Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ‘UNCRC’ provides that children should participate in research about matters that concern them. However, this is not always realised, particularly in the context of risky, sensitive and morally complex experiences. Failure to include children causes lacunae in our understanding of the factors that influence their lives and well-being. In this article, we propose to conceptualise approaches to including children in research along four dimensions: Exclusion; Exploitation; Extension; and Empowerment. Using research on children’s experiences with online sexual content as a case, we discuss ethical dilemmas related to including children in research. Finally, we present 10 recommendations for future research to respect children’ agency and empower them to participate in research in an ethically responsible manner.

Keywords

Research ethics informed consent children adolescents Internet sexuality research literacy research participation sexual content media panic methodology

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) provides that children, defined as 0- to 18-year-olds, should participate in research about matters that concern them. Researchers are therefore obliged to facilitate children and adolescents’ participation in an age appropriate and respectful manner (i.e. Cowie and Khoo, 2017; Lundy et al., 2011). Justification is required when this is not done (UNICEF, 2021). Legal and ethical requirements for research participation are justified because children and adolescents are considered experts on the realm of their own experience and therefore need to be empowered to participate (i.e. Albury, 2017; Hasinoff, 2013, 2015; Staksrud, 2016a). Researchers need to keep abreast of these experiences, as they are impacted by societal and technological change, to generate robust evidence and inform policymaking. Evidence-based policies should in turn ensure that children can realise opportunities and be protected from potential harms in their everyday lives. The question of definitional validity for example is key. Researchers, policymakers and caregivers cannot develop relevant measures if they do not understand the language children use to describe their experiences, or the context in which they occur.

In general, all researchers must adhere to the principles of scientific conduct, integrity and ethics, as stipulated by the international research community (see for instance the ALLEA European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity), as well as national and institutional guidelines for research ethics. However, as children per definition are vulnerable informants, researchers engaging with children also need sufficient competence to design and implement research which is beneficial and appropriate to the child’s age and evolving capacity. However, even when complying with these guidelines, complex ethical dilemmas will arise, particularly when researching risky, sensitive and morally complex experiences among children.

The four dimensions of including children in research

Including children in research in an ethical manner is and has always been a substantial challenge. We suggest that both historical and current approaches can be conceptualised across the following four dimensions:

Exclusion due to (perceived and real) regulatory, legal and institutional complications and financial burdens or a lack of interest in engaging with children.

Exploitation, especially in experiments, as children are easily accessible, weaker, institutionalised and (usually) more compliant than adults. They are also situated in power relations that tend to be imbalanced in favour of adults, whether parents, caregivers, teachers or researchers.

Extension of research questions, methods and analysis arising from the need to protect children in research as they are considered vulnerable informants per se.

Empowerment by respecting children’s agency and right to participate and be heard in research about matters that influence their lives and well-being.

In this article, we synthesise experiences and examples from previous research according to these dimensions and identify barriers to the empowerment of children and adolescents in research. To illustrate the ethical complexity of including children in research on matters that affect them we refer to examples from research on adolescents’ experience with sexual content online. Such experiences include a wide range of activities that can in some instances be beneficial and lead to positive outcomes, while in others involve risk and potentially harmful experiences. These activities are often private and intimate and therefore not easily accessible for research. Furthermore, sexual content and conduct, that is, accessing, using and producing content, sharing of sexual images and messages (sexting), pornography and sexual harassment, all challenge normative imaginaries and narratives of childhood; typically considered a state of innocence, purity and promise, while sexual content and acts belong in the adult realm (e.g. Prout, 2008). Consequently, legal, normative and cultural challenges relating to the acceptance of children and young people as agentic sexual beings hamper the development of evidence (Goldstein, 2020). This challenges the development of evidence-based interventions and recommendations to aid the well-being of children and young people. Research about adolescents experiences with sexual content online also challenges researchers own normative and cultural beliefs, as well as the dilemma of balancing the obligation to have children participate in research, with the obligation to protect children from potential harm.

Methods and analysis

Our discussion is based on empirical data generated using two methods. First, a literature review, and second, a review and critical reflection of our own experiences over the past two decades with research projects dealing with adolescents’ experiences with sexual content. Please note that while our principled discussion is relevant for all children (i.e. aged 0–18) we will in the following refer to adolescents, as we are mainly concerned with research with those aged 11 to 16. Our examples also highlight broad ethical dilemmas and considerations.

Our examples are drawn from projects including the European EU Kids Online representative surveys 2011 (25 countries) and 2018 (19 countries), the Australian Adolescents’ perceptions of harm from accessing online content (2020–2023), and the Youth Skills (ySKILLS) project (2020–2024). Based on our synthesis, we derive recommendations for future research to respect children’s agency and empower them to participate in research in an ethically responsible and reflexive manner. This includes informing children in an age-appropriate way about what it means to participate in research and what they should consider before providing their informed consent to do so (e.g. Staksrud et al., 2022). Furthermore, we support Waechter et al. (2023) in their call for the development of ‘research literacy’ among children and parents. We argue that this requirement for ‘research literacy’ extends to policymakers, government agencies and funders.

Regarding the literature review, using the Web of Science database, we conducted a systematic search, adopting a protocol from Livingstone et al. (2023). In addition to three groups of search terms for ‘child’, ‘method’ and ‘technology’ we searched for research referring to ‘sex* content OR porn*’. Our search string included child terms AND method terms AND technology terms AND ‘sex* content OR porn*’. This found 581 results published during the past 5 years (2019–2023).

Several of the articles focused on research about sexual abuse and did not discuss challenges related to including children in research. These were excluded from our search by adding the string ‘NOT child* sex* abuse’. We further refined our search to include research discussing methodological challenges by adding the search string ‘AND method* OR recruit* OR challenge*’. This yielded 167 results which were concerned with empirical, methodological and ethical challenges. However, only nine of these articles expanded on these challenges.

The challenges raised reflected three of the four dimensions we have identified, that is, exclusion from research because of potential legal and ethical consequences, methodological complexity, age restriction or issues with gatekeeping and parental consent; questions of extension relating to definitional validity, social desirability bias and research design; and, of empowerment relating to the need to recognise young people as agentic sexual beings.

We synthesised the outcomes of this review with our own experiences and generated the three overarching categories of exclusion, extension and empowerment. We further added the dimension of exploitation because of the need to be mindful of the essential imbalance of power between children and adults, as well as the imbalance which arises in the institutional context of research. These power relations can influence the premises on which children participate in research, as well as the nature of their participation. In the following, we discuss each of these four dimensions and how they influence the generation of robust evidence about adolescents’ experiences with sexual content online.

Exclusion

Our first dimension refers to deficient approaches, where children are excluded from research, including certain types of research (e.g. medical research) and certain groups of children, for example, those living in alternative care (Garcia-Quiroga and Agoglia, 2020) or with disabilities (Feldman et al., 2013). Exclusion causes lacunae in our understanding of the factors that influence children’s lives and well-being. Another prominent challenge in the case of research about sensitive issues such as sexual content is that the topic itself is deeply moralised and must be understood in the context of specific cultural and political processes where different social values are balanced (Knill and Tosun, 2020). Combining the topics ‘adolescents’, ‘sexual content’ and ‘the digital world’ is prone to political salience. Consequently, some studies will always be difficult to conduct, and more or less systematically exclude adolescents as research participants. Here, we present three such examples, exclusion due to funding conditions, moral gatekeeping and refusal of consent.

Exclusion due to culturally determined funding conditions

While academic freedom should, in principle, allow for research in all fields, pragmatic decisions about who gets to research what, with which funds and how, are also political. For instance: The EU Kids Online network conducts representative surveys of children’s (9–16) Internet use and how both digital risks and opportunities can affect their well-being. This includes experiences with sexual content, such as sexual and nude images and sexting. In 2010, 25 countries were able to implement a comparative quantitative survey due to the availability of central funding from the European Commission. Almost a decade later, and due to the enhanced digitalisation of children’s everyday lives, a second international and comparative survey was conducted (2017–2019). However, it was not possible to secure central funding for this second survey. The availability of funding varied across local contexts. This influenced how the survey could be conducted in terms of methods (i.e. at home, in school or online).

The lack of centralised funding also influenced the range, extent and nature of questions that could be asked, as these had to be locally negotiated and subject to considerations of available resources and cultural sensitivity. In some countries, questions on more sensitive topics, such as experiences with sexual content or having same sex parents, were either significantly restricted or removed by funders or other gatekeepers (e.g. school authorities) as a condition of funding or access to participating schools. This was particularly the case where such questions were to be addressed to younger children (aged 9–10). These conditions were applied regardless of any ethical and legal approval given for the research.

Children were therefore excluded from participating in research of central relevance to their lives due to a lack of funding in the first instance, and because of negotiations about the sensitivity and cultural appropriateness of certain topics. While these issues are reported in both the overall and technical research reports (i.e. Smahel et al., 2020), the moral obstacles that underpin such challenges are not openly addressed.

Exclusion due to moral gatekeeping

A common theme in the Concluding Observations of the UNCRC Committee is the reminder for states to ‘systematically collect comprehensive data’, segregated by sub-groups to allow for meaningful analysis, monitoring and the development of targeted measures to improve the protection of rights for all children (UNCRC, n.d.). However, moral and methodological gatekeeping may prevent research required to protect adolescents’ rights (Martellozzo et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2021). Specifically, adolescents have the right to develop their own sexuality freely, without undue interference by the state (Council of Europe, 2007; see also Goldstein, 2020). Without robust knowledge, generated through comprehensive research into issues related to adolescents’ sexual development, monitoring and protecting their rights becomes impossible.

In some cases, complicated ethical approval processes may damage the ‘vulnerable’ groups they aim to protect (Ferguson, 2016), as the requirement to engage with onerous processes to document compliance with prevailing legal and ethical guidelines may discourage researchers from engaging with vulnerable groups, leaving any form of knowledge generation to state agencies’ statistical surveys which rarely include adolescents.

For instance, in a study about young New Zealanders (aged 16–18) discussions about Internet pornography, Healy-Cullen et al. (2023a) note that they could not ask younger participants about their experiences because of potential legal and ethical consequences. Similarly, children under 11 years were excluded from a UK study about the effects of online pornography, because of ethical and methodological complexity (Martellozzo et al., 2020). As such, sexuality as a topic deemed ‘sensitive’, particularly when it concerns adolescents, comes with stricter rules regarding permissible research studies. Here, a tension between legal rights and institutions’ ethical guidelines arises, where the latter may be misused to hinder legally mandated and ethical research into adolescents’ experiences. Consequently, misguided protection may result in gatekeeping and de facto exclusion of marginalised groups, while also preventing important research into topics of primary concern for all children.

Exclusion through refusal of consent

General or principal avoidance of involving adolescents in research because of their status as a ‘vulnerable group’ is unacceptable for ethical and legal reasons (see also Powell et al., 2021). At the same time researchers are obliged to protect research participants form harm and to respect their autonomy. Informed consent is an important safeguard to ensure that research participants are not exploited as mere research objects. It places responsibility on all researchers to ensure prospective participants know and understand what they are agreeing to. Ethical principles and norms provide that informed consent should be obtained in all cases from research participants, including children. Generally, only where a person cannot provide consent, can third party consent be used. However, to further safeguard the participation of children and young adolescents, parental consent is often required. This means that it is possible in some cases for parents, carers, or legal guardians, to agree on behalf of the child. The age at which adolescents can provide their own consent to participate in research varies across countries (Waechter et al., 2023). While parental consent is considered a ‘gold standard in research’ there are also ethical complications.

The ideal ethical and methodological situation is that both parents and children consent to participate in research, however, parents may refuse in spite of their child’s interest in participating, or, parents may want their child to participate in research, when the child does not want to. Thus, the reliance on parental consent as the ‘gold standard’ should be viewed critically, because it threatens children’s agency and can prevent them from participation in research which is relevant for their lives. Furthermore, in certain jurisdictions, parents are entitled to decide whether adolescents can participate in research, despite their own wishes.

When the parent says ‘no’, and the child says ‘yes’

A (more) critical approach may be needed where strong reasons for parental refusal are anticipated, for instance because their parenting practices are of interest, or where research concerns sensitive topics such as domestic violence. This is also the case when dealing with online sexual content, where parents might not be aware of the topic and its relevance for their children’s lives. Some parents may have unrealistic ideas about adolescents’ real-world experiences (Wright et al., 2023). For instance, research has established that some children and young people not only encounter sexual content but might also participate in its production and distribution. The EU Kids Online network finds that on average 33% of European children between 11 and 16 are exposed to sexual content online during the past year, 22% receive sexual messages, while 6% also send sexual messages. These experiences increase with age: 61% of those aged 15 to 16 saw sexual content online during the past year (Smahel et al., 2020).

In the Perceptions project, adolescents reported how adults fail to understand the extent or nature of the experiences they encounter:

SOFIE (aged 15): I don’t think many parents really know how much we are being exposed to it (sexual content). Many parents don’t realise that this happens, that we are exposed to this so often. That is so important to think about.

The extent to which adults do not understand adolescents’ experiences was also highlighted by interviewees participating in the ySKILLS project:

YOUNG WOMAN (18): (...) So, I kind of feel that going to a parent about something that’s going on online, it’s really difficult . . . because when they were young, when adults were young, they didn’t have social media. They barely had phones . . . they’re not going to understand it anyway, so why spend your time trying to explain it? (in Livingstone et al., 2022:65)

It is difficult to overcome this knowledge gap without including adolescents in research that empowers them to articulate their own experiences in an open and non-judgemental manner. When working to ensure children participate in research there may be cases where, following a diligent risk-benefit assessment, research ought to go ahead despite the parents’ wishes. This is particularly the case where refusal would threaten the child’s right to participation under the UNCRC. This reveals a potential tension between national regulations and guidelines, and international children’s rights. Although it is possible in limited circumstances to conduct research with the agreement of the child alone, in practice this rarely happens (see, e.g. NESH 2023). We thus argue that research supported by parental and child consent is always preferable, but that a nuanced approach to consent is required in cases where parents and children do not agree on whether participation is desirable.

When the parent ‘always’ says ‘no’

Relying on parental consent alone might also cause systematic errors in research, as children with certain demographic backgrounds (for example coming from families with lower SES), may be more likely to be hindered from participating in research because their parents are suspicious of research and the potential harms it might cause. This could involve children being exposed to different religious or cultural worldviews, to discussions that are beyond the realm of their experience or to uncomfortable or stressful situations.

A related factor is that, in the case of school-based recruitment and sampling, parents do not always engage with home-school communication and are unaware of or neglect to engage with requests for research participation (Waechter et al., 2023). This relates to the requirement to enhance research literacy by providing opportunities to engage in discussion about research aims, goals and processes and discussing potential concerns and solutions. Finally, given the sensitivity of discussing sexual content online, adolescents may shy away from research which involves gaining their parents’ informed consent, because it might result in awkward or embarrassing situations (Cavasos-Rehg et al., 2020). In each case, researchers should take the time to communicate with parents, children and adolescents and to explain what the research is about and what participating in the research project will involve. This includes specifying potential benefits and harms and providing access to more information and support services where relevant.

Engaging with adolescents directly could lead to higher levels of recruitment. However, such an approach should be informed by an understanding of the evolving capacity of the adolescent to understand and provide informed consent (Waechter et al., 2023). Before designing a study, the age and maturity of participants should be considered to determine the most appropriate form of consent. Both parental and child consent may be necessary; however, research involving more mature adolescents may rely on their consent only. Recognising adolescents’ agency is therefore important. The concept of consent presupposes individual competence and capacity to consider the relevant consent. Forcing adolescents to participate in research is less likely to produce honest answers and valid data.

Exploitation

Our second dimension, exploitation, involves children in research on unjust grounds. This has a long dark history, such as using orphan children in medical experiments because they are ‘cheaper than calves’ (Swedish physician of late 1800 quoted in Lederer and Grodin, 1994: 12). But exploitation can also mean cherry-picking groups of children in research to confirm an agenda, failing to ensure that children understand their rights as research participants and provide ethical consent to such participation, breaches of trust, anonymity and confidentiality through mandatory reporting and exploitation in dissemination:

Cherry-picking children in research

To facilitate the inclusion of adolescents in research, collaborations can be initiated with existing organisations to recruit co-researchers (Hooper and Gunn, 2014). This has clear advantages as recruitment becomes more efficient and institutional ethics approval more achievable. However, it comes with its own ethical challenges, including the extent to which participants can be exploited (Davis et al., 2020; Krutzinna, 2024). Reliance on a select and often small group of advocates can distort the research agenda and communicate experiences as representative for an entire population, exacerbating the exclusion of marginalised children’s voices. Treating current and previous service users as ‘experts’ may also suggest that experience alone is sufficient for knowledge creation. This can reduce incentives for policymakers to secure a more robust evidence base, especially since cooperation with experts-by-experience has the added benefits of positive public perception and saving the cost of additional professional researchers. There is therefore a risk that co-researchers in vulnerable positions might be exploited (Hugman, 2010; Spriggs and Gillam, 2019), both through the research process, and when the research is disseminated to interested stakeholders and society at large.

Furthermore, children and adolescents may be aware of the discourses of harm surrounding aspects of their own experience, for example engaging with sexual content online, which would then lead to their responding to research questions in accordance with their understanding of the researcher’s interests or expectations – or the wider societal concern or narrative. The social desirability bias may also be stronger in research involving children and young people, because of the imbalanced power relations between children and adults.

Mandatory reporting and the limitations of confidentiality

When discussing experiences with sexual content online, researchers may also need to ask adolescents to share intimate, embarrassing and potentially illegal activities. These disclosures may breach parental expectations in terms of conduct. In this case, researchers have legal and ethical responsibilities regarding mandatory reporting duties, such as to inform child protection services in cases of risks to participants’ health and safety. The intent behind these rules is to protect and safeguard the child’s best interests. However, they also limit the extent to which researchers can promise confidentiality.

For instance, when researching sexual content and conduct online, adolescents may be victims and perpetrators, or consumers and producers, at the same time. This presents a complex situation regarding children’s rights, whereby children are not only to be protected from harm, but also have a right to sexual self-determination. Thus, self-created content can end up within the sphere of the criminal law, sometimes being labelled ‘child pornography’. This is one of the key features of the Lanzarote Convention (Council of Europe, 2007), which aims to prevent all forms of child sexual exploitation and abuse, while at the same time leaving children and adolescents the room to explore their own sexuality and develop sexual identity without interference from the state (or others). This difficult legal balancing act has an impact on adolescents, whose willingness to participate in research may depend on their awareness of the legal implications of their conduct. Concerns about potential legal consequences may also prevent parents from providing consent.

A related issue is the extent to which researchers can ensure the anonymity of children and young people as research participants. Data and interactions must be gathered and stored on secure servers and analysed according to suitable procedures, including deidentification and anonymisation. In Europe, this is regulated by data protection legislation including the General Data Protection Regulation ‘GDPR’, which requires researchers to develop Data Management Plans and Data Protection Impact Assessment for research involving vulnerable participants and concerning sensitive topics. Concerns relating the extent to which participants can retain control of their data, and ensure their anonymity, may also affect the extent to which adolescents wish to participate. These factors may compromise trust and prevent truthful disclosure of crucial information. As such, these concerns and their potential remedies should be explicitly raised and discussed by the researcher with prospective research participants.

Exploitation in dissemination

Researchers have a responsibility to disseminate the outcomes of their research to relevant target audiences (e.g. NESH, 2023). These include other researchers who can contribute to the generation of further knowledge. It also includes funders, who have an interest in the outcomes of their investment; research participants, who have an important stake in the research and who have ultimately contributed to making it possible; and policymakers. While established mechanisms, including professional incentives, generally ensure that researchers communicate their findings to other scientists and funders, closer attention is required to the ethical challenges arising when disseminating research to adolescents and policymakers.

Researchers can exploit adolescents by (a) not providing them with information about the outcomes of research, or (b) exaggerating the significance of research findings. First, adolescents who participate in research have a right to know the outcomes they have contributed to. Furthermore, adolescents should be informed about research that is relevant for their lives. However, this dissemination is often not fully realised due to insufficient funding and resources. For example, researchers can prepare pedagogical content for use by teachers in classrooms to support communication about research findings (e.g. ySKILLS, 2023). This however is a resource-intensive practice which also requires both input and buy-in from teachers to be effective. Furthermore, it is not always clear which channels should be used to effectively disseminate research among adolescents.

The second target audience for dissemination are policymakers who need robust evidence to develop initiatives to improve adolescents’ lives. Without such an evidence base policymaking can be based on ‘knee-jerk reactions’ arising from media panics (Potter & Potter, 2001; Staksrud, 2013). This can introduce further problems to a challenging field. As such, researchers have a moral responsibility to report their findings in a way that is accessible and informative. This can be achieved by inviting policymakers to events where research findings are presented, or workshops where there is an opportunity to collaboratively discuss the policy implications of research. However, the thirst for new knowledge introduces significant additional ethical challenges, most importantly regarding the extent to which researchers are under pressure to generate ‘new’ and ‘surprising’ findings which policymakers will pay attention to. It can be the case that no new insights, or insignificant new insights, are generated. Where this is the case, researchers are also required to report on these findings. However, the rush to produce new knowledge in this field can result in downplaying this ethical consideration, and ultimately in exploiting research participants and contributing to media panics (Richardson, 2018).

Extension

Our third dimension concerns how the need to protect children in research can lead to extending existing research questions, methods and analysis to this field. In any under-researched area, and especially those where cultural contexts differ, the development of concepts, measures and definitions that have validity is challenging. Concepts might be considered offensive and harmful to varying degrees in different contexts, presenting a substantial challenge to including different groups of children in research.

This is also the case in research about adolescents’ experiences with sexual content online (see Healy-Cullen et al., 2023b; McKee et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2021). Adolescents experience many nuances, and potentially benefits, arising from their experiences. These are not sufficiently understood in research or in some cases even discussed. Spišák (2016) for example, finds that the discourse of harm surrounding experiences with sexual content generates a sense of shame connected to actual experiences. Differences in cultural norms regarding the explicitness of communication introduces ethical (and methodological) challenges when researching concepts relating to sexual experiences. The ‘Adolescents’ Perceptions of Harm form Accessing Online Content’ (Perceptions) project, involved an international comparative study with adolescents and parents in Australia, Greece, Ireland and Norway. The countries were selected due to their perceived differences both in varied experiences with sexual content and in risks of harm (see Helsper et al., 2013). However, during the research project it became apparent that also the concepts and definitions used to discuss sexual content, and the potential implications of these, varied significantly in each cultural context.

One example is the use of ‘X-rated’ and ‘adult content’ in some English-speaking countries. While ‘X-rated’ could potentially refer to all types of content believed to be harmful for adolescents (e.g. both pornography and violence), it is commonly understood as a euphemism for sexual content. Such concepts specifically exclude children and point to restrictions around sexual content, indicating a protectionist and exclusionary approach by default (it is forbidden (‘X’) and it is already considered regulated away from their realm (restricted). This complicates the design of open research questions in comparative research.

Thus, when translating the draft interview guide from English to Norwegian and Greek, concepts such as ‘adult content’ or ‘X-rated content’ were difficult or impossible to translate. Furthermore, referring to ‘adult content’ would make no sense when interviewing a young person in Norway. Instead, more explicit words, such as ‘sexual content’ (seksuelt innhold) and porn/pornography (pornografi) would need to be used. In comparative research the concepts in each context should in principle refer to similar content. Such cultural and contextual implications of interview design and their implications for definitional validity require careful consideration.

Similar complications arose when the Pan European Game Information System (PEGI) was implemented. This system was endorsed by the European Commission and national rating agencies. However, cultural differences relating to descriptions of sexual content (or rather the presence of such) raised challenges. As recollected by one of the representatives:

During the discussions between European regulators on which symbols to use indicating sexual content, violence etc, the Dutch suggested to use the pictogram called ‘the feet’, to symbolize sexual content. This symbol was a simple drawing of two feet on top of two other feet. The British delegation could not accept this as the symbol itself was sexually explicit (Asbjørnsen, 2011, quoted in Staksrud, 2016b).

These cultural differences and the challenges of conceptualising something that cannot be sufficiently described also pertain to comparative research design.

A related issue is how all kinds of experiences with sexual content sometimes get muddled together, especially in the public discourse, connecting the idea of adolescents’ exposure to sexual content to their potential involvement in or exposure to child sexual abuse images. This makes it difficult to recruit adolescents to research about their experiences with sexual content. Furthermore complicating this, in many jurisdictions self-produced sexual content depicting children and adolescents counts as ‘child pornography’, despite this going against the intention of the regulatory framework (Council of Europe, 2007). This in turn confounds definitional validity because of a lack of articulation and understanding of the issues at stake. Engaging adolescents in research about experiences with sexual content does not need to involve pornography or assume experience with sexual abuse.

In general, research does not provide precise definitions of the kind of harms that can arise when adolescents are exposed to sexual content online. The focus is on the risk of harm occurring (Slavtcheva-Petkova et al., 2015). Furthermore, research is conducted by adults who have their own understandings of risk and harm (Spišák, 2016). Rather than extending their own perceptions of the need to protect adolescents from harm, and their own conceptual apparatus to these experiences, adults need to involve adolescents in research to explore the conceptual frameworks they use, and to fully engage with the range and nuances involved.

Empowerment

Our fourth dimension refers to the practice of respecting children’s agency and right to participate and be heard in research about matters that influence their lives and well-being. If children are to participate in research in a methodologically and ethically sound manner, we must not only extend the current research designs and topics to include them, but also facilitate their agency. Vulnerability, is not a static status. Adolescents can be vulnerable in the context of some kinds of experiences, while empowered and resilient in others. Using group generalisations can also cause stigmatisation and bias in interpretations. Thus, researchers must be careful not to confuse situational vulnerability with general vulnerability by being aware that some children may be in a situation of vulnerability, but that all children are not intrinsically vulnerable. Consequently, the UNCRC specifically refers to ‘children in a vulnerable situation’ (CRC; UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2013). This should be reflected in how we analyse, interpret and present our research findings.

Empowerment in analysis

The recent ‘participatory turn’ in social science research has seen a shift to more collaborative relationships between researchers and participants (Banks and von Köppen, 2021). As a result, adolescents increasingly participate in research studies and projects. However, this is not without its challenges. A power differential between the researcher and adolescent remains no matter how co-created, co-designed or participatory a study is, and, as outlined above, researchers should be mindful of the effect of this power differential throughout the research process, from research design to dissemination (Barth and Olsen, 2020). While we often think about participation during the research process, we might not sufficiently consider it during the analytical phase. This is arguably a crucial stage in creating meaning which is then transformed into knowledge.

During the analysis phase, researchers typically interpret the results against predetermined theories to add meaning to their observations. At this stage, ethical complications may result from adults trying to interpret and give meaning to the experiences of adolescents. By consequence, an adult-perspective can dominate the findings and mute the adolescent perspective, leading to more exploitation and exclusion than empowerment.

To the best of our knowledge, few research projects, if any, extend participation to the analytical part of the research project (see Montreuil et al., 2021). However, given the risk-centric focus of the field, ensuring contextual interpretation and understanding is vital if we also want to acknowledge the varied experiences of adolescents. It is also important to understand and acknowledge that even when there is an obvious risk of harm following experiences with sexual content, adolescents themselves might not perceive or understand the risk. For policy, legal and preventive measures to work we must understand adolescents’ experiences.

Discussion and recommendations

Without research into adolescents’ experiences we cannot gain knowledge about the mechanisms according to which they are exposed, invited and encouraged to access, consume and participate in the production of sexual content. This might cause parents, caregivers and other responsible adults to underestimate the extent to which adolescents are engaging in risky behaviour. By involving adolescents in research on this topic, researchers can realise their ethical and legal obligation to generate knowledge that can contribute to improving the reality of young people’s lives and experiences (Bell, 2008).

The lack of understanding between generations is one of the main barriers adolescents’ experience when considering how to find help when faced with negative online experiences. That is, they do not consider adults to be relevant sources of support because they believe that adults do not understand their online lives and experiences (Livingstone et al., 2022). Adolescents need to participate in research, in a way that is age appropriate and respectful, to generate these insights. Their right to participate is also enshrined in the UNCRC. Researchers and policymakers need to keep abreast of their evolving experiences to be able to generate robust evidence to inform policymaking and to address the lacunae resulting from their exclusion from research.

As researchers, we need to understand and challenge common assumptions and put them in a larger context. We are ethically obliged do so responsibly, with respect for research participants and society. Researchers should always act with integrity and in line with the ethical and legal guidelines that are relevant in the context in which they are researching. This includes conducting research that is in line with the overarching principles of equality, freedom and autonomy, and beneficence and protection from the risk of significant harm and unreasonable burdens (NESH, 2023). We must engage with these principles to ensure that children and adolescents are not excluded from research. In this article, we have conceptualised approaches to including adolescents in research along a four-dimensional model of Exclusion, Exploitation, Extension and Empowerment, supported by a synthesis of examples from the outcomes of our literature review and from our own research experience during the past 20 years with a range of research projects. In doing so we have pointed to several dilemmas and challenges, but there are also opportunities. Regardless of the type or topic of research we have established pathways to limit negative impact, while still fulfilling our obligations to include children. For instance, research protocols can use filtering questions or topics to support participation in research while at the same time ensuring that children and adolescents are not unduly exposed to questions or discussions which are not relevant to their experience or serve a purely adult agenda or quest for knowledge. Furthermore, researchers can ensure that children and adolescents understand their right to refuse to participate, to withdraw their consent at any time and to refuse to answer any question or engage in discussions on topics that are uncomfortable for them. In all cases, children and adolescents should understand that any such refusal will not result in negative consequences for them (Staksrud et al., 2022). An additional safeguard may be to ensure that such research involves securing informed consent from both parents and children. And in cases of parental refusal despite the child’s wish to participate in research of great importance, independent experts on research ethics can be consulted.

Considering this, we have derived 10 recommendations for future safe and meaningful research involving adolescents which respect their agency and can empower them to participate in an ethically responsible and reflexive manner. Our aim is to improve the current research climate in this field by enabling research which involves children, including research on sensitive topics such as experiences with sexual content online. Some of these recommendations involve relatively straightforward practical steps, others will require a deeper debate among different societal actors, as well as with adolescents themselves. While this is no ‘quick fix’, we strongly believe in the need for better and more comprehensive knowledge on this topic. This is important for researchers, policymakers and law enforcement agents as well as for children and young people.

To avoid the exclusion of adolescents from research we recommend:

Minimising unwarranted gatekeeping arising from a lack of clarity around how to comply with legal and ethical requirements, and a lack of interest in engaging adolescents in research.

Considering alternative consent mechanisms: that is, accepting consent from young adolescents rather than relying solely on parental consent regardless of research topic and situation.

To avoid the exploitation of adolescents in research we recommend:

3. Avoiding paternalisation: Protective efforts should for example target sexual exploitation and abuse rather than limit adolescents’ sexual development and right to explore and develop sexuality, identity and personality.

4. Fostering and increasing agency: Giving adolescents a voice, individually and collectively, by including them in research at a larger scale to avoid ‘representation of all by a few’. This will also greatly improve research validity.

5. Reconsidering mandatory reporting in the research context: Protecting the relationship of trust necessary for truthful participation in research by relying on researchers’ ethical integrity and professional responsibility to comply with guidelines to break confidentiality where required.

To avoid the extension of adult approaches, conceptualisation and lack of understanding to children in research, we recommend:

6. Establishing a balanced, evidence-informed starting point for research: For example overcoming presumptions regarding the negative effects of exposure to sexual content for all adolescents.

7. Developing definitions of harm from adolescents’ perspectives, as effective protection requires robust knowledge of the boundaries of harmful experience.

8. Asserting the distinction between (sexual) development and (sex-related) crime: Understanding adolescents’ development and risk taking activities as distinct from criminal activities, particularly regarding the distinctions between self-generated sexual content, pornography and abuse.

To ensure empowerment of adolescents in research, we recommend:

9. Dedicating appropriate resources: Objective research in this field must be appropriately resourced and funded. This includes promoting research literacy among adolescents, parents and policymakers.

10. Conceptualising children as equal human beings by emphasising situational rather than intrinsic vulnerability.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: UiO: Norden: Living the Nordic Model project (2018–2023). Horizon 2020: ySKILLS project (2020–2024), Grant agreement ID:870612. Australian Research Council: Adolescents’ perceptions of experiences with online content (2019–2023), DP190102435.

ORCID iDs

Elisabeth Staksrud

Niamh Ní Bhroin

Jenny Krutzinna

Author biographies

Elisabeth Staksrud (PhD, MAE) is a Professor in the Department of Media and Communication at the University of Oslo. Her research focuses on online censorship and freedom of expression, research ethics and academic freedom, and children’s rights and risks in digital environments. She coordinates the 35-country EU Kids Online network and has chaired the Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH).

Niamh Ní Bhroin is an Associate Professor of Media Studies at the University of Agder. She researches how new and emerging media influence the everyday lives of children and young people. She is also interested in how new media and technologies are used by minorities and indigenous peoples. Ní Bhroin holds a PhD in Media Studies from the Department of Media and Communication at the University of Oslo (2015).

Nora Josefine B Englund holds a master’s degree in Psychology from the Department of Psychology at the University of Oslo (2018). Her research interests include young people’s ability to recognise misinformation, the effect of algorithm-driven news feeds on knowledge and attitudes, the use and understanding of artificial intelligence, and how attitudes towards equality and diversity are expressed on social media.

Jenny Krutzinna is a researcher associated with the Centre for Research on Children and Media at the University of Oslo. She works at the intersection of ethics, technology and children’s rights. Her research explores the ethical implications of data use and digital technologies in the lives of children and other vulnerable populations. She holds a PhD in Bioethics and Medical Jurisprudence from the University of Manchester.

References

Albury

(2017) Just because it’s public doesn’t mean it’s any of your business: adults’ and children’s sexual rights in digitally mediated spaces. New Media & Society 19(5): 713–725.

Banks

von Köppen

(2021) ‘Ethical issues for practice and research in congregate settings during the covid-19 pandemic: cases and commentaries. Ethics and Social Welfare 15(3): 328–335.

Barth

Olsen

(2020) Are children oppressed? the timely importance of answering this question. Children and Youth Services Review 110: 104780.

Bell

(2008) Ethics in child research: rights, reason and responsibilities. Children’s Geographies 6(1): 7–20.

Cavazos-Rehg

Min

Fitzsimmons-Craft

, et al (2020) Parental consent: a potential barrier for underage teens’ participation in an mHealth mental health intervention. Internet Interventions 21: 101016jinvent2020100328.

Council of Europe (2007) Convention on the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse [Lanzarote Convention], 12 July 2007, CETS No.: 201.

Cowie

Khoo

(2017) Accountability through access, authenticity and advocacy when researching with young children. International Journal of Inclusive Education 21(3): 234–247.

Davis

Wright

Murphy

, et al (2020) A digital pornography literacy resource co-designed with vulnerable young people: development of «The Gist». Journal of Medical Internet Research 22: e15964.

Feldman

Battin

Shaw

, et al (2013) Inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream child development research. Disability & Society 28(7): 997–1011.

10.

Ferguson

(2016) An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and researchers. In: Kazdin

(ed.) Methodological Issues and Strategies in Clinical Research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 301–310.

11.

Garcia-Quiroga

Agoglia

(2020) Too vulnerable to participate? challenges for meaningful participation in research with children in alternative care and adoption. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19. DOI: 10.1177/1609406920958965.

12.

Goldstein

(2020) Beyond porn literacy: drawing on young people’s pornography narratives to expand sex education pedagogies. Sex Education 20(1): 59–74.

13.

Hasinoff

(2013) Sexting as media production: rethinking social media and sexuality. New Media & Society 15(4): 449–465.

14.

Hasinoff

(2015) Sexting Panic: Rethinking Criminalization, Privacy, and Consent. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

15.

Healy-Cullen

Morison

Taylor

, et al (2023a) Performing smart sexual selves: a sexual scripting analysis of youth talk about internet pornography. Sexualities 27(8): 1656–1672.

16.

Healy-Cullen

Morison

Taylor

, et al (2023b) What does it mean to be ‘porn literate’: perspectives of young people, parents and teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand. Culture, Health & Sexuality 26(2): 174–190.

17.

Helsper

Kalmus

Hasebrink

, et al (2013) Country Classification: Opportunities, Risks, Harm and Parental Mediation. London: EU Kids Online, The London School of Economics and Political Science.

18.

Hooper

C-A

Gunn

(2014) Recognition as a framework for ethical participatory research: developing a methodology with looked after young people. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 17(5): 475–488.

19.

Hugman

(2010) Understanding International Social Work. A Critical Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

20.

Knill

Tosun

(2020) Public Policy: A New Introduction. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

21.

Krutzinna

(2024) Applied ethics in social work. In: Takala

Häyry

(eds) Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics in the Social Sciences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 221–229.

22.

Lederer

Grodin

(1994) Historical overview: pediatric experimentation. In: Grodin

Glantz

(eds) Children as Research Subjects: Science, Ethics, and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–25.

23.

Livingstone

Mascheroni

Stoilova

(2023) The outcomes of gaining digital skills for young people’s lives and wellbeing: a systematic evidence review. New Media & Society 25(5): 1176–1202.

24.

Livingstone

Stoilova

Stänicke

, et al (2022) Young People Experiencing Internet-Related Mental Health Difficulties: The Benefits and Risks of Digital Skills. Geneva: Zenodo.

25.

Lundy

McEvoy

Byrne

(2011) Working with young children as co-researchers: an approach informed by the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Early Education and Development 22(5): 714–736.

26.

McKee

Byron

Litsou

, et al (2020) An interdisciplinary definition of pornography: results from a global Delphi panel. Archives of Sexual Behavior 49: 1085–1091.

27.

Martellozzo

Monaghan

Davidson

, et al (2020) Researching the affects that online pornography has on U.K. adolescents aged 11 to 16. Sage Open 10. DOI: 10.1177/2158244019899462.

28.

Montreuil

Bogossian

Laberge-Perrault

, et al (2021) A review of approaches, strategies and ethical considerations in participatory research with children. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 20. DOI: 10.1177/160940692098796.

29.

Potter

(2001) The internet, cyberporn, and sexual exploitation of children: media moral panics and urban myths for middle-class parents? Sex Cult 5: 31–48.

30.

Powell

Graham

Canosa

Anderson

Taylor

Robinson

Moore

Thomas

(2021) Children and safety in Australian policy: implications for organisations and practitioners. Australian Journal of Social Issues 56(1): 17–41.

31.

Prout

(2008) Culture-nature and the construction of childhood. In: Drotner

Livingstone

(eds) The International Handbook of Children, Media and Culture. London: Sage, pp. 21–35.

32.

Richardson

(2018) The experiment: the effectiveness of a humanoid robot for helping children develop social skills. In: Richardson

(ed.) Challenging Sociality: An Anthropology of Robots, Autism, and Attachment. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 49–61.

33.

Slavtcheva-Petkova

Nash

Bulger

(2015) Evidence on the extent of harms experienced by children as a result of online risks: implications for policy and research. Information, Communication & Society 18(1): 48–62.

34.

Smahel

Machackova

Mascheroni

, et al (2020) EU Kids Online 2020: Survey Results from 19 Countries. London: Report, EU Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political Science.

35.

Spišák

(2016) ‘Everywhere they say that it’s harmful but they don’t say how, so I’m asking here’: young people, pornography and negotiations with notions of risk and harm. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning 16(2): 130–142.

36.

Spriggs

Gillam

(2019) Ethical complexities in child co-research. Research Ethics 15(1): 1–16.

37.

Staksrud

(2013) Online grooming legislation: knee-jerk regulation? European Journal of Communication 28(2): 152–167.

38.

Staksrud

(2016a) Counting children. on research methodology, ethics and policy development. In: Fossheim

Ingierd

(eds) Internet Research Ethics. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 98–121.

39.

Staksrud

(2016b) Children in the Online World: Risk, Regulation, Rights. London: Routledge.

40.

Staksrud

Ní Bhroin

Torp

, et al (2022) Have you been invited to participate in research? then you should watch this film. core-evidence.eu/posts/open-source-movie-childrens-rights-as-research-participants

41.

The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) (2023) Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Available at: https://www.forskningsetikk.no/retningslinjer/hum-sam/forskningsetiske-retningslinjer-for-samfunnsvitenskap-og-humaniora/ (accessed 5 December 2023).

42.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (n.d.) Concluding observations on member states’ periodic reports. Available at: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=5&DocTypeID=5 (accessed 30 November 2023).

43.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (2013) General comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (art. 3, para. 1). Available at: https://www2.ohchr.org/English/bodies/crc/docs/GC/CRC_C_GC_14_ENG.pdf (accessed 30 November 2023).

44.

UNICEF (2021) Procedure on Ethical Standards in Research, Evaluation, Data Collection and Analysis (2021). Available at: https://www.unicef.org/evaluation/documents/unicef-procedure-ethical-standards-research-evaluation-data-collection-and-analysis (accessed 30 November 2023).

45.

United Nations (1989) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [UNCRC]. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child (accessed 30 November 2023).

46.

Waechter

Kalmus

Mascheroni

, et al (2023) Large-scale comparative school-based survey research: challenges and solutions for sampling, fieldwork and informed consent. Methods, Data, Analyses 17(2): 303–324.

47.

Wright

Herbenick

Paul

, et al (2023) U.S. parents underestimate their children’s pornography use and learning. Archives of Sexual Behavior 52: 373–383.

48.

ySKILLS (2023) Toolkit Briefing (English Version). Geneva: Zenodo.

49.

Kågesten

De Meyer

, et al (2021) Pornography use and perceived gender norms among young adolescents in urban poor environments: a cross-site study. Journal of Adolescent Health 69(1): 31–38.

Ethical inclusion of children in sensitive research: A four-dimensional model

Abstract

Keywords

The four dimensions of including children in research

Methods and analysis

Exclusion

Exclusion due to culturally determined funding conditions

Exclusion due to moral gatekeeping

Exclusion through refusal of consent

When the parent says ‘no’, and the child says ‘yes’

When the parent ‘always’ says ‘no’

Exploitation

Cherry-picking children in research

Mandatory reporting and the limitations of confidentiality

Exploitation in dissemination

Extension

Empowerment

Empowerment in analysis

Discussion and recommendations

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author biographies

References