Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries]On: 22 December 2014, At: 08:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
International Journal of Research &Method in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cwse20
Exploring informed consent and dissentthrough children's participation ineducational researchRoseanna Bourkea & Judith Loveridgea
a School of Educational Psychology and Pedagogy, VictoriaUniversity, Wellington, New ZealandPublished online: 25 Jul 2013.
To cite this article: Roseanna Bourke & Judith Loveridge (2014) Exploring informed consent anddissent through children's participation in educational research, International Journal of Research &Method in Education, 37:2, 151-165, DOI: 10.1080/1743727X.2013.817551
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2013.817551
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
Exploring informed consent and dissent through children’sparticipation in educational research
Roseanna Bourke∗ and Judith Loveridge
School of Educational Psychology and Pedagogy, Victoria University, Wellington,New Zealand
(Received 8 June 2012; final version received 24 March 2013)
Involving children and young people in educational research has been foundationalin developing and understanding theories of learning, and understanding childdevelopment. Attempts to identify children’s perspectives on policies andpractices that directly affect them in educational settings have resulted in anincrease in the involvement of children to inform research. This means childrenare interviewed by researchers about matters of interest to their research agenda,and raise questions around the children’s experiences and benefits from suchparticipation. This article explores the involvement of children in educationalresearch with a specific focus on the two-sided images of consent: the dilemmasof negotiating and maintaining children’s informed consent and the relatednature of informed dissent during the research process. The introduction of aChildren’s Research Advisory Group to explore these issues provides a tier ofanalysis closer to the young people.
Keywords: informed consent; informed dissent; educational research; Children’sResearch Advisory Group
Introduction
Interest in seeking children’s voices in matters of interest within educational researchhas seen an exponential growth in the participation of children actively involved inresearch in educational settings. In part, this has occurred to understand from the per-spectives of children, how policy and practice affects them (Roberts 2008; Rudduckand McIntyre 2007), but also to systematically engage children in an agenda forschool reform (Thiessen and Cook-Sather 2007). This article explores issues involvingchildren in research using a project that explored learning where children, who freelyconsented to participate, showed signs of dissent during the research process butwho did not directly express their unwillingness to continue.
In this article, fundamental issues around consent in research with children are dis-cussed in the context of research about children’s views on learning and self-assess-ment. The concepts of informed consent and dissent are analysed before outliningsome of the emerging issues around voluntary informed consent. An overview of themethodology of the research, involving 38 children in year 4 (7–8-year-old) andyear 8 (11–12-year-old) in New Zealand schools, outlines the ethical proceduresinvolved and methods of data collection. The establishment of a Children’s ResearchAdvisory Group (CRAG) to work alongside the researchers informed the research pro-cesses and data analysis. The results of the study with regard to informed consent are
# 2013 Taylor & Francis
∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 2014Vol. 37, No. 2, 151–165, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2013.817551
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
presented around two aggregated vignettes, with analysis from the researchers and theCRAG. The development of a CRAG enables researchers to fully explore more chil-dren’s perspective in research, and such groups have been used successfully in support-ing researchers to work alongside children as co-researchers within wider projectsinvolving children and young people (Lundy and McEvoy 2011). It is a powerfulmeans to facilitate the student voice in research to ensure their meaningful participationwhile also building ‘capacity for children as researchers in a variety of settings’ (Kellett2011, 209).
The context of the study was New Zealand primary schools where children com-mence school on their fifth birthday and proceed through years 1–8 before entering sec-ondary school in year 9. The study took place in a period of changing assessmentpolicies. In 2008, a centre-right National-led coalition government was elected inNew Zealand with a key plank of its education manifesto being the intention tospecify national standards of achievement in reading, writing and mathematics forprimary school children (years 1–8). The rapidly gazetted Education (National Stan-dards) Amendment Act 2008 defined these as ‘standards, in regard to matters such asliteracy and numeracy, that are applicable to all students of a particular age or in a par-ticular year of schooling’ (S60A(1)). This study sought to understand how the resultantchanges in primary school assessment systems and reporting to parents influenced theway children conceptualized learning and assessment.
Background
The research on learning that this article draws on was designed to ensure the methodo-logical approach was relevant to the involvement of children in years 4 and 8 in fourprimary schools. Although the vast majority of children who had formally consentedto participate in the research appeared to be happily engaged in the interviews, asmall minority of children showed signs of discomfort while participating in the inter-views with the researchers, but still clearly found it difficult to say or express ‘no’. Thearticle explores how a CRAG involving 7–12-year-old can be utilized to gain insightinto some of these unspoken issues when involving children. Specifically, the articlemakes a distinction between two related concepts: (i) informed consent, as the capacityand opportunity to ‘say or express yes’ to participation in research; and (ii) informeddissent, as the capacity and opportunity to ‘say or express no’. When involving childrenin research in their educational contexts, and spending time listening to their views,active consideration of both informed consent and dissent is essential to promote theinterests of children as social agents within their school-based context without itbecoming intrusive. As noted by Clark and Moss (2011, 64), researchers ‘need to beaware that listening can be a liberating tool but also a way of ‘listening in’ on children’slives and an unwanted intrusion’.
As another researcher has noted, the context of the research impacts children’s per-ception and resultant decisions, and when asked to participate in educational research‘children sometimes find it difficult to refuse to take part as they perceive the research tobe a ‘school’ activity’ (Bucknall 2012, 46). Ahsan (2009) concurs, suggesting that chil-dren’s failure to dissent does not necessarily signal their voluntary consent. Therefore,while children play a critical role in contributing to research agendas that affect themindirectly (Casas et al. 2013; Turtle, McElearney, and Scott 2010), not all childrenwant to participate in research and not all know how to say or express ‘no’.
152 R. Bourke and J. Loveridge
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
The proposal for the research had been approved by a University Research Ethicscommittee, which involved rigorous peer-review to ensure any ethical issues wereidentified and mitigated. Prior to the research commencing, the researchers activelyinvolved children as co-researchers through a CRAG to advise on both the researchtool, and subsequent analysis of the participating children’s responses. The CRAGwas established as a means of redefining the role of children in research to one ofactive participation (Casas et al. 2013; Lundy 2007; Lundy and McEvoy 2011). AsCook-Sather (2007, 856) has argued,
to be open this way to young people as authorities and as interpreters is to redefine therelationship between young people and adults and, as a result, to redefine what classroomsand schools, as well as educational research, should look and sound like.
However, as identified in this article, even when these approaches to mitigate againstharm were used, the researchers noted a tension for children not wanting to participatewhile still saying ‘yes’. The CRAG aided the researchers in interpreting these momentsof discomfort for children and so re-interpreted for us, what ‘negotiated informeddissent’ in educational research ‘looks and sounds’ like. Factors in obtainingongoing consent involve researchers’ thorough understanding of the institutional pro-cesses in the context in which the research is being carried out and continuous reflexiveand sensitive approaches to participants. Ironically, researchers’ awareness of support-ing individuals to say ‘no’ counters their drive to approach those who can participate inthe research and who are more likely to say ‘yes’. Williams (2005, 53) states that‘Informed consent is about individuals, and one of its purposes is to empower individ-uals against organised and expert researchers’. This requires listening to the child, toboth what is said and unsaid, and observing body language that may be reflectingdissent. Clark, McQuail, and Moss (2003, 10) identified the importance to ‘debateabout principles on which to base listening and consulting with young children’, andthat when consulting with children, listening needs to be intentionally ‘participatory,adaptable, multi-method, reflexive and embedded in practice’ (Clark, McQuail, andMoss 2003, 10).
Informed consent and informed dissent: the ethic of control
In this section, informed consent and informed dissent are examined as dual processesrequiring intentional action on behalf of the research participant. Informed consent isoften ‘obtained’ or ‘gained’ from the participant by the researcher, while informeddissent is ‘voiced’ at any stage of the research process (prior to, and during). In thisexample, for children, informed consent is arguably the simple process of agreementto participate and often a pleasant experience for the child; the impact of informeddissent on the child – essentially saying ‘no’ to the adult, either the teacher or theresearcher is less clear but arguably more difficult to articulate. Both processesrequire the child to have control over their own decision, although their ability toprovide consent tends to be more positively reinforced by those whose interests thechild involvement in the research serves.
While researchers have conscientiously identified the role of adults in authority(e.g. parents, teachers, principals and the school authorities) as gatekeepers forchildren’s involvement in research (Bucknall 2012; Einarsdottir 2007; Fargas-Maletet al. 2010; Powell and Smith 2009), less focus has been placed on what happens
International Journal of Research & Method in Education 153
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
when those ‘gatekeepers’ inadvertently influence the decisions children make abouttheir own involvement. When Skelton (2008, 27) asked, ‘What if the child reallywants to participate but the parent says no?’, the concern for children who were pre-vented from involvement in research because their parent declined was raised. Butwhat happens when the child really does not want to participate but the principal,teacher [or parent] has said yes?
Voluntary informed consent, the hallmark of ethical research, is a shorthand for anamalgam of understandings within dominant social research ethics codes about theinformation and assurances that participants should have prior to their agreeing to beinvolved in research. These include what the research is about, why it is being con-ducted, what it involves for participants, explanations around voluntary participationand reinforcing the notion of withdrawing from the research at anytime. At thisstage, information to prospective participants is provided about the storage of data,how and what it will be used for, and that the researchers will report the data anon-ymously and confidentiality of participants will be assured. This process of establishingan informed consent often involves a three-step process: (1) the provision of adequateinformation, (2) checking that participants have understood what they are agreeing to,and (3) establishing how their consent or refusal to participate is to be recorded.However, consent needs to be thought of as a process of negotiation that continuesthroughout the research process, often through to the publication of data (Dockettand Perry 2011). This can include researchers facilitating ‘a dialogue with childrenthroughout the research process’ (Christensen and Prout 2002, 478). For participantsto retain control over their choice in remaining involved in the research, they needthe opportunity to opt out, in other words, to revisit their ability to voice their informeddissent. It could be argued that during the research process, informed dissent needs tobe prioritized in much the same way as informed consent, partly because children aremore likely to express dissent through non-verbal body language which may be lesseasily ‘heard’.
Obtaining informed consent for research with children, and in particular children inschools and educational settings, presents particular challenges for researchers andaccentuates some of the problems that are inherent in the concept of voluntary informedconsent (Gallagher et al. 2010). There are no simple, prescriptive solutions or tech-niques to obtain informed consent. Rather, it requires a more reflexive approachwhereby researchers engage with the issues that are raised in their own work and thecontext in which it takes place (Gallagher et al. 2010; Loveridge 2010). The processof informed consent is seen as valuable as opening up ‘a space for negotiation, ques-tioning and dialogue’ (Gallagher et al. 2010), rather than one moment of informedconsent at the beginning of a project, when a form is signed, as a moment of closure.
Some literature makes a distinction between informed consent and assent. Lewis(2002) argues that the distinction lies in the ability of the child to make a reasoneddecision about his or her own participation in research (Lewis 2002). Coyne (2010,228) indicates that consent refers to a ‘person’s voluntary positive agreement whilstassent refers to a person’s acquiescence’. Alderson and Morrow (2011) argue thatassent is seen as ‘at least not refusing’ and this they argue is insufficient grounds forassuming that a child is agreeing; they may be too afraid or confused to decline tobe involved. In this view, the distinction between assent and consent cannot be mean-ingfully maintained with any certainty and may obscure children’s attempts to dissent.
Informed dissent acknowledges participants’ right to consciously decline to engageor respond to particular questions or activities (Lewis 2002). Conroy and Harcourt
154 R. Bourke and J. Loveridge
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
(2009) make the point that phrases commonly used by researchers with children such asI have come to get your permission, I have come to get you to sign saying you agree tobe involved in my research or I will take your photograph to say that you agree to helpme imply that there has already been some agreement reached, perhaps contributing tothe difficulty experienced by some children to decline the researcher’s request.However, information sheets and forms designed to record children’s agreement to par-ticipate in research predominantly use the term consent and do not visibly suggest thepossibility of dissent. The vast majority of academic literature about children’s invol-vement in research is also predominantly articulated in terms of consent rather thanconsent and dissent.
While it is argued that it is not possible to fully obtain informed consent from chil-dren given they are unlikely to comprehend the complex nature of the research and its(sometimes unanticipated) outcomes, it may also be unlikely to fully obtain informeddissent. Some argue that ‘informed consent is a largely unworkable process giventhat researchers can rarely – if ever – know the full extent of what participationmay entail, or predict in advance all the possible outcomes of participation’ (Heathet al. 2007, 404). In a related vein, Gallagher et al. (2010) suggest that researchersmay not fully foresee the consequences of a child’s participation and there may notbe a shared understanding of what the child has consented to do. Furthermore, bythe time the research commences participants may simply have forgotten that theyhad provided consent (Williams 2005).
These complexities underscore the importance of ensuring there are ongoing oppor-tunities for children to express both informed consent and dissent. This becomes anissue of the researcher’s judgment, rather than one of the rules or procedures (Coyne2010). However, as Coyne notes, decisions around such judgements are rarely reported.Increased discussion around issues and processes of consent and other ethical dilemmasin the reporting of research would lead to a greater transparency about such judgements.This transparency could then provide reference points for establishing ethical ways ofworking, rather than relying on decontextualized, simple, prescriptive solutions.
Methodology
This article draws from research involving semi-structured individual interviews withyear 4 (7–8-year-old) and year 8 (11–12-year-old) children on their learning andself-assessment. The research aimed to examine children’s conceptions of learningand self-assessment and the influence of the introduction of national standards inNew Zealand primary schools on these children. Another aim was to develop agreater understanding of research and interviewing techniques with children with theformation of a CRAG.
Recruiting children for this study involved selecting four regional full primaryschools across different decile rankings1 and approaching the school principals byphone to ask if their school would be interested in participating in the research. Thefirst four schools approached agreed and were sent a letter providing further infor-mation about the project as well as copies of information letters and consent formsfor distribution to children and their parents. The ethics application stated that theresearch team would meet with interested children to explain the research to themand provide them with information sheets and consent forms for themselves and fortheir parents before they agreed to participate. Information letters addressed to the prin-cipals, children and parents emphasized the importance of children understanding what
International Journal of Research & Method in Education 155
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
the research process involved and that participation was voluntary. The letters alsoexplained that the children would be able to withdraw from being part of the researchat any time without having to explain why they wished to do this.
However, once the materials went out to schools, the principals interpreted the requestsin different ways and the schools’ customary practices and processes regarding recruitingchildren overrode the requests made in the information sheets and advice to schools.Specific children were identified and asked if they would like to participate before theresearchers had spoken with them and while the schools kept to the broad parametersof the sample requested, teachers added different and additional criteria for selection.For example, in one school the teachers selected children based on their ability to be inter-viewed. As one principal explained ‘The way we selected the children was for the teachersto select children who were articulate and confident. They were of mixed ability’. Inanother school it became apparent that teachers, who were also mothers of childrenwithin the school, had suggested that their children might like to be involved, and thusperhaps, were expressing a preference for their children to be involved. Another principalindicated that after the children were selected, the teachers explained the process and askedthem if they wanted to take part. All of the schools then sent consent forms home withthose children who indicated they wanted to participate. The research subsequentlyinvolved interviews with 38 children from 4 schools: 19-year 4 children (14 female and6 male) and 18-year 8 children (10 female and 8 male) of diverse ethnicities from fullprimary schools (Deciles 1, 2, 6 and 10). The year 4 children ranged in age from 7 to8-years-old, and the year 8 children ranged in age from 11 to 12-years-old.
Each child was interviewed by one researcher on his/her own in a separate roomaway from the classroom. The interview was semi-structured and followed theresponses of the child. Common questions around learning and self-assessmentincluded: When you decided to take part in this interview about learning what sortsof things did you think we might talk about? Can you tell me something you havelearnt this year? What happened when you tried to learn it? How do you know youhave learnt something? Can you tell me about a time when you learnt somethingwith your classmates? How did you know they had learnt something? What do youthink the point of learning is?
The formation of the Children’s Research Advisory Group
Children participating in the CRAG were based at different schools from those childreninvolved in the research. They did not know the schools nor the children involved in theresearch. They were informed that the participating children were in years 4 or 8, likethem, and that their responses would inform the research approach and interpretation ofthe data.
To establish the CRAG, teachers selected children from years 4 and 8 with a rangeof abilities and backgrounds and who would feel confident contributing to an advisorygroup. These children were then provided with information sheets and consent formsfor themselves and their parents which explained their role in responding to draft inter-view questions and our research processes and the conditions of their involvement inthe advisory group. These children were requested to meet with the researchers onthree occasions during the period of the research, and they were assured that their par-ticipation was voluntary and that they could leave the CRAG at anytime. For the firstCRAG meeting, both the years 4 and 8 children met together, but the researchersnoticed that the year 4 children did not participate as much as the year 8 children.
156 R. Bourke and J. Loveridge
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
Thereafter two CRAG meetings were held each time, with researchers meeting eachyear group on their own. The first time this occurred, the year 4 children spontaneouslycommented on the new arrangement at the end of the meeting, remarking that they hadnot said a lot when they were in with the ‘big kids’, the year 8 children. Subsequently,the CRAGs comprised of 4 year 8 children (2 male and 2 female) and 3 year 4 children(2 male and 1 female), and met three times over the course of the research.
During the first CRAG meeting, the research team asked the children a set of draftquestions for the individual interviews. The children were asked for feedback on thelanguage, content and relevance of the questions. At the end of the questions theresearchers asked if there was anything else the children would like to be askedabout learning and self-assessment. Several questions were amended and added as aresult of the children’s feedback. During the second CRAG meeting, the childrenwere consulted about the ethical issues that had arisen in the first round of interviewsand the questions for the second interviews. The third CRAG meeting focussed on thepreliminary analysis of the first and second interviews and the children’s own experi-ences of being involved in this and other research.
Ethical dilemmas around informed consent
In this section, issues around children’s consent that arose in the research process arehighlighted through two vignettes to illustrate the tensions that arose. While the vign-ettes represent a conglomeration of a series of small events in the research, they providea context to explore issues that arise in educational research. In this way, the dilemmasthat can arise through interviewing children are identified, and the implications forseeking informed consent and informed dissent with children involved in research.
Each researcher independently experienced at least one moment in an interviewcontext when it was necessary to create an enabling environment for the children towithdraw from the research. In order to analyse these situations, some of these dilem-mas were combined within ethical vignettes to protect the identity of individual chil-dren and to explore what the issues were and how to resolve these. The developmentand use of ethical vignettes enables a dilemma to be explored that has arisen in aspecific context (Artino and Brown 2009). The formulated ethical vignettes arebased on real events that occurred in the process of the research. The vignettes wereused to consult the CRAG to ask them questions about what they would do in situationsif they were involved in research.
The ethical dilemmas around informed consent and informed dissent are complexbecause the conscious acts of consent and dissent results in the child making abroader decision about the context of the research, rather than necessarily the researchitself. For example, this could include how the child perceives the activity at the time oftheir engagement with the research, and what competing demands are on the child at thetime of their involvement. When a child makes a conscious decision to withdraw duringthe research activity (as a result of not enjoying the task, finding the task difficult andexperiencing anxiety, or have competing demands on their time and preferring to beelsewhere) they may simply not be able to express dissent. This occurs when theyeither do not have the skills to withdraw, or have unintended pressure from theirparents, peers or teachers (I do not want to let my school down, my friend said itwould be fun and I do not want to look different). If a child can provide dissentduring the research, the process of informed consent is strengthened. Therefore, theprocess of dissent, distinct from consent, holds the key for whether children ultimately
International Journal of Research & Method in Education 157
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
engage, fully informed and consenting in educational research. If children can say orexpress ‘no’ at any stage in the research process, and feel it is a legitimate and validaction, informed consent is strengthened across the project.
Stephanie: year 42
The first vignette explores issues of consent representing issues associated with inter-viewing year 4 (7–8-years-old) children who willingly agreed to participate in theresearch, but during the process of the interviews appeared to experience anxietyaround their responses, and exhibited non-verbal cues of dissent.
The researcher has been informed by the school that Stephanie’s parent, her prin-cipal and Stephanie had given informed consent for Stephanie to be interviewed.At the time of the interview Stephanie was withdrawn from her classroom and metwith the researcher in a private room by the administration office. A peer broughther to the room, and she entered willingly and with a smile.When asked by the researcher whether she had signed the consent form she indicatedshe had not. Stephanie was asked whether she was happy to proceed, and if so, shewould be taken through the information sheet and consent form point by point. Shesaid ‘yes’. The research and consent form were explained, and then Stephanie signedthe form. The interview commenced but by the fifth question Stephanie increasinglyappeared agitated. Her responses became less vocal and forthcoming, and the colour-ing in her cheeks reddened. However, she appeared to want to continue because shemaintained eye contact and started to provide an answer to each question. Increas-ingly though, the responses became ‘not sure about that one’, or ‘not sure’. Afterthis had happened twice the researcher noted that while she initially looked soeager to respond each time a new question was posed, Stephanie’s subsequentbody language suggested she was experiencing some anxiety. However, by stoppingthe interview, the researcher was concerned that the child may feel she had failed.Therefore the interview schedule was adjusted and questions were edited out ifthey were seen to be too complex for Stephanie. However, when Stephanie exhibitedincreased discomfort and tightened her hands, she was asked again whether shewanted to continue. Stephanie’s non-response suggested she did want to stop, andthe researcher noted: ‘You’re not liking this interview are you?’ Stephanie’s eyesfilled with tears and she responded ‘no’. The researcher immediately respondedwith ‘No I am just going to turn this (the digital tape recorder) off’, and immediatelystopped the interview. The researcher debriefed by explaining to Stephanie that it wasno problem to stop and thanked her for the very helpful contribution. [The researcheraccompanied Stephanie back to her classroom and informed her teacher of the inci-dent. The researcher then reported Stephanie’s unease to the principal, and the earlydiscontinuation of the interview. The principal’s response was that he did not believethat the teacher should have selected Stephanie and had said so but the teacher’sdecision, who was also her mother, had prevailed.]
In this example issues around informed consent arose from the beginning of theprocess when those around Stephanie had expressed official informed consent buteither had not taken Stephanie through the formal procedures of reading and completingthe Information sheet and Informed Consent process or she had forgotten the process.Also, in this vignette the child (who was a student and daughter) and one of the adults
158 R. Bourke and J. Loveridge
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
(who was a teacher and mother) had multiple positions within the consent process but thiswas not evident to the researchers. Given that on the day of the first interview she will-ingly turned up, expressed a desire to continue and then completed the relevant documen-tation, the issue could have stopped at that point. Informed consent was gained, and hadbeen legitimized by those in ‘authority’. However, consent started to unravel during theprocess of the interview when Stephanie realized she did not feel comfortable. The ques-tions were open-ended and required children to think about their learning in a differentway; something for which Stephanie was not prepared. Her responses were brief, butgiven there was no ‘right’ response required, her contributions were nonetheless interest-ing and relevant. The researcher identified non-verbal body language associated with herresponses (reddening of face, hand twisting, movement in the seat, head dropped anddecreasing eye contact, slower responses) that clearly indicated increasing levels ofanxiety and discomfort. The questions were not seen as threatening by the researchers,but clearly created discomfort for this child. As Bucknall (2012, 49) has pointed out,‘upset cannot always be avoided as even the most seemingly innocuous question canoccasionally provoke an unexpectedly emotional response’.
Jim: year 8
The second vignette represents issues associated with the older year 8 children (11–12-year-old) who provided informed consent but had ‘competing demands’ on their atten-tion, interests and motivation to participate. It highlights the notion that involvement ineducational research for children may appear ‘exciting’ for some, on the premise thatthere was nothing more exciting on offer or as an option. When children explainthey enjoy being interviewed ‘to get out of class’ their motivation for involvement ineducational research may have more to do with what they can avoid, than the researchactivity they enter into.
Jim’s parents, teacher and principal had given consent for him to be interviewedat a date and suitable time negotiated with the school prior to the researcher visit-ing. Jim has also given consent prior to the interview.This was the first interview of the day, and was set up in an interview room beside thehall. During the interview a movie was to be played in the hall and a group of childrenfiled in to watch it. Jim continued with the interview and we could hear the moviebeing played over the interview. He then answered one question with ‘. . .play onthe computer and do maths. I can hear the movie’. The researcher immediatelyasked Jim whether he wanted to go and watch the movie, and initially he said no.However, he continued to strain to listen to what was being played, so the researchertried again, and was able to quickly convince him it was OK to withdraw at this point.The principal and teacher did not mention that this class had a movie on at the timethe year 8 interviews were scheduled. The child had not seen the movie before and itwasn’t until it started that the researcher realized these were his classmates watchingit. While he continued with the interview he clearly wanted to attend the movie andthe researcher made it very clear that he could do this and did not need to stay. Whenrealizing there were no negative consequences for doing so, Jim discontinued theinterview and left happily. When the principal realized the movie was on, she indi-cated that she did not know it was the year 8 class. The researcher requested nomore year 8’s during this time, and commenced with year 4 interviews instead.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education 159
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
This vignette raises the ethical issue of how researchers use a child’s time,especially when from a child’s perspective there are conflicting demands on his orher learning and participation opportunities. When negotiating with the teacher when(and from what) to withdraw a child from an activity while conducting research, theresearcher weighs up the benefits of the involvement in research with that of the con-current activity within the school. This vignette highlights how children make choicesabout their time and as an informed consent issue, it raises two key points. One beingthat the consent process never identifies what activity the child will ‘miss’, and theresearcher is often constrained by time and place: pragmatically it would be difficultto turn up each day on the chance that it might, this time, suit the child. Second, thechild might prefer an alternative activity but believe the status of the research activitytakes precedence over their preferred choice. By being in the school as a visitor, andperceived by the children as coming from the university setting, the researcher isafforded a status that from the child’s view, is sufficiently important that their time isprioritized over the child’s own needs.
Discussion
While informed consent is recognized as a complex phenomenon in educationalresearch, the opportunities for children to actively dissent to their involvement oncethe research is underway can be problematic. The institutional context (both universityand school) contributed to an unspoken but nonetheless active influence towards estab-lishing and maintaining children’s contributions in the research. While the school andthe university acted in the best interests of the children, and did so under the ethicalstandards associated with research, there may have been invisible pressures on the chil-dren to participate. Campbell (2003, 10) reflecting on the professional ethics of teachersobserved how teachers need to reflect ‘on the moral implications of what they say or donot say and do or do not do’. In a similar vein, the ethical dilemma for researchers maycentre less on what children do and more on what they do not do, less on what they sayand more on what they do not say with regards their consent and dissent to their invol-vement in educational research.
What stops children from simply refusing to participate?
This section briefly explores the complexity of a child’s choice to withdraw fromresearch once the process is underway. The CRAG understood this phenomenonand consciously and articulately reiterated their consent throughout the process.However, their notion of ‘membership’ within this group as co-researchers contributedto their level of confidence and ability to explore difficult issues. For them, the inabilityof children who may have some degree of reluctance to dissent could be explained inthe following way. First there was the pressure, albeit unspoken, to participate in theirpeers who were also involved and their teacher, who perhaps understood the researchmore fully, and related this to the child’s desire to ‘please’ others through this partici-pation. In a related way, Bucknall (2012) also suggests that children do not want toappear ‘different’ if others around them are also involved in the research.
The CRAG also noted that as children, they often do not know what they are lettingthemselves in for when agreeing to research. For example, they may have agreed to beinvolved in a research project on bullying, but have done so on the basis that they do notknow the exact questions that are to be asked, or the issues to be explored. The desire to
160 R. Bourke and J. Loveridge
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
‘opt in’ may have also occurred when they were oblivious to what other options may arisewhile they are participating in the research. These alternative [and often for them, more excit-ing] activities that occur simultaneously may not have been envisaged when they agreed toparticipate thinking they were getting out of a subject area they did not enjoy.
For a few children in this research project, some explained they had wanted to partici-pate to represent their school, or that their principal, teacher or parent had thought it wouldbe a good idea for them to participate. However, none of the children who presented thisview showed any signs of disengagement or anxiety around participating in the research.
The CRAG were forthright in their views on these vignettes and reported how diffi-cult it would be to say or express ‘no’ once a research process is underway. First, theyidentified issues around the expectations of these participants in terms of how the inter-view was to take place, and the type of questions asked of them. In Stephanie’s case, theysuggested she may have been expecting to be interviewed with other children and wasnervous on her own, and the questions might have been too hard for her: ‘Maybe shedidn’t know what to say and she got a bit of pressure and got a bit scared’. One childsaid, ‘She didn’t know what it would be like. She thought it would be with others [class-mates] helping her’. Then another added, ‘Maybe she thought the others were late’.
Second, the CRAGs referred to values and emotions in their interpretations of inter-actions between researchers and children. This introduces a more nuanced and complexreading of participation and power differences between researchers and children than isfound in much of the literature about children’s participation. The CRAG felt that Jim’svignette represents a general pressure experienced by children to continue with theresearch process because it would be ‘rude’ or ‘impolite’ not to. As one boy said, ifit were he, his mother would tell him to mind his manners and another boy said thathis mother had taught him it was important to finish things he starts. They also assertedthat children would not want to let their teachers, principal or the researcher down bydeclining to be involved, or through discontinuing their involvement. One of the chil-dren said ‘Jim was concentrating on the movie; maybe he was too scared or too shy tosay he wanted to watch the video’. All children recognized Jim’s plight in that they too,would want to watch the video rather than be interviewed for research. Nevertheless, allindicated they would have been prepared to stay on for the interview unless given expli-cit messages from the researcher that it was considered an appropriate option to leave.The CRAG highlighted the role that expectations, values and emotions play out inresearch, indicating that these invisible dimensions of the participatory processshould be attended to by those engaging children in research processes.
Creating the conditions for informed dissent
The ‘dissent’ experience in this research highlights an issue for those involved inresearch with children. While the over-riding question in educational research with chil-dren is whether they have the capacity to provide informed consent, the importance ofexerting the same capacity to provide informed dissent – especially during the activeresearch phase is an issue. When this issue was taken to the CRAG for consultation,they reported that such experiences were not uncommon, but that in their experienceof being involved in ‘research projects’, neither children nor researchers challenge it.Therefore, although considerable care goes into ensuring children provide informedconsent when involved in research (Formosinho and Araujo 2006; Powell and Smith2009), more focus needs to be placed on whether these same children can easilyremove themselves from a research situation prior to, or during the research process.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education 161
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
Within this study, opportunities for children to express their informed dissent couldfeasibly take place during three phases of the research: (1) during the recruitment periodwhen approached by their teachers they could arguably decline to take home the infor-mation to their parents; (2) specifically indicating dissent after discussion with theirparents; and (3) during their active participation in the research. It was in this thirdphase that the researchers identified dissent, although this feasibly could have takenplace earlier by other children. Given that no school indicated the need to involvemore children when others declined, it did appear that those children who wereasked or approached to participate agreed. Although there were only a small numberof cases when some notion of ‘dissent’ was expressed (4 of the 38 interviews), it isnonetheless a significant issue for any child involved in research.
Few research studies describe instances where adults have provided consent for achild to participate, and then the child subsequently chooses to opt out of the research,even when they have not agreed to participate in the first place. Disturbingly, in the fewcases where child dissent was noted, the researcher is seen to be giving subtle pressurefor the child attempting to withdraw. For example, Danby and Farrell (2004) describeda situation in their study where a child did decline to participate after his parents con-sented. However, when the child said ‘no’, the researcher asked again ‘No. You wouldnot like to do this?’ to which he replied, ‘I don’t want to join in’ before the researcherreleased the child back to his classroom with
OK, sure. So, um, did you want to...well we can just leave the form blank then and I canjust make a note on it saying that you decided that you didn’t want to join in. OK. Well,thanks for thinking about it and making that decision. (Danby and Farrell 2004, 40)
In this example, the child had met with the researcher and been put in a position wherehe had to say ‘no’ at least twice, before being released with a ‘thanks for thinking aboutit and making that decision’. This shows that a child must learn to provide ‘informeddissent’ and to insist on this message, when it would be far easier to say ‘yes’. In amore encouraging example, Clark and Moss (2011, 64) highlight a case where athree-year-old child prematurely closed an interview by stating ‘I’ve done enoughtalking now’.
For negotiated informed dissent to be possible for children, researchers need to bealert to children’s non-verbal actions and gestures as these may indicate the child’s realview regarding consent (Dockett and Perry 2011; Einarsdottir 2007). For example, if achild is displaying signs of anxiety, agitation or disinterest, they may politely want toexit the interview or the research process. This has been observed as taking the form ofcrying or refusing to engage with the materials or researcher (Fargas-Malet et al. 2010).Our research suggests that some of these signs may be more subtle forms of bodylanguage. As Dockett and Perry (2011, 233) suggest, ‘children use a range of meansto signal the choices they wish to make’.
Conclusion
Clear, systematic and rigorous ethical principles and procedures are essential in edu-cational research for ensuring children feel comfortable, confident and clear in whatthey are involved with and why. Once an ethical approval for the research and outlinedprocedures is obtained from university committees, the ongoing research process withchildren calls for an ongoing scrutiny and reflection around ethical issues from the
162 R. Bourke and J. Loveridge
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
researcher. Increased researcher reflexivity is a key to acknowledging the interdepen-dence of the researcher and the researched (Cocks 2006; Dockett and Perry 2011).
The assumption that, even when rigorous university ethical procedures and guide-lines are followed, and applied sensitively in research settings, informed consent is avoluntary and informed process for children must be challenged. Although researchhas shown how complex negotiating informed consent is with children (Gallagheret al. 2010), there remain invisible or unspoken issues faced by children when agreeingto participate in educational research.
As interest in seeking children’s voices in myriad areas of research continues togrow, the role that informed consent and dissent plays requires a visible, collaborativeapproach with children to ensure their participation is meaningful for the researcher,and for themselves. Children may find it difficult to express their unwillingness to con-tinue in research but where children can and do dissent from ongoing participation,informed consent is strengthened. Cook-Sather (2007, 829) has pointed out, ‘Research-ers who seriously engage in the work of seeking out, taking up, and re-presenting chil-dren’ experiences of school not only translate what they gather but are also translated byit’. The introduction of the CRAG to inform research instruments, process and analysisis a means to re-present children’s experiences of research. The CRAG translated ourexperiences of consent and dissent and made visible dimensions of expectations, valuesand emotions in children’s experiences of research.
Notes1. A decile is a 10% grouping. A school’s decile rating indicates the extent to which it draws its
students from low socio-economic communities. Decile 1 schools are the 10% of schoolswith the highest proportion of students from low socio-economic communities, whereasdecile 10 schools are the 10% of schools with the lowest proportion of these students. (Min-istry of Education, 2013)
2. The section in square brackets at the end of this vignette was not read out to the CRAG.
ReferencesAhsan, M. 2009. “The Potential and Challenges of Rights-based Research with Children and
Young Peoples’ Experiences from Bangladesh.” Children‘s Geographies 7 (4): 391–403.Alderson, P., and V. Morrow. 2011. The Ethics of Research with Children and Young People: A
Practical Handbook. London: Sage.Artino, A. R. Jr., and S. W. Brown. 2009. “Ethics in Educational Research: A Comparative
Analysis of Graduate Student and Faculty Beliefs.” College Student Journal 43 (2):599–615.
Bucknall, S. 2012. Children as Researchers in Primary Schools. Choice, Voice andParticipation. London: Routledge.
Campbell, E. 2003. The Ethical Teacher. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Casas, F., M. Gonzalez, D. Navarro, and M. Aligue. 2013. “Children as Advisers of their
Researchers: Assuming a Different Status for Children.” Child Indicators Research 6 (2):193–212.
Christensen, P., and A. Prout. 2002. “Working with Ethical Symmetry in Social Research withChildren.” Childhood 9 (4): 477–497.
Clark, A., S. McQuail, and P. Moss. 2003. Exploring the Field of Listening to and Consultingwith Young Children. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills Research ReportRR445, UK.
Clark, A., and P. Moss. 2011. Listening to Young Children. The MOSAIC Approach. 2nd ed.London: NCB.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education 163
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
Cocks, A. J. 2006. “The Ethical Maze: Finding an Inclusive Path Towards Gaining Children’sAgreement to Research Participation.” Childhood 13 (2): 247–266.
Conroy, H., and D. Harcourt. 2009. “Informed Agreement to Participate: Beginning thePartnership with Children in Research.” Early Child Development and Care 179 (2):157–165.
Cook-Sather, A. 2007. “Translating Researchers: Re-imagining the Work of InvestigatingStudents’ Experiences in School.” In International Handbook of Student Experience inElementary and Secondary School, edited by D. Thiessen and A. Cook-Sather, 829–872.Dordrecht: Springer.
Coyne, I. 2010. “Research with Children and Young People: The Issue of Parental (proxy)Consent.” Children and Society 24 (3): 227–237.
Danby, S., and A. Farrell. 2004. “Accounting for Young Children’s Competence in EducationalResearch: New Perspectives on Research Ethics.” The Australian Educational Researcher31 (3): 35–49.
Dockett, S., and B. Perry. 2011. “Researching with Young Children: Seeking Assent.” ChildIndicators Research 4 (2): 231–247.
Einarsdottir, J. 2007. “Research with Children: Methodological and Ethical Challenges.”European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 15 (2): 197–211.
Fargas-Malet, M., D. McSherry, E. Larkin, and C. Robinson. 2010. “Research with Children:Methodological Issues and Innovative Techniques.” Journal of Early ChildhoodResearch 8 (2): 175–192.
Formosinho, J., and S. B. Araujo. 2006. “Listening to Children as a way to ReconstructKnowledge about Children: Some Methodological Implications.” European EarlyChildhood Education Research Journal 14 (1): 21–31.
Gallagher, M., S. Haywood, M. W. Jones, and S. Milne. 2010. “Negotiating Informed Consentwith Children in School-based Research: A Critical Review.” Children and Society 24 (6):471–482.
Heath, S., V. Charles, G. Crow, and R. Wiles. 2007. “Informed Consent, Gatekeepers and go-betweens: Negotiating Consent in Child- and Youth-oriented Institutions.” BritishEducational Research Journal 33 (3): 403–417.
Kellett, M. 2011. “Empowering Children and Young People as Researchers: OvercomingBarriers and Building Capacity.” Child Indicators Research 4 (2): 205–219.
Lewis, A. 2002. “Accessing through Research Interviews the Views of Children withDifficulties in Learning.” Support for Learning 17 (3): 110–116.
Loveridge, J. ed. 2010. Involving Children and Young People in Research and Evaluation inEducational Settings. Report for the Ministry of Education, Wellington, New Zealand.http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/80440
Lundy, L. 2007. “‘Voice’ is not Enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United NationsConvention on the Rights of the Child.” British Educational Research Journal 33 (6):927–942.
Lundy, L., and L. McEvoy. 2011. “Children’s Rights and Research Processes: AssistingChildren to (in)formed Views.” Childhood 19 (1): 129–144.
Ministry of Education. 2013. Decile Ratings. What is a Decile Rating? http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/SchoolOperations/Resourcing/ResourcingHandbook/Chapter1/DecileRatings.aspx
Powell, A. M., and A. B. Smith. 2009. “Children’s Participation Rights in Research.” Childhood16 (1): 124–141.
Roberts, H. 2008. “Listening to Children: And Hearing Them.” In Research with Children.Perspectives and Practices, 2nd ed., edited by P. Christensen and A. James, 260–275.New York: Routledge.
Rudduck, J., and D. McIntyre. 2007. Improving Learning through Consulting Pupils. London:Routledge.
Skelton, T. 2008. “Research with Children and Young People: Exploring the Tensions betweenEthics, Competence and Participation.” Children‘s Geographies 6 (1): 21–36.
Thiessen, D., and A. Cook-Sather, eds. 2007. International Handbook of Student Experience inElementary and Secondary School. Dordrecht: Springer.
164 R. Bourke and J. Loveridge
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
Turtle, K., A. McElearney, and J. Scott. 2010. “Involving Children in the Design andDevelopment of Research Instruments and Data Collection Procedures: A Case Study inPrimary Schools in Northern Ireland.” Child Care in Practice 16 (1): 57–82.
Williams, G. 2005. “Bioethics and Large-scale Biobanking: Individualistic Ethics andCollective Projects.” Genomincs, Society and Policy 1 (2): 50–66.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education 165
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
08:
56 2
2 D
ecem
ber
2014
