Ethical Negotiations: Committees, Methods and Research with Children

in The International Journal of Children's Rights
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This paper reflects on the ethical procedures encountered, and methodological strategies adopted, in order to develop and conduct qualitative research with children to explore their relationship to, and through, information and communication technologies (ICT). The study was conducted in Australia, which like many other nations, adopted a formal, mandatory institutional ethics framework historically formed in response to real and potential unethical and harmful research. This is now associated with a broader agenda of of risk-management and protection in universities which must be managed to enable the right of children to participate fully in research that affects them. Since calls for more multi-dimensional research with children and ICT have been made (Livingstone and Helsper, 2007; Livingstone, 2010), few academic studies have delved into the ethical processes and negotiations involved in such research, especially within academic institutions that are bounded by strict ethical and risk-management processes. This paper contributes to the growing field of appropriate research methods and methodologies, and their circumspection, for study with ICT connected-children, and adds to the growing debates around ethically including children in academic research.

Sections

References

AldersonP., ‘ Research by children’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology 4(2) (2001): 139153.

AldersonP. & MorrowV., Ethics, Social Research and Consulting with Children and Young People (Tanner’s Lane: Barnardo’s, 2004).

BeazleyH. & EnnewJ., ‘ Participatory methods and approaches: tackling the two tyrannies’. In Doing Development Research. eds. DesaiV. & PotterR. (London: Sage, 2997).

BellN., ‘ Ethics in child research: rights, reason and responsibilities’, Children’s Geographies 6(1) (2008): 720.

CampbellA., ‘ For their own good’, Childhood 15(1) (2008): 3049.

ChakrabortyK., ‘ The good muslim girl: Conducting qualitative participatory research to understand the lives of young Muslim women in the bustees of Kolkata’, Children’s Geographies 7(4) (2009): 421434.

ClarkA. & MossP., Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic Approach (London: National Children’s Bureau and Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2001).

ClarkA. & MossP., Spaces to Play: More Listening to Younger Children Using the Mosaic Approach (London: National Children’s Bureau and Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2005).

DarbyshireP., MacDougallC. & SchillerW., ‘ Multiple methods in qualitative research with children: More insight or just more?Qualitative Research 5(4) (2005): 417436.

EnnewJ., The Right to be Properly Researched: How to do Rights-Based, Scientific Research with Children (Bangkok: Knowing Children, Black on White Publications, 2010).

EnnewJ. & PlateauD.P., How to Research the Physical and Emotional Punishment of Children (Bangkok: International Save the Children Alliance, 2005).

FranceA., ‘ Young people’. In Doing Research with Children and Young People. eds. FraserS., LewisV., DingS., KelletM. & RobinsonC. (London: Sage, 2005).

GibbsL., GoldL., KulkensM. ., ‘ Are the benefits of a community-based participatory approach to public health research worth the costs?’, Just Policy 47 (2008): 5259.

HalseC. & HoneyA., ‘ Rethinking ethics review as institutional discourse’, Qualitative Inquiry 13(3) (2007): 336352.

IsraelB., SchulzA., ParkerE. ., ‘ Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health’, Annual Review of Public Health 19 (1998): 173202.

IsraelB.A., SchulzA.J., ParkerE.A. ., ‘ Community-based participatory research: Policy recommendations for promoting a partnership approach in health research’, Education Health 14(2) (2001): 182197.

JamesA., ‘ Learning to belong: The boundaries of adolescence’. In Symbolising Boundaries: Identity and Diversity in British Cultures. ed. Cohen (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986).

JamesA., JenksC. & ProutA., Theorizing Childhood (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998).

KellettM., Children as Active Researchers: A New Research Paradigm for the 21st Century? (London: ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, 2005).

KrappmannL., ‘ The weight of the child’s view (Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child)’. International Journal of Children’s Rights 18(4) (2010): 501513.

LivingstoneS., ‘ Youthful participation: what have we learned, what shall we ask next?’ In First Annual Digital Media and Learning Conference: Diversifying Participation (San Diego, La Jolla, California: University of California, 2010). (Unpublished) Accessed at: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/Experts/s.livingstone@lse.ac.uk.

LivingstoneS. & HelsperE., ‘ Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide’, New Media & Society 9(4) (2007): 671696.

MacDougallC., ‘ Understanding 21st century childhood’. In Understanding Health (2nd Ed). eds. KeleherH. & MacDougallC. (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2009).

MeekV.L. & WoodF., ‘ The market as a new steering strategy for Australian higher education’, Higher Education Policy 10(3–4) (1997): 253274.

NHMRC, National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council, 2007). Accessed June 2011 at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/subjects/human.htm.

PunchS., ‘ Multiple methods and research relations with young people in rural bolivia’. In Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers. eds. LimbM. & DwyerC. (London: Arnold, 2001).

PowellM.A., & SmithA., ‘ Children’s participation rights in research’, Childhood 16(1) (2009): 124142.

RobsonB. & WisemanJ., MacroMelbourne: A Liveable City for All its People? (Melbourne: Melbourne Community Foundation, 2009a).

RobsonB. & WisemanJ., The MacroMelbourne Initiative: Social and Economic Disadvantage in Melbourne: Trends, Challenges and Priorities for Philanthropic Investment (Melbourne: Melbourne Community Foundation, 2009b).

SkeltonT., ‘ Research with children and young people: exploring the tensions between ethics, competence and participation’, Children’s Geographies 6(1) (2008): 2136.

TierneyZ.B. & CorwinW.B., ‘ The tensions between academic freedom and institutional review boards’, Qualitative Inquiry 13(3) (2007): 388398.

TilleyS.A. & GormleyL., ‘ Canadian university ethics review: Cultural complications translating principles into practice’, Qualitative Inquiry 13(3) (2007): 368387.

UNUNCRC, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989), entered into force September 2 1990. /C/93/Add.5 of 16 July 2003.

ValentineG., HollowayS. & BinghamN., ‘The digital generation: Children, ICT and the everyday nature of social exclusion’, Antipode 34(2) (2002): 296315.

VromenA., ‘ Australian young people’s participatory practices and internet use’, Information, Communication & Society 10(1) (2007): 4868.

University of Melbourne Human Ethics, Website accessed June 2011 at: http://www.research.unimelb.edu.au/humanethics/aboutapproval/whoapproves.

WarschauerM., Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2003).

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 7 7 4
Full Text Views 3 3 3
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0