Participatory action research (PAR) is a methodological approach that seeks to maximize the participation of people whose lives it researches. It is underpinned by an ethical concern to research “with” people, rather than “on” people. However, this ethical approach to research is often, paradoxically, problematized by universities’ research ethics committees (RECs). This article explores one site of tension between PAR and RECs—the requirement for anonymity for below 18-year-olds. It explores this tension by exploring a case study of a peer-to-peer research project undertaken by young women in East London, and using our own experiences and perspectives, it argues that anonymity can be unjust, disempowering, and unnecessary, and can reduce “pride.” Without wanting to develop specific recommendations, given the limited scope of our case study, this article uses firsthand experiences to add weight to the broader discussions calling for a critical rethink of REC guidelines.
AldersonP. (2000). Children as researchers. In ChristensenP.JamesA. (Eds.), Research with children (pp. 241-257). London, England: Falmer.
2.
BaumF.MacDougallC.SmithD. (2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, 60, 854-857.
3.
BlakeM. (2007). Formality and friendship: Research ethics review and participatory action research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geography, 6, 411-421.
4.
Central University Research Ethics Committee. (2008). Protocol for studies conducted by researchers (staff or students) using non-invasive methods with children. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford.
5.
ChristensenP.JamesA. (Eds.). (2000). Research with children: Perspectives and practices. London, England: Falmer.
6.
FairbrotherH.CurtisP.GoyderE. (2012). Children’s understanding of family financial resources and their impact on healthy eating. Health and Social Care in the Community, 20, 528-536.
7.
FarthingR. (2010). The politics of youthful antipolitics: Representing the “issue” of youth participation in politics. Journal of Youth Studies, 13, 181-195.
8.
FlickerS.TraversR.GutaA.McDonaldS.MeagherA. (2007). Ethical dilemmas in community-participatory research: Recommendations for institutional review boards. Journal of Urban Health, 84, 478-493.
9.
FullerD. (1999). Part of the action or “going native?” Learning to cope with “politics of integration.”Area, 31, 221-227.
GarasiaH.Begum-AliS.FarthingR. (in press). Youth club is made to get children off the streets: Some young people’s thoughts about opportunities to be political in youth clubs. Youth & Policy, 115, 31-42.
12.
GrieblingS.ZayasV.BordersC.MooreE.SokolA.Brydon-MillersM. (2009). Exploring the relationship between faculty, students and the social and behavioral ethics review committee through action research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4(2), 27-36.
13.
HallB. (1981). Participatory research, popular knowledge and power: A personal reflection. Convergence, 3, 6-17.
HammersleyM. (2006). Are ethics committees ethical?Qualitative Researcher, 2, 4-8.
16.
HillM. (1997). Participatory research with children. Child & Family Social Work, 2, 171-183.
17.
KhanlouN.PeterE. (2005). Participatory action research: Considerations for ethical review. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 2333-2340.
18.
McIntyreA. (2000). Constructing meaning about violence, school, and community: Participatory action research with urban youth. The Urban Review, 32, 123-154.
19.
MasonJ.UrquhartR. (2001). Developing a model for participation by children in research on decision making. Children Australia, 26, 16-21.
20.
NelsonG.OchockaJ.GriffinK.LordJ. (1988). “Nothing about me, without me”: Participatory action research with self-help/mutual aid organizations for psychiatric consumers/survivors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 881-912.
21.
PowersJ.TiffanyJ. (2006). Engaging youth in participatory research and evaluation. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, 12(Suppl. 6), S79-S87.
22.
ProutA.JamesA. (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood. London, England: Falmer.
23.
ReasonP. (Ed.). (1995). Participation in human inquiry. London, England: SAGE.
24.
RossL.LoupA.NelsonR.BotkinJ.KostR.SmithG.GehlertS. (2010). Human subjects protections in community-engaged research: A research ethics framework. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(1), 5-17.
25.
ShoreN. (2007). Community-based participatory research and the ethics review process. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(1), 31-41.
van den HoonaardW. (2001). Is research-ethics review a moral panic?Canadian Review of Sociology, 38, 19-36.
28.
WhyteW. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
29.
WolfL. (2010). The research ethics committee is not the enemy: Oversight of community based participatory research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(1),77-86.
