Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Wilkinson, Helena"

The IAU Working Group on Libraries was officially recognized for the first time in the Transactions of the IAU XXIA Reports on Astronomy (McNally 1991), but librarians were involved in Commission 5 activities before that (largely due to the efforts of George A. Wilkins, president of the Commission from 1982 to 1988, see Transactions of the IAU XXA Reports on Astronomy, Swings 1988). Wayne Warren (NASA GSFC, MD, USA) and Helen Knudsen (Calech, CA, USA) were the group's first chairpersons, Brenda Corbin (U.S. Naval Observatory) became Helen Knudsen's successor in 1990. Since 1996, Fionn Murtagh (School of Computer Science, Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland) and Uta Grothkopf (European Southern Observatory, Germany) have been co-chairs.

Abstract Background: Dual checkpoint inhibition with Anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA4 checkpoint inhibitors have proven to be effective in several malignancies but their potential role in numerous rare solid cancers is yet to be established. This study presents the first results of ipilimumab and nivolumab in the non-epithelial ovarian tumor cohort (#13) of the SWOG S1609 Dual Anti-CTLA-4 & Anti-PD-1 blockade in Rare Tumors (DART) trial. Methods: DART is a prospective, open-label, multicenter/multi-cohort phase 2 clinical trial of ipilimumab (1mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks) plus nivolumab (240mg intravenously every 2 weeks). This cohort included several histologies grouped for statistical analysis. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) (RECIST v1.1) (confirmed complete (CR) and partial responses (PR)); progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), stable disease (SD) >6 months, and toxicity are secondary endpoints. Results: Seventeen evaluable patients (median age, 64 years) were analyzed. The subtypes of non-epithelial ovarian cancer were: granulosa cell (47%, n=8), carcinosarcoma or malignant mixed Mullerian tumor (MMMT; 35%, n=6), one each for Wolffian duct, yolk sac, and Sertoli-Leydig cell. There were 2 responses in the 8 patients with granulosa cell (ORR of 25% in the granulosa cell tumors): 1CR (79% regression [due to lymph node < 1.0cm], 59 month PFS, juvenile type) and 1 PR (79% regression, 51+ month PFS, adult type). 6/8 patients remain alive (PFS 52-1774 days). In contrast, carcinosarcomas showed no responses. One patient with Sertoli-Leydig cell tumor had a 22% response and 341 day PFS. Overall ORR was 12% (2/17), clinical benefit rate (CBR; no progression > 6months) of 29.4%. The median PFS was 3.5 months, median OS was 42.5 months. The most common adverse events were fatigue (52.9%, n=9) and hypothyroidism (35.3%, n=6). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 47.1% of patients (n=8). There were 3 adverse events (17.6%) that led to discontinuation, of which 2 (11.8%) were grade 3-4. There were no grade 5 adverse events. Conclusion: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab in non-epithelial ovarian cancer resulted in an ORR of 12% (with 2 of 8 patients with granulosa ovarian tumors showing a durable CR and PR [both, >4 years)) and CBR of 29.4%, with durable responses seen. In contrast there were no responses in the carcinosarcoma group. One patient with Sertoli Leydig cell tumor suggested a possible benefit. Correlative studies to determine response and resistance markers are ongoing. Expanded prospective studies in granulosa tumor but not carcinosarcoma are warranted. Citation Format: Young Kwang Chae, Megan Othus, Sandip Pravin Patel, Kelly J. Wilkinson, Emily M. Whitman-Purves, Jayanthi Lea, John M. Schallenkamp, Nabil Adra, Leonard J. Appleman, Mitchell Alden, Jessica Thomes Pepin, John A. Ellerton, Andrew Poklepovic, Adam Walter, Murtuza M. Rampurwala, William R. Robinson, Liam Il-Young Chung, Christine M. McLeod, Helen X. Chen, Elad Sharon, Howard Streicher, Christopher W. Ryan, Charles D. Blanke, Razelle Kurzrock. A phase II basket trial of dual anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 blockade in rare tumors (DART) SWOG S1609: the non-epithelial ovarian tumor cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT161.

e4488149This paper discusses the role of the Universities in defense of life, democracy and rule of the law, and science as a generator of spaces of resistance in day-to-day and as powerful tool for unmasking of authoritarianism. In this context, it presents the results of the research on the role of perpetrators of human rights violations during Brazilian military dictatorship. The investigation was carried out at the Federal University of Paraíba, by the Interdisciplinary Network for the Study of Violence–RIEV, with the participation of the University of València, in Spain. For this study, 31 Federal Public Prosecution Service’ criminal prosecutions filed between 2012 and 2018 were selected. It sought the concepts that emerge from the data that help to understand how the process of violations of human rights occurs. The Straussian Grounded Theory was the methodology used in this study. The analysis had three stages: open coding, axial coding and selective coding. From the analyzed data, three relevant conceptual categories emerged to support human rights education: banality of evil/cruelty, discipline of the body and suffering. The study contributes to actions to incorporate into the school curriculum the comprehension that human dignity should constitute the basic value of the democratic rule of law. It allows the recognition that the human being must be the center and the end of law and education. In this context, the educational process must contribute to the protection of the dignity of the human being.ResumoO presente artigo trata sobre o papel das universidades na defesa da vida, da democracia e do estado de direito, e o papel da ciência como geradora de espaços de resistência no cotidiano bem como poderosa ferramenta no desmascaramento do autoritarismo. Nesse contexto, apresenta os resultados da pesquisa sobre a atuação dos perpetradores de violações aos direitos humanos durante a ditadura militar brasileira. A investigação foi realizada pela Rede Interdisciplinar de Estudos da Violência–RIEV, na Universidade Federal da Paraíba, com participação da Universidade de València, na Espanha. Para a análise, foram selecionadas 31 ações penais ajuizadas pelo Ministério Público Federal entre os anos de 2012 e 2018. O objetivo foi averiguar os conceitos que emergem dos dados e que ajudam a compreender o processo de violações aos direitos humanos naquele período. A metodologia do estudo atendeu aos três estágios preconizados pela Teoria Fundamentada Straussiana: a codificação aberta, a codificação axial e a codificação seletiva. Dos dados analisados emergiram três categorias conceituais relevantes para fundamentar a educação para os direitos humanos: banalidade do mal/crueldade, disciplina dos corpos e sofrimento. O estudo vem contribuir para ações de incorporação no currículo escolar do entendimento de que a dignidade humana deve se constituir como valor básico do Estado Democrático de Direito. Permite o reconhecimento de que o ser humano deva ser o centro e o fim do direito e da educação. Neste sentido, o processo educativo deve contribuir para a proteção da dignidade da pessoa humana.ResumenEste artículo aborda el papel de las universidades en la defensa de la vida, la democracia y el estado de derecho, y de la ciencia como generador de espacios de resistencia en la vida cotidiana, así como una herramienta poderosa para desenmascarar el autoritarismo. En este contexto, presenta los resultados de la investigación sobre el desempeño de los autores de violaciones de derechos humanos en el contexto de la dictadura militar brasileña. La investigación fue realizada por la Red Interdisciplinaria para el Estudio de la Violencia - RIEV, en la Universidad Federal de Paraíba con la participación de la Universidad de València, en España. Fueron seleccionados 31 acciones penales presentadas por el Ministerio Público Federal entre 2012 y 2018. El objetivo era investigar los conceptos que emergen de los datos y que ayudan a comprender el proceso de violaciones de derechos humanos. La metodología utilizó las tres etapas recomendadas por la Teoría Fundamentada Straussiana: codificación abierta, codificación axial y codificación selectiva. Tres categorías conceptuales relevantes surgieron para apoyar la educación en derechos humanos: banalidad del mal/crueldad, disciplina de los cuerpos y sufrimiento. El estudio contribuye a las acciones para incorporar al currículo escolar la comprensión de que la dignidad humana debe constituirse como un valor básico del Estado de derecho democrático. Permite el reconocimiento de que el ser humano debe ser el centro y el fin de la ley y la educación. En este sentido, el proceso educativo debe contribuir a la protección de la dignidad de la persona humana.Palavras-chave: Direitos humanos. Ditadura. Dignidade humana.Keywords: Dictatorship. Human dignity. Human rights.Palabras claves: Derechos humanos. Dictadura. Dignidad humana.ReferencesAGAMBEN, Giorgio. Estado de exceção. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2004.ALENCAR, H. M; LA TAILLE, Y. Humilhação: O desrespeito no rebaixamento moral. Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicologia, Rio de Janeiro, v. 59, n. 2, p. 217-231, 2007. Disponível em: http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1809-52672007000200011. Acesso em: 25 jul. 2019.ALVES, Maria Helena. Estado e oposição no Brasil: 1964 a 1984. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes, 1989.ANDRADE, Marcelo. A banalidade do mal e as possibilidades da educação moral: contribuições arendtianas. Revista Brasileira de Educação, Rio de Janeiro, vol.15, n.43, pp.109-125, 2010. Disponível em: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbedu/v15n43/a08v15n43.pdf. Acesso em: 15 jul. 2019.ARENDT, Hannah. Eichmann em Jerusalém: um relato sobre a banalidade do mal. São Paulo: Vozes, 1999.ARENDT, Hannah. A vida do espírito: o pensar, o querer, o julgar. Rio de Janeiro: Relume Dumará, 2000.BANDEIRA-DE-MELLO, Rodrigo; CUNHA, Cristiano Jose? Castro de Almeida. Operacionalizando o me?todo da Grounded Theory nas pesquisas em estrate?gia: te?cnicas e procedimentos de ana?lise com apoio do software Atlas/TI. In: ENCONTRO DE ESTUDOS EM ESTRATÉGIA DA ANPAD, 1., 2003, Curitiba. Anais [...]. Curitiba: Anpad, 2003.BERNSTEIN, J. M. Torture and dignity: An essay on moral injury. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2015.BRASIL. Lei nº 12.527, de 18 de novembro de 2011. Regula o acesso a informações previsto no inciso XXXIII do art. 5o , no inciso II do § 3o do art. 37 e no § 2o do art. 216 da Constituição Federal; altera a Lei no 8.112, de 11 de dezembro de 1990; revoga a Lei no 11.111, de 5 de maio de 2005, e dispositivos da Lei no 8.159, de 8 de janeiro de 1991; e dá outras providências. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República. [2019]. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2011/lei/l12527.htm. Acesso em: 25 jul. 2019.BRENNAND, Edna Gusmão de Góes; DUTRA, Delamar Volpato. The taint of torture and the brazilian legal system. 2019, no prelo.COELHO, Myrna. Tortura e suplício, ditadura e violência. Lutas Sociais, São Paulo, vol.18 n.32, p.148-162, jan./jun. 2014. Disponível em: http://www4.pucsp.br/neils/revista/vol.32/myrna_coelho.pdf. Acesso em: 20 maio. 2019.FERNANDES, Eugénia M. MAIA, Ângela Gorunded Theory. In: FERNANDES, Eugénia M.; ALMEIDA Leandro S. Métodos e técnicas de avaliação: contributos para a prática e investigação psicológicas. Braga: Universidade do Minho, 2001.FOUCAULT, Michel. Vigiar e punir. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1999.FOUCAULT, Michel. Microfísica do poder. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2000.FREIRE, P. Educação como prática da liberdade. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1982.FREIRE, P. Política e educação. São Paulo: Cortez, 1993.FREIRE, Paulo; FAUNDEZ, Antonio. Por uma pedagogia da pergunta. 5. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 2002.GOFFMAN, Erving. Estigma: notas sobre a manipulação da identidade deteriorada. São Paulo: LTC, 2004.HERZOG, Benno. Silenciamento e invisibilización del desprecio: una perspectiva bidirecional. In: FERRER, Anacleto; SANCHEZ-BIOSCA, Vicente (org). El infierno de los perpetradores: imagenes, relatos y conceptos. Valência: Bellaterra, 2019a.HERZOG, Benno. Invisibilization of Suffering: The Moral Grammar of Disrespect. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019a.KONRAD, Leticia Regina. Eichmann em Jerusale?m e a banalidade do mal: percepc?o?es necessa?rias para a urge?ncia de uma educac?a?o em direitos humanos. Caderno pedagógico, Lajeado, v. 11, n. 2, p. 50-72, 2014. Disponível em: http://www.univates.br/revistas/index.php/cadped/article/view/909/898. Acesso em: 20 jul. 2019.MADEIRA, Li?gia Mori. A tortura na histo?ria e a (ir)racionalidade do poder de punir. Panóptica, São Paulo, ano 1, n. 8, p. 201-212, maio/jun. 2007. Disponível em: https://docplayer.com.br/32957683-A-tortura-na-historia-e-a-ir-racionalidade-do-poder-de-punir.html. Acesso em: 20 jul. 2019.MIRANDA, Aurora Amélia Brito de. A (in)dignidade humana e a banalidade do mal: dia?logos iniciais com o Hannah Arendt. Revista de Políticas Públicas, São Luís, v. 22, p. 215-232, 2018. Disponível em: http://www.periodicoseletronicos.ufma.br/index.php/rppublica/article/view/9782/5729. Acesso em 20 jul. 2019.RENAULT, Emmanuel. A Critical Theory of Social Suffering. Critical Horizons, London, v. 11, n. 2, p. 221-241, 2010. Disponível em: http://mastor.cl/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Renault-A-Critical-Theory-of-Social-Suffering-.pdf. Acesso em 30 jul. 2019.RENAULT, Emmanuel. Social suffering: sociology, psychology, politics. London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017.RUIZ, Thiago. O direito à liberdade: uma visa?o sobre a perspectiva dos direitos fundamentais. Revista de Direito Público, Londrina, v. 1, n. 2, p. 137-150, maio/ago. 2006. Disponível em: http://www.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/direitopub/article/view/11572/10268. Acesso em. 17 jul. 2019.SANCHES JR. Carlos Alberto. Apontamentos gerais sobre a tortura na contemporaneidade: as contribuições de Michel Foucault e Giorgio Agambem. Revista LEVS, Marília, n. 4, p. 1-12, 2009. Disponível em: http://www2.marilia.unesp.br/revistas/index.php/levs/article/view/1099/987. Acesso em: 25 jul. 2019.STRAUSS, A; CORBIN, J. Pesquisa qualitativa: técnicas e procedimentos para o desenvolvimento de teoria fundamentada. 2ª ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed; 2008.TAYLOR, Kathleen Eleanor. Cruelty: Human Evil and the Human Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.WILKINSON, Ian. Suffering: a sociological introduction. Cambridge: Polity, 2005.

Introduction This article arises from recent industry-partner research between the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, the LEGO Group, and Edith Cowan University (ECU), examining new ways of communicating children’s perspectives of digital citizenship to policy makers and industry in a project called Digital Safety and Citizenship Roundtables: Using Consultation and Creativity to Engage Stakeholders (Children, Policy Influencers, Industry) in Best Practice in India, South Korea, and Australia. We posed the research question: What are children’s everyday experiences of digital citizenship in these countries, and how might these contribute to digital citizenship policy and practice? In research roundtables, we immersed children aged 3 to 13 in a three-pronged child-centred multimodal methodology that included drawing, show-and-tell discussion, and a block building activity. It is this third block-related method that this article investigates: the project’s adoption of an activity using the LEGO® brick whereby the children expressed their views about their everyday digital worlds via brick toy constructions. In this article, we explain how such toy play can be used as a communicative strategy to give children agency so that they can creatively interject their voices into ongoing discussions about children’s digital citizenship. Such an approach takes a children’s rights perspective and considers the ethics of research with children, whereby “young children have rights; [and] they are agents and active constructors of their social worlds” (Sun et al.). The project was also subject to a rigorous human ethics approval process at ECU. This article highlights the benefits of the brick toy as a communicative device for amplifying children’s voices about their everyday experiences of media and digital cultures and ends by illustrating some of the children’s views depicted in their brick toy creations. Rationale Taking a child-centred approach using play-based participatory methods provides a window into children’s everyday media and digital cultures that may not be accessed through traditional qualitative techniques. Gennaro and Miller (xxxi) argue that “the impact of technology upon children remains so complicated to grasp, assessing the extent to which digital – and specifically social media – plays a role in the lives of youth is still a prerequisite for our discourse”. This provided an imperative for our research to find a child-centred method to grasp this complication. Furthermore, asking children about their experiences of media and digital cultures is a key aim of the Centre for the Digital Child researchers who led this project. It is also emphasised as a research imperative by the ‘Growing Up in a Connected World’ study conducted for UNICEF and the Global Kids Online team led by Sonia Livingstone in 2019. They identify that, if we are going to understand children’s media and digital cultures, we need to ask children about this: The starting point must be children themselves – asking about the barriers they face in accessing the internet, the opportunities they are discovering online and the digital skills they are acquiring. Children can also report on the online risks they have encountered and the possible harms, as well as on the support and protection they receive from family, friends, teachers, and wider society. (UNICEF 7) The Project: What We Did In 2022, ECU and Digital Child researchers conducted a series of research roundtables with a total of 45 children in India, the Republic of Korea, and Australia with the intention of gathering children’s perspectives of digital safety and citizenship. Subsequent adult roundtables were held in which the children’s views along with findings from a deep literature review were conveyed to the adult policy, education, and academic stakeholders. In the research, children were positioned as key stakeholders in conversations about their digital citizenship. Three children’s roundtables were held in each country: one for pre-primary school children (3-5 years of age), one for early primary school children (6-10 years of age), and one for late primary school children (10-13 year of age). The roundtables included three activities: first, the use of ten image cards depicting digital activities as icebreakers and as prompts for a drawing activity; second, a talking activity in which children explained their drawings and then talked about their experiences of digital citizenship; and third, a toy play activity in which children had access to a table of LEGO brick toys where they were asked to make a construction that showed the roundtable participants and facilitators something about their existing knowledges and comprehension of digital citizenship. It is the latter activity with brick toys that this article will explore. Multiple Play-Based, Child-Friendly Participatory Methods Play-based participatory methods such as visual prompts, drawing, and toy play, unlike a traditional qualitative focus group that centres on discussion, establish a less formal atmosphere for the children more akin to their recreational play activities. Not only do these methods build rapport, but they also elicit a more authentic reflective response from children. (For a review of participatory research with children, see Montreuil et al.) As Literat (88) argues about child-friendly methods, “unlike in interviews or focus group sessions where an instantaneous response is expected, the research participants are given time to reflect on their responses, which encourages active conceptualization and contemplation”. This additional time for reflection through multiple modes of communication – drawing, show and tell, talking, block play – also gives the child participants an opportunity to craft a more complete depiction of their digital lives, with the added advantage of more easily navigating age-defined literacy, language, and cultural boundaries. The variation and combination of three visual play-based activities along with the children’s verbal explanations of their creations attended to how “visual images and the verbal exchanges are central to the children’s meaning making process” (Tay-Lim and Lim 65). This approach aided in amplifying the children’s authentic voices in the research data gathered in the roundtables. The LEGO brick toy proved to be particularly effective as a mechanism for the children to communicate their views, as it had done in a preceding context, because it gave them a visual mode of expressing tacit experiences of media and digital cultures that had become embedded in their everyday lives. The Precedent of the Brick Toy to Communicate Children’s Views The inspiration for employing LEGO brick toys to communicate children’s views in the digital citizenship roundtables project came from work done by the LEGO Group itself. In 2021, the LEGO Group collated workshop feedback and survey data concerning climate change from over 6,000 children aged 8–18. The resulting ten requests depicted through brick constructions were conceptualised as Building Instructions for a Better World and were presented to climate and government policymakers who attended the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow in 2021 (LEGO, Children Call; Building Instructions). Affirming our project’s adoption in January 2022 of LEGO toy play for children to communicate important perspectives of digital citizenship to adult stakeholders, LEGO subsequently developed their COP26 approach into the more general Build the Change strategy: “a powerful way for children to express their hopes and dreams for the future with LEGO bricks and other creative materials, plus their own imagination” (LEGO, Building the Change). This child-led and play-based pedagogical approach exemplifies the LEGO group’s ongoing remit for social good via its child-led brand framework and how the company is conscious of the leadership role it possesses in regard to education and its environmental footprint (Wood). It also demonstrated to the researchers of the Digital Safety and Citizenship Roundtables research project, though not concerning climate change activism, how the LEGO brick toy is a highly effective communicative tool through which children aged 3 to 13 can express their views about their digital lives to adults. Thus, we employed a LEGO brick toy building activity in our project’s play-based participatory research methods. As a creative visual method, such a way to capture a range of children’s views also aligned with the international research network, Global Kids Online, which advocates in its ‘Method Guide 8’ that creative visual methods are “useful for engaging children in joint knowledge production, as literacy is not required, and such methods are less associated with formal settings such as school” (Kleine et al. 9). Toy Play as a Research Method When children symbolise their experiences of digital contexts in brick toys, this is a form of symbolic play, a foundational element of children’s developing meaning-making (Vygotsky). The children’s representation of their lives in such play involves three things, as discussed by Bruner in his analysis of culture and education: thought and emotion enacted through physical action; expression through imagery; and the construction of symbols. LEGO brick toy play as a research method in the children’s digital citizenship project involves all three of these: firstly, children are actively enacting their thoughts about their digital lives through physical toy play; secondly, they create visual images via brick toy constructions as representations of their digital experiences; and thirdly, they are using the brick toys to symbolically express their inner worlds. In discussing their similar use of small world toys, which are “scaled down items for children to create and play with small-scale scenarios or world, typically toy animals and people”, Gripton and Vincent (226) identified that such methodological toy play has the “advantage of being within the child’s world and harnessing the children’s ability to communicate through symbolic representation and natural affinity to play” (238). In this way, the toy is a communicative device that does not require a dependence on written or verbal literacies, but rather multiliteracies common in the arts (Wright) that transcend age barriers and reflect children’s everyday cultures, including media and digital cultures. A Convergence of Children’s Cultures and Media Cultures Whilst it could be suggested that the use of the LEGO brick toys as a communicative tool too closely aligns with growing commercialisation of children’s play, reflecting the convergence of children’s cultures and media cultures (Ponte and Aroldi), we would argue that a project which attends to children’s perspectives of their digital lives needs to reflect the worlds, and the toy play in those worlds, that children currently inhabit. Indeed, it is children’s familiarity with LEGO that created a communicative shortcut that quickly facilitated the children’s expressiveness in the project across the age range 3 to 13. (DUPLO was used with the 3-5 year old age group; smaller LEGO bricks were used in groups 6-13.) This is not a commercial endorsement of the brick but an attempt to meet the children in their own play worlds. Our experience of children’s familiarity with LEGO echoed other research: “as a familiar medium, LEGO allows participants to express thoughts, share and reflect without relying on technical ability” (Hickman-Dunne and Pimlott-Wilson 94). LEGO has proved to be a ubiquitous element of toy play in the contemporary child’s life, not just in European cultures where the toy originated but across cultures. Certainly, the children in India and Korea were as familiar with LEGO as the children in Australia. Ponte and Aroldi (9) argue that “the connection between children’s cultures and media cultures can be considered a privileged area of innovation … [and] research into children’s and digital media is also an area of methodological innovation”. We see the use of LEGO brick toys in research as one such innovative method that attends to children’s authentic perspectives through participatory approaches. Children’s Rights Perspective Taking a participatory approach in the research method design of the Digital Safety and Citizenship Roundtables project meant that the researchers were not just attending to child-friendly methods whereby researchers “adopt practices that resonate with children’s cultures of communication, their own concerns and fit in to their everyday routines” (Christensen and James 2) but also paid due respect to “a global agenda of children’s rights in the digital age” (Livingstone and Bulger 1). Such rights around children’s digital lives came to further prominence in 2021 when the United Nations Committee for the Rights of the Child released General Comment No. 25 on Children’s Rights in Relation to the Digital Environment, “encouraging innovation in digital play and related activities that support children’s autonomy, personal development and enjoyment” (UNCRC 18). Whilst specifically referring to rights in digital contexts, as researchers from the Centre for the Digital Child we felt it was important to reflect in our research design this approach to children’s rights, and respect for children’s autonomy and enjoyment. We also were committed to the General Comment 25 principle of “children’s right to participate in the decision making that impacts their lives” (Third and Moody 9). Thus, we communicated the children’s perspectives including their LEGO brick toy creations to adult stakeholders and we also produced a children’s version of the final report for the project (See et al.). An Ethic of Empowerment When Researching Young Children In addition to this children’s rights perspective, we paid heed to the Early Childhood Australia (ECA) principle that research with young children should amplify their voices, ensuring they are afforded “the right to be heard”; thus the researchers were committed to ECA’s principle of “promoting children’s voice and participation in decision-making processes, and enabling greater opportunities to hear from children about their concerns” (ECA 3). Our child-participatory research about children’s experiences of digital safety and citizenship that employed the toy brick as a communicative device for amplifying children’s voices by contributing these perspectives back to policy making and influencing stakeholders is also aligned with moves for child participation in decision-making over recent years. For example, in 2015 the Irish Department of Youth Affairs released a National Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-Making, 2015 – 2020; in 2021, Save the Children released their publication Together We Decide about strengthening child participation in UN decision-making processes (Diop, Keating, and Trapp); and in 2022, the Council for Europe released Listen – Act – Change: Handbook on Children’s Participation for Professionals Working for and with Children (Crowley, Larkins, and Pinto). What all these child participation approaches have in common is a need to heed the voices of children and to amplify these voices so children can contribute to decisions being made about their digital and everyday lives. The researchers of the Digital Safety and Citizenship Roundtables project, through our adoption of the LEGO brick toy as a communicative device, agreed with Iivari (290) in ensuring that “children of today should be empowered in and through their digital technology education to switch from mere users of digital technologies created by adults to makers and shapers of such technologies and, along these lines, to transformers of culture”. Exemplars of the Children’s Toy Brick Creations It is not in the scope of this article to provide a complete analysis of the children’s brick creations; this can be found in the full report of the children’s digital citizenship roundtables project, which is available open access (Stevenson et al.), and the project final report (Jayakumar et al.). However, below we have included in this article a gallery of some of the children’s brick toy creations that exemplify the communicative outcomes of children across the age groups using the toy brick to convey their experiences of their digital and everyday lives. To amplify the children’s voices, we have included the children’s verbatim explanation of their creation. As mentioned previously, the toy brick creations for the 3-5-year-old roundtables used DUPLO, and the roundtables of age groups 6-10 and 11-13 used LEGO bricks. You will note that the youngest age group, 3-5 years of age (whose parents were often present in the roundtable groups), conveyed less about the digital in their toy creations and more about their everyday lives and loves. Interestingly, this young age group was able to convey their digital experiences more clearly via the drawing activities than the LEGO toy brick activity. (All names and identifying characteristics have been deidentified and/or removed.) Figure 1 (3–5 age group): Nabha explained that “Here are two cameras, and I’ve added flowers for decoration. Here is my window, and you can enter from here … there’s a bird which can fly … My castle!” Figure 2 (3–5 age group): Noah explained that “I’m going to do a Brontosaurus … I’m doing a dinosaur with a very long neck”. Figure 3 (6–10 age group): Mia conveyed her sense of digital safety and explained that “I’ve made a device that means there’s like a lock on it”. Figure 4 (6–10 age group): Jack also conveyed something about digital safety and explained that “it’s basically a[n] eye monster thing ... So, it’s supposed to symbol what you have to face when you do something wrong that you know you’re not supposed to do.” Figure 5 (11–13 age group): Han-Na, who was passionate building games, explained that “I mostly play Minecraft, and this is the character, and there’s a diamond underground … here … It’s difficult to find a diamond in the wild, but I found it.” Figure 6 (11–13 age group): Inesh conveyed nuanced ideas about digital safety and citizenship and made a LEGO representation of “a firewall to keep you safe online”. Figure 7 (11–13 age group): Gitali, who enjoyed a rich gaming life, explained that “I know it’s cute and not even scary. This monster has been inspired by the game Roblox.” Figure 8 (11–13 age group): Will, who recounted an experience of being cyber-stalked, explained that his creation represents “this person [who] tried to stalk me and I just decided to leave the game and then they somehow managed to find me all over again”. Figure 9 (11–13 age group): Nirav explained about his creation reflecting his room at home, “this is a PS5. This is a gaming setup - mouse, mouse pad, two speakers, computer, keyboard and CPU”. Figure 10 (11–13 age group): Sophia, who told us about an experience of online and offline bullying, explained that “this is my bully detector for online... If you aren’t a bully, it will turn the green bit but if you are a bully, it will turn to the pink and then it will kick you out.” Limitations There are limitations in both the application of the toy brick as a method and in what this article itself can address. Firstly, as a method, there is further work awaiting those interested in using toy play, particularly brick toy play, to apply this method in contexts that explore children’s everyday experiences in general, not just their experiences of the focus of this research project, children’s digital citizenship. Secondly, it is not possible in an article of this length to present a complex testing of the LEGO brick toy method against other forms of brick toy – that would be an entirely different project to the children’s digital citizenship project that we conducted. Furthermore, word limits mean it is not possible to present the full analysis of the children’s brick toy creations, and the authors would encourage those interested in more in-depth findings and more images of the children’s brick creations and drawings to seek these, as noted previously, in the report authored by Stevenson et al. Conclusion This article has explained the rationale for using the LEGO brick toy as part of participatory play-based methods in our recent research project, Digital Safety and Citizenship Roundtables: Using Consultation and Creativity to Engage Stakeholders (Children, Policy Influencers, Industry) with industry partner the LEGO Group, the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, and Edith Cowan University. This rationale placed the child as the expert informant about the media and digital cultures in their everyday experiences of digital citizenship. Through multiple play-based, child-friendly participatory methods, following the precedent of the brick toy being used to communicate children’s views about climate change to adult climate policymakers, we sought the views about digital safety and citizenship of children aged 3 to 13 years in three Asia-Pacific countries – India, Korea, and Australia. We then conveyed these to adult stakeholders who contribute to and influence children’s digital citizenship policy in these countries. It is our view that such a participatory, play-centred approach respects children’s rights to express themselves in authentic and creative ways and is in keeping with the turn to children’s participatory frameworks that provide the steps for children to contribute to policy that impacts on their digital and everyday lives. From the experience of conducting the children’s roundtables in the project, we encourage other researchers to take a children’s rights approach and embed an ethic of empowerment through toy play-based methods when researching young children. We argue that such toy play in research provides vivid windows into children’s media and digital cultures, whilst at the same time empowering today’s digital child to be agentic in discussion that impact their digital futures. Acknowledgement Parts of this research were supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child through project number CE200100022 and the LEGO Group. References Bruner, Jerome. The Culture of Education. Massachusetts: Harvard UP, 1996. Christensen, Pia, and Allison James. “Introduction: Researching Children and Childhood: Cultures of Communication.” Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices. Eds. Pia Christenson and Allison James. Abingdon: Routledge, 2017. 1–10. Crowley, Anne, Cath Larkins, and Luis Manuel Pinto. Listen – Act – Change: Handbook on Children’s Participation for Professionals Working for and with Children. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2022. 31 Mar. 2023 <https://edoc.coe.int/en/children-s-rights/9288-listen-act-change-council-of-europe-handbook-on-childrens-participation.html>. Department of Children and Youth Affairs Ireland. National Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-making, 2015–2020. Dublin: Government of Ireland Publications, 2015. 31 Mar. 2023 <https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/9128db-national-strategy-on-children-and-young-peoples-participation-in-dec/>. Diop, Diarra, Roz Keating, and Annabel Trapp. Together We Decide: Strengthening Child Participation in UN Processes. London: Save the Children International, 2021. 31 Mar. 2023 <https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/together-we-decide-strengthening-child-participation-in-un-processes/>. Early Childhood Australia (ECA). Supporting Young Children’s Rights: Statement of Intent 2015–2018. Canberra: Early Childhood Australia, 2014. 31 Mar. 2023 <https://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Supporting-young-childrens-rights-statement-of-intent-2015-2018.pdf>. Gripton, Catherine, and Kerry Vincent. “Using Small World Toys for Research: A Method for Gaining Insight into Children’s Lived Experiences of School.” International Journal of Research & Method in Education 44.3 (2021): 225-240. DOI: 10.1080/1743727X.2020.1753692. Hickman-Dunne, Jo, and Helena Pimlott-Wilson. “Moodboards and LEGO: Principles and Practice in Social Research.” In Creative Methods for Human Geographers. Eds. Nadia von Benzon, Mark Holton, Catherine Wilkinson, and Sarah Wilkinson. London: Sage, 2021. 87-100. DOI: 10.4135/9781529739152. Iivari, Netta. “Empowering Children to Make and Shape Our Digital Futures – from Adults Creating Technologies to Children Transforming Cultures.” The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology 37.5 (2020): 279-293. DOI: 10.1108/IJILT-03-2020-0023. Jayakumar, Emma, Kylie J. Stevenson, Harrison See, and Yeonghwi Ryu. A Model for Children’s Digital Citizenship in India, Korea, and Australia: Stakeholder Engagement Principles. Joondalup: Edith Cowan University / Centre for the Digital Child, 2023. 31 Mar. 2023 <https://doi.org/10.25958/sjqk-rq80>. Kleine, Dorothea, Gemma Pearson, and Sammia Poveda. Method Guide 8 – Participatory Methods: Engaging Children’s Voices and Experiences in Research. London: London School of Economics and Political Science / Global Kids Online, 2016. 31 Mar. 2023 <https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/71261/>. LEGO. Children Call for Action on Climate Change. Billund: LEGO Group, 2021. 31 Mar. 2023 <https://www.LEGO .com/en-fr/aboutus/news/2021/october/building-instructions-for-a-better-world>. ———. Building Instructions for a Better World [COP 26]. LEGO YouTube channel. Billund: LEGO Group, 2021. 31 Mar. 2023 <https://youtu.be/7GYEYBL67S8>. ———. Build the Change. Billund: LEGO Group, 2022. 31 Mar. 2023. <https://buildthechange.discoveryeducation.com/>. Literat, Ioana. “‘A Pencil for Your Thoughts’: Participatory Drawing as a Visual Research Method with Children and Youth.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 12.1 (2013): 84-98. 31 Mar. 2023 <https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069130120>. Livingstone, Sonia, and Monica Bulger. A Global Agenda for Children’s Rights in the Digital Age. UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti and London School of Economics and Social Sciences, 2013. 31 Mar. 2023 <https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/54276/1/livingstone_global_agenda_childrens_digital_2014_author.pdf>. Montreuil, Monica, Aline Bogossian, Emilie Laberge-Perrault, and Eric Racine. “A Review of Approaches, Strategies and Ethical Considerations in Participatory Research with Children.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 20 (2021): 1–15. 31 Mar. 2023 <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1609406920987962>. Ponte, Cristina, and Piermarco Aroldi. “Introduction: Children’s Cultures and Media Cultures.” Communication Management Quarterly 29.8 (2013): 7-16. DOI: 10.5937/comman1329007P. Save the Children. Children and Participation: Research, Monitoring and Evaluation with Children and Young People. London: Save the Children Foundation. 2000. 31 Mar. 2023. <https://www.participatorymethods.org/sites/participatorymethods.org/files/children%20and%20participation_wilkinson.pdf>. See, Harrison, Kylie J. Stevenson, Emma Jayakumar, and Hui Zeng. Children’s Digital Citizenship Project: Your Perspectives: A Report for Children. Joondalup: Edith Cowan University / Centre for the Digital Child, 2023. 31 Mar. 2023. <https://doi.org/10.25958/58TA-J853>. Stevenson, Kylie J., Emma Jayakumar, Harrison See, Yeonghwi Ryu, and Shruti Das. Children’s Perspectives of Digital Citizenship in India, Korea and Australia: Report of Findings from Children’s Digital Citizenship and Safety Roundtables. Joondalup: Edith Cowan University / Centre for the Digital Child, 2022. 31 Mar. 2023 <https://doi.org/10.25958/0j0c-xp24>. Sun, Yihan, et al. “Methods and Ethics in Qualitative Research Exploring Young Children’s Voice: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 22 (2023): 1–15. DOI: 10.1177/16094069231152449. Tay-Lim, Joanna, and Sirene Lim. “Privileging Younger Children's Voices in Research: Use of Drawings and a Co-Construction Process.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 12.1 (2013): 65-83. 31 Mar. 2023. <https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200135>. Third, Amanda, and Lilly Moody. Our Rights in the Digital World: A Report on the Children’s Consultations to Inform UNCRC General Comment 25. Parramatta: Western Sydney University and 5Rights Foundation, 2021. 31 Mar. 2023 <https://5rightsfoundation.com/uploads/OurRIghtsinaDigitalWorld-FullReport.pdf>. UNCRC. General Comment No. 25 (2021) on Children’s Rights in Relation to the Digital Environment. CRC/C/GC/25, adopted on 24 March 2021. Geneva: United Nation Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2021. 31 Mar. 2023. <https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-comment-no-25-2021-childrens-rights-relation>. UNICEF. Growing Up in a Connected World Summary Report. Florence: United Nations Office of Research-Innocenti, 2019. 31 Mar. 2023 <https://www.unicef-irc.org/growing-up-connected>. Vygotsky, Lev Semyonovich. Thought and Language. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1962. <https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000>. Wood, Zoe. “LEGO Issues Cop26 Handbook by Children on How to Tackle Climate Crisis.” The Guardian, 28 Oct. 2021. <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/28/lego-issues-cop26-handbook-by-children-on-how-to-tackle-climate-crisis>. Wright, Susan. “Ways of Knowing in the Arts.” Ed. Susan Wright. Children, Meaning-Making and the Arts. Sydney: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2003. 1-33. <https://eprints.qut.edu.au/21525/>.

This brief explains youth perceptions of COVID-19 vaccination and outlines key considerations for engaging with and building trust among young people living in Ealing, London. Within the category of ‘young people,’ there are differences in vaccination based on age and ethnicity. This brief is based on research, including a review of the literature and in-depth interviews and focus groups with 62 youth across Ealing to contextualise youth perspectives of COVID-19 vaccination and highlight themes of trust/distrust. We contribute ethnographic and participatory evidence to quantitative evaluations of vaccine roll-out. Key considerations for addressing youth distrust regarding the COVID-19 vaccine are presented, followed by additional regional context. This work builds on a previous SSHAP brief on vaccine equity in Ealing. This brief was produced by SSHAP in collaboration with partners in Ealing. It was authored by Megan Schmidt-Sane (IDS), Tabitha Hrynick (IDS), Jillian Schulte (Case Western Reserve University), Charlie Forgacz-Cooper (Youth Advisory Board), and Santiago Ripoll (IDS), in collaboration with Steve Curtis (Ealing Council), Hena Gooroochurn (Ealing Council), Bollo Brook Youth Centre, and Janpal Basran (Southall Community Alliance), and reviews by Helen Castledine (Ealing Public Health), Elizabeth Storer (LSE) and Annie Wilkinson (IDS). The research was funded through the British Academy COVID-19 Recovery: USA and UK fund (CRUSA210022). Research was based at the Institute of Development Studies. This brief is the responsibility of SSHAP.