Conclusions

• Author: Van Hove, G.; Gradinaru, C.; Morabito, C.; De Schauwer E.; Mattelin, E.
• Pages: 27-31

Feasibility Study for a Child Guarantee (FSCG) Children’s Voices

27

4. Conclusions

4.1. Limitations of the study

The research framework generates outcomes that are by their nature country-specific. Yet,

specificities have been carefully considered during the analysis of discussion themes and

accurately reported.

Moreover, although literature outlines that three to six focus groups are sufficient to capture

most prevalent themes (between 80 and 90%) within a given dataset,20 the limited number

of focus groups’ discussions in this study nevertheless reduces the possibility of having a

highly stratified ensemble of participants, narrowing the analysis to that part of the sub-

group identified in the definition of the target group. Nevertheless, attempts have been made

to extend the discussion and reflection of children participating in the focus groups towards

children belonging to other conditions of disadvantage (e.g. Roma children).

Finally, limited questions were formulated on ECEC due to the difficulty adoles cents have

discussing their remote past. The chil dren were nevertheless able to express their views

on ECEC and provide significant arguments for the analysis.

4.2. Discussion

4.2.1. Validity of the Children’s Voices study

The primary objective of the consultation wit h children is to conduct a reality check of the

experts’ analysi s carried out within the framework of the FSC G, to confirm the findin gs,

identifying any gaps or emerging issues not easi ly identifiable through quantitative

research methods. It also aims at advising how child participation can integrate the

development and delivery of a future Child Guarantee initiative.

Accordingly, children have gene rally confirmed the findings of FSCG experts’ analyses in

the areas/themes which are fami liar to them or that they have knowledge of. As an

example, children were particularly talkative (and accurate) about education (school),

which is the milieu wh ere they spend most of their time, and where their ca pabilities in

learning, socio-emotional and physical/mental development are either strengthened or

undermined. It is also t he place that they know best, along with their home. The findings

of the focus groups’ discussions align with those determined by th e quantitative analyses,

but they also reveal and enrich some themes which were less explored in the latter, such

as the quality and inclusiveness (and its meaning) of the school environment.

Conversely, discussions about nutrition and health were limited and, on ECEC, almost non-

existent. Children seem not to percei ve h ealth or nutrition as major issues. This is also

determined by the feeling of having little expertise on these subj ects, apart from children

with disabili ties, for whom health is a prominent concern. They nevertheless brought to

attention the matter of mental distress and the lack of responsiveness of the h ealthcare

system in this respect. With reference to ECEC, it is hard for children to remember

experiences whi ch happened in the past, an d particularl y in their early yea rs. However,

the few themes di scussed outlin e similarities with the experts’ a nalysis (e.g. the

importance of childcare for both the families and the child, and the need to work on the

inclusiveness of pedagogical approaches).

The findings of the focus groups, while strengthening and enriching the results of the

analysis, also highlight children’s capacity t o assess human conditions with rigor, and

therefore the possibilit y o f mainstream participati on in the process of design ing,

operationalising and monitoring the Chil d Guarantee initiative. The focus gr oups’

discussions were warmly received by chi ldren. They felt that their voice was h eard, which

is unusual, especially for those living in severely disadvantaged conditions.

20 Guest, G., Namey, E., & McKenna, K. (2016). How many focus groups are enough? Building an evidence base

for nonprobability sample sizes. Field Methods, 29(1), 1–20.