Research with children and young people: exploring the tensions between ethics, competence and participation

Abstract

This article offers a discussion of the ways in which institutional ethical frameworks can obstruct and obfuscate research with children and young people at the very same time as they attempt to protect these subjects of research. The article shows that key aspects of institutional ethical guidelines and regulations fly in the face of contemporary social studies of childhood, of which geography constitutes a significant part. The increasing recognition of the competence of children and young people combined with their right to participate, as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, has not yet been adequately integrated within institutional ethics frameworks. This places those conducting research with children and young people in an invidious position of trying to follow their political respect for the rights of their research participants at the same time as meeting the strictures of research practice defined by their institutional ethics committees. Examples of the author's own experience, plans for future research and actual research practice with young people will be used throughout to explore the tensions between ethics, competence and participation.

Digital methodologies and practices in children's geographies

“…Children's geographers have traditionally been at the forefront in problematising institutional ethical procedures and engaging in critical ethical research practices beyond institutional requirements (Porter, Townsend, and Hampshire 2012;Skelton 2008). Researchers have frequently pointed out the rights of children to participate in research, children's competence as meaning makers and the need for ethical frameworks that address the complexities of research with children and young people as well as the importance of ethical relationships in knowledge production (Alderson and Morrow 2011;Gallacher and Gallagher 2008;Horton 2008;Morrow and Richards 1996;Skelton 2008).…”

“…Researchers have frequently pointed out the rights of children to participate in research, children's competence as meaning makers and the need for ethical frameworks that address the complexities of research with children and young people as well as the importance of ethical relationships in knowledge production (Alderson and Morrow 2011;Gallacher and Gallagher 2008;Horton 2008;Morrow and Richards 1996;Skelton 2008). But it seems that the emergence of digital technologies has redrawn these contours of procedures and practices almost unnoticed given the relative silence of children's geographers on ethical issues in research on and with children's digital lives.…”

Understanding the Ethical Requirement for Parental Consent When Engaging Youth in Research

“…Researchers in the United Kingdom conducting research with young lesbian and gay people, some of whom were between the age of 16-18, relied on the Gillick judgment as a justification for not seeking parental consent (Valentine et al, 2001;Skelton, 2008). However, the view that the Gillick decision is applicable to social research is not a unanimous view.…”

“…Moreover, its focus on protection can fail to respect the competence of youth. It is illustrative of the disconnect that is said to exist between current theoretical perspectives on childhood and ethical requirements (McCarry, 2012;Skelton, 2008). According to Graham and Fitzgerald (2010, p.139): In an era that is increasingly recognizing the agency of children and their capacity to participate in research we are also witnessing an increasingly 'nervous' regulatory environment in relation to research ethics committees and children's involvement in research processes.…”

Young people's involvement in policy research

“…However, this would be the same for any adult undertaking research without some form of training. Skelton (2008) highlights the oppressive power relations in society -age difference being a marker of power -that can be reproduced in the research environment. An exemplifier of this is the power differences even amongst children in the different groupings ascribed to them (e.g.…”