynn Jamieson writes the final keynote speaker blog from our 5th International Conference: Unequal families and relationships.

The phrase ‘environmental justice’ is particularly used to point to the unfairness of the differential impact of environmental degradation and climate change that means those who suffer the most are those who are least responsible for the cause of the harm. It’s the activities of the minority of rich countries in the world who have disproportionately created global warming and the resulting climate change but the majority poor of the world who disproportionately suffer –the intensified drought and floods in regions where poverty already renders people extremely vulnerable, small nation-islands of the Pacific losing their home lands to the sea. The World Bank publishes international league tables of carbon footprints on a per person basis - the estimated total amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of the activities of that country divided by their population. They put the average for 2011-2015 for the USA at 17 metric tons per person compared with 7.1 for the UK but there are 48 of the roughly 200 countries with less than one ton per person. The majority of countries of these are in Africa but they also include– Afghanistan, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Paraguay, Guatemala, Haiti, Togo, Tonga, the West Bank and Gaza.

In aspect of family, domestic and personal life involving food, water, energy and the consumption of other material resources as ‘stuff’, in the rich minority world people are ratcheting up much higher carbon footprint than their equivalent in the majority poor world. For example, a HOUSE OF LORDS European Union Committee 10th Report of Session 2013–14 noted ‘Consumers in industrialised countries waste almost as much food as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa. The global carbon footprint of wasted food has been estimated as more than twice the total greenhouse gas emissions of all road transportation in the United States (US)’ Not all food waste is at the level of households but in the UK about half of it is and the UK has the highest rate of food waste in Europe. Within the national contexts of the minority rich world, it’s the more affluent who are the major domestic producers of the harmful carbon emissions and the major consumers of irreplaceable global resources. So to stick with the example of food, in the UK, alongside the food waste we have households sometimes relying on foodbanks because they have no money to buy food. There are stark inequalities between rich and poor households in the UK in all aspects of consumption including domestic energy use and transport.

Ways in which people enact being a family or being in close relationships – family practices, practices of intimacy and displaying family - are often also practices of consumption. Families and relationships carry practices and values of consumption; they transmit dispositions to consume or conserve. Practices of gift giving, orientations to transport, food, water, energy use, shopping, spending, saving, recycling are shaped, carried, and sometimes transformed in families and relationships. Obviously this is not to suggest families and relationships are the whole story, they are embedded in, constrained or enabled by wider contexts. Sociologists of families and relationships study many aspects of the intersection of consumption with family and intimate practices but only a minority with awareness of issues of sustainability or a political interest in thinking about the conditions that would enable families and relationships to be part of the solution. This must change. Such a change does not mean subverting other political agendas, challenging homophobic heteronormativity, or gender inequality or racism or ethnic or religious division – all of these agendas can complement taking a more direct interest in modifying the trajectories of environmental catastrophe that we are currently on.

The term ‘intergenerational justice’ has been used in a range of ways reflecting the different usages of ‘generations’. In the context of climate change, intergenerational justice refers to the definition of sustainable development adopted in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development chaired by Brundtland 'Development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'. Within studies of family, gender and intimate life there is considerable interest in shifts in balances of power and the nature of solidarity that offer clues about circumstances that enable and constrain reconfigurations of justice and equality. There are also bodies of work documenting tension between understandings of fairness and how rules develop, operate and are modified in everyday lives. A great deal is now known about the shifts in power in intergenerational relationships and the related varied conditions of ‘the stalled revolution’ in gender equality. There are significant bodies of work concerned with how people draw boundaries around caring for and about other people. Boundary work is often gendered and boundaries can be classed, raced and sexualised. Work on stepfamilies, for example, shows class differences in how family configurations are altered by separation and reformation of couple relationships. Scholars of families and relationships have done a great deal of work around issues relevant to intergenerational justice without linking it to the concerns of the Bundtland report.

I invite you to consider the structural and cultural conditions that enable the two extremes that are alive in writing about families and relationships – ‘amoral familism’ (Banfield, 1958) and ‘world families’ (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2013). ‘Amoral familism’ refers to a set of rules of conduct that focus on the short-run advantage of the family household and never further the interests of the group or community unless this is maximising the narrow family interest. Banfield argued that amoral familism was the outcome of a complex combination of material, economic and cultural factors. The majority of villagers lived in extreme poverty with no access to redress, being served by education and health systems which perpetuated illiteracy and ill health. He suggested that childrearing practices fitted with and perpetuate this code of conduct, combining indulgence with arbitrary and frequent punishment – a combination that communicates ‘there is no underlying principles but only fate’ and created emotional dispositions that work against a sense of self-efficacy and faith in making your own biography. Beck and Beck-Gernsheim coined ‘world family’ bringing together what the wider literature calls transnational families (family relationships that span national boundaries) and ‘mixed relationships’ that is relationships across boundaries such as ethnic, national and religious boundaries. The purpose of the term is a claim of potentiality - that world families could be a transformative. They are suggesting a dialectic between the intimate practices within world families and undermining the boundaries and inequalities of the system of nation states. There is a lot stacked against this. The structural and cultural conditions in the UK at the moment seem extremely hostile to ‘world families’; the Brexit move is clearly a hardening of national boundary and is seen by much of the rest of the world as clearly unwelcoming. However, is there also some hope in reports of local actions in memory and solidarity of the victims of the mass murder of gay people in Orlando?


References

1987 Brundland Report: Our Common Future. Oxford: World Commission on Environment and Development.
Banfield, E.C. (1958). The moral basis of a backward society. New York: The Free Press.
Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2013). Distant love: John Wiley & Sons.

You can follow live tweets from the conference using the hashtag #CRFR2016 on Twitter.

Families, intimacy and social inequalities

David Morgan is an expert in the sociology of the family. He is Emeritus Professor at the Morgan Centre, University of Manchester. Here, Professor Morgan explains some of the issues he will address in his keynote presentation ‘Family and Intimate Practices and Social Inequalities’ at our 5th International Conference: Unequal Families and Relationships.

Many sociologists have examined the links between families and inequalities. For example John Goldthorpe describes the “the inherent ‘stickiness’ between the class positions of parents and their children”[i]. This can be seen as a call for the close examination of what happens within families when discussing the persistence of social inequalities. This should include examination of those at the higher levels of the class system, as Goldthorpe argues “more advantaged families now use their economic, cultural and social edge to ensure their children stay at the top of the social class ladder”[ii].

In my presentation at the CRFR international conference I will re-consider some aspects of families, including inheritance (especially of wealth), housing, how families accumulate and use their social capital (like networks, knowledge and other resources) and how these practices are seen to be normal and natural in society. While I focus on family practices this type of analysis can be extended to include personal communities and the wider networks of friends and acquaintances.

Much of this is not exactly new and much of the material is readily available. What is required is a recognition that everyday family practices can, using a different pair of spectacles, also be seen as class practices. 

===============

Professor Morgan is a keynote speaker at our 5th International Conference: Unequal Families & Relationships. You can read a brief introduction to his presentation 'Family and Intimate Practices and Social Inequalities' here.

You can follow live tweets from the conference using the hashtag #CRFR2016 on Twitter.

[i] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/decades-of-educational-reform-no-social-mobility
 [ii] http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-03-14-decades-educational-expansion-had-little-effect-social-mobility

(Multi)culturalizing Inequalities: Citizenship Contradictions of Marriage Transnationalization in South Korea/East Asia

Chang Kyung-Sup, PhD, Professor of Sociology at Seoul National University writes for us ahead of his keynote presentation today at our 5th International Conference: Unequal Families & Relationships.



As in other societies, globalization has had many faces in South Korea. Since the early 2000s, for instance, South Korean men’s marriage with foreign women, mostly from less affluent Asian countries, has suddenly increased. This trend became significant initially between Korean Chinese women (Chaoxianzu) and poor urban men, and Han Chinese women were soon introduced to similar South Korean men. From around 2005, many local governments and rural communities began to approach Southeast Asian women – in particular, Vietnamese women – as brides for rapidly increasing “forced” bachelors in rural areas. The semi-public campaign of “sending rural bachelors to in-law’s home” (nongchonchonggak janggabonaegi, meaning making rural bachelors marry) spread quickly throughout the country, so South Korean villages suddenly became the very forefront of a sort of sociocultural cosmopolitanization. This has become perhaps the first societal initiative for openly promoting “multiculturalism” in Korean history as the South Korean government, at the urge of civilian experts and activists, formally adopted “the multicultural family support” policy and began various public programs for assisting foreign brides and their Korean families. All of a sudden, multiculturalism became a keyword not only in social policy but also in cultural and political policy. However, this policy has not only failed to address the structural problems that were responsible for the necessity of transnational marriages but also engendered other structural problems. My study analyzes such structural problems by examining the historical and institutional nature of South Korea’s formally promoted multiculturalism.

The “multicultural family support” policy seems to have culturally particularized the complex social and economic problems surrounding foreign brides, their Korean families, foreign laborers, and South Korean society as a whole. First, this policy has been exclusively applied to marriage migrants while openly excluding foreign guest-workers (despite their lengthier and more sizable presence) for no (multi)cultural reasons. Second, while the material and social status of foreign brides is basically determined by that of their Korean family members – most of whom are unfortunately poor and often old – the (multi)cultural policy alone has had no significant effect in improving the latter’s material fate. Third, despite a paternalistic social atmosphere for helping relieve foreign brides’ difficulties in Korean life, the multiculturalism drive has often neglected the asymmetrical gender dimension of social globalization.

Rapid marriage transnationalization and the accompanying multiculturalism drive are certainly a new component of globalized life in South Korea, but the country’s persistent structural inequalities involving laborers (now including foreign workers in increasing numbers), rural families, and women have had quite interesting manifestations in this process. These material problems have been (multi)culturally reframed in both the specific terms of the multicultural family support policy and the broad outlines of civilian multiculturalism. The main conclusion I wish to offer to this international conference is that multiculturalizing South Korea has failed to meaningfully address or redress various structural inequalities that foreign brides as laboring, rural, and women citizens share with foreign guest workers, foreign brides’ Korean families, and native women.

===============

Professor Chang Kyung-Sup is a keynote speaker at our 5th International Conference: Unequal Families & Relationships. You can read a brief introduction to his presentation here.

You can follow live tweets from the conference using the hashtag #CRFR2016 on Twitter.

Unequal families and relationships

Next week we shall be hosting our 5th International Conference in Edinburgh; on Monday we shall welcome over 200 delegates from 31 countries. 

Here, CRFR co-director Dr Jeni Harden introduces the conference and next week some of our keynote speakers will be posting to our blog. For those who are unable to join us, you can follow the conversations on twitter using the hashtag #CRFR2016.

 We chose inequality as the theme for our 5th conference, reflected in our conference name ‘Unequal Families and Relationships’. Inequalities and social divisions are created, reflected, reinforced and sometimes subverted within families and personal relationships. We received a fantastic response to the call for papers, which has allowed us to produce a very interesting programme for the three days.

In the paper sessions we will address some key questions: How are social divisions and inequalities experienced within the context of families and personal relationships? How do inequalities of gender, social class, ethnicity, sexuality, disability and generation, intersect within and between families, households or friendship groups? How are families and relationships implicated in sexism, racism and bigotry, as well as political resistance to injustice and encouragement of inclusiveness, fairness and equality? What comparisons can we draw between the global north and global south?

We are also very pleased to have keynote speakers who are leaders in the field of families and relationships. Julia Brannen; Kyung Sup Chang; Kathleen Gerson; Lynn Jamieson; David Morgan; Peter Moss.

We are introducing a couple of new things to the conference this time – Skills Taster sessions providing a brief introduction to a range of methods used in researching with children and families and the Evelyn Gillan Research Impact Prize for families and relationships research that has influenced the lives of children, families, or households. The prize, supported by the Scottish Government is in memory of our late colleague Evelyn Gillan (1959-2015).

We hope that everyone attending the conference will have an enjoyable and inspiring time. Remember to join the conversation on twitter #CRFR2016.

Intersecting childhood identities, inequalities and social justice

Issues of identity and social justice have come to the fore of political, theoretical and practical discussions. Children and young people are at the heart of this debate, confronting researchers, practitioners and policy makers with challenges of how to address social inequalities and promote social justice for present and future generations. Marlies Kustatscher, co-organiser of the 'Children's rights, social justice and social identities in Scotland' seminar series updates us on the upcoming third seminar. 

Children and young people’s identities and inequalities are complex. A growing field of interdisciplinary research in the UK and beyond recognises that categories such as ethnicity, race, gender, social class, disability, sexuality and age intersect in intricate ways, shaping children’s social identities and impacting on their everyday life experiences.

The way in which such interlinking identities generate particular inequalities has been framed in theory and research through the concept of ‘intersectionality’. Intersectional perspectives recognise the diversity of different groups and examine how certain groups are silenced from and marginalised by dominant political debates. This seminar series is providing us with an opportunity to better understand what the concept of intersectionality means for those working with children or those who shape child-related policy.

In the first two seminars we have addressed how intersectionality can help us to understand overlapping childhood identities, and how it can be put into practice by practitioners and policy makers. We have explored intersectionality from children and young people's perspectives and looked at how we can promote their participation in identifying, understanding and addressing these issues.

The third seminar takes place in Glasgow on 23 June to look specifically at the challenges of methods and research. We are interested in exploring:

• how research can help us to understand complex childhood identities and inequalities,
• what approaches are needed to enable academic work to contribute to processes that promote social justice and equality,
• what methods we should use to ensure that children's views, particularly from marginalised groups, are not silenced.

The seminar will include keynote presentations by Professor Floya Anthias, a leading expert in the field of intersectionality in the UK and worldwide, and Professor Peter Hopkins, who will talk about his extensive experience of doing research with young people. In the afternoon, delegates will be able to choose from a series of workshops on how to do intersectional research with children and young people in practice. The full programme is available on our website.

There are still a few final places available. Please be quick as registration closes on 6 June. The seminar is free to attend and is being held at Scottish Universities Insight Institute in Glasgow.

 

The seminar series is funded under the Scottish Universities Insight Institute 2013-14 programme.