Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article discusses the practical implications and ethical dilemmas of ‘other’ adults being present in a research setting where the participant is a child. The article focuses on three key issues in relation to this theme. First, the range of ways that ‘other’ adults (for example, parents or guardians, teachers or youth workers) may become involved in the process of research is discussed. Second, the article considers how the presence of ‘other’ adults may raise ethical challenges, impact on the research process, and ultimately affect the data collected. Finally, suggestions are offered for the range of strategies open to researchers in negotiating the involvement of ‘other’ adults within a research context.

Keywords

childhood research qualitative research research ethics research methods research participants

Introduction

In this review article we reflect on the practical implications and ethical dilemmas of ‘other’ adults being present in a research context where the participant in a given study is a child. In particular, our aim is to reflect on the ethical and practical tensions that may be caused during projects which seek to work with children and young people in participatory ways. We are not the first authors to note that research is unpredictable (Duncan et al., 2009; Horton, 2001), but our central thesis in the development of this article is that – even with the best of intentions – research which is ethically planned and instigated can still offer challenges which researchers must respond to in the field, and often in spontaneous ways. The involvement of ‘other’ adults in research – whether planned for or not – is one such challenge and the ways in which researchers recognize, respond to and reflect on instances of this kind is central to the conduct of ethical, inclusive studies that promote the contributions of young participants. We hope that this article serves to illustrate the ways in which key ethical issues relating to the involvement of ‘other’ adults in research with children can promote challenges to which researchers can respond positively during the research process. Whilst our discussions here focus on research with children, we recognize that many of the issues that we discuss will also resonate for those who are researching with other groups deemed ‘vulnerable’, where significant others are involved in the research process. Examples here include those researching with elderly populations, disabled adults or those with mental health issues.

We present three areas for consideration in the discussions which follow. First, we signal the range of ways that ‘other’ adults (for example, parents or guardians, teachers or youth workers) may become involved in the process of research, and specifically in the data collection phase of any given study. Second, we reflect on how their involvement may raise ethical challenges, impact on the research process and ultimately affect the data collected. Finally, we offer some suggestions for the range of strategies open to researchers in negotiating the involvement of ‘other’ adults within a research context.

Context: Involving children (and ‘other’ adults) in research

Academic and policy sector literatures describe pertinent ethical questions that are highlighted in research with and not on or for children and young people – illustrating tensions between considerations of them as ‘vulnerable’ and in need of protection, and at the same time independent actors capable of participating in decision-making (Carter, 2009; Kirk, 2006). At its most basic level, enabling children and young people to be involved means that they can communicate their needs (Lancaster and Broadbent, 2003), helping practitioners to understand what those needs are (Sinclair and Franklin, 2004).

Research with children and young people often raises more ethical questions than research with adults. The way that childhood is viewed in different contexts differs immensely, and children’s level of competence is often questioned more readily than that of adults (Morrow and Richards, 1996; Skelton, 2008). The best practice ethical issues which should be addressed with researching with children and young people are well documented and will be familiar to readers of this journal (Alderson and Morrow, 2004; Skelton, 2008). These include the importance of informing sharing, obtaining informed consent and capacity, opportunity for withdrawal and the explanation of the limits of confidentiality and anonymity.

The involvement of adults (in addition to members of a research team) in project work stems from the point at which a researcher seeks to access children in order to obtain their views about a given issue. Discussions of the role of adults as gatekeepers to children’s involvement have previously focused on those who act in loco parentis, for example at school, where head teachers restrict access into their setting, or those with familial ties (Heath et al., 2007; Schäfer and Yarwood, 2008).

Where these challenges are successfully negotiated by research teams, adult involvement is also required at the stage of obtaining informed consent. There is now an established recognition amongst the research community that obtaining informed consent from children themselves should be a fundamental part of any research (Alderson and Morrow, 2004; Beresford, 1997; Thomas and O’Kane, 1998; Valentine, 1999), and in many contexts this is now an ethical requirement. Where the participants of a research study are under the age of 16, researchers must also negotiate the boundaries of obtaining consent from relevant individuals subject to deliberations of competency. It is not possible, within the remit of this article, to discuss the wide-ranging debates in this area at length (for an excellent discussion of these issues see Cocks, 2006); rather, our intention here is to signal the initial ways in which ‘other’ adults may become involved in research projects which focus on obtaining the views of children. Our focus in the remainder of this article is on the involvement of ‘other’ adults in the process of research itself, the potential effects of this and the strategies that researchers can use in their attempts to balance the agendas of the young people who participate in research, the involvement of ‘other’ adults and those of researchers themselves.

The involvement of ‘other’ adults in research

The involvement of ‘other’ adults in data collection with children may occur for a number of reasons. Broadly, this connection may relate to the wishes of the child, the ‘other’ adult or the researcher themselves. Working with adults on an unfamiliar project can be daunting for young people (Alderson and Morrow, 2004) and therefore the presence of a known adult may help to raise their confidence to put forward their contribution. This may be particularly true for young children or those with disability, who are arguably less used to being asked their views by an adult (Scott et al., 2006).

The involvement of ‘other’ adults may also be instigated at their own request – in direct or indirect ways. It has been argued elsewhere that parents may want, but rarely need, to know what happens in an interview context with their child (Lewis, 2002; Masson, 2004). Researchers, however, need to be sensitive to adult protectiveness towards children and recognize that, particularly where data collection is undertaken in a child’s home, a parent or guardian may choose to be present (Mauthner, 1997). Researchers need to be particularly sensitive to local cultures and customs when developing their research projects. Morrow (2009), for example, has shared examples of her research in Peru where parents wanted to accompany their child to interview because they feared abduction (see also Young Lives, 2011).

Whilst there is now an established understanding of children as autonomous agents by researchers in many minority world contexts, the application of this belief into fieldwork practice often promotes challenges. This is especially the case in those countries where children are considered ‘less as autonomous individuals and more as members of the larger family collective’ (Abebe, 2009: 452). In a recently published study of the views of researchers in both minority and majority world contexts, Powell et al. (2011) noted that whilst the concerns of researchers in the minority world often related to the challenges raised by ethical review processes and access issues, those raised by researchers in the majority world included cultural beliefs about children’s role in society. These comments set a challenge for researchers: to work within these boundaries and to develop opportunities for children to share their experiences and views in meaningful ways.

Researchers may also feel that inviting parents to be present during data collection will be beneficial in supporting communication between them and the young participants of their study. Researchers often have a limited amount of time in which to build a rapport with participants (Thomas and O’Kane, 1998). Establishing a relationship with parents may therefore be key to identifying the best way(s) in which to communicate with participants – particularly those who use non-verbal methods of communication. For very young participants or those with a disability who communicate non-verbally, the presence of a parent, carer or other guardian who is well known to the child may engender a deeper level of understanding than might otherwise have been the case.

It is important to recognize the more subtle ways in which adult interactions within the research process may take place. Whilst a parent may not be physically present during an interview, they may seek to find out about its content by asking questions of either the researcher or young participant (Thomas and O’Kane, 1998). Researchers need to be aware of the limitations of the information that they can share, abiding with the confidentiality agreement made with their young informant.

We recognize that these influences are not likely to exist independently of each other; in actuality the involvement of ‘other’ adults in the research field may be instigated via a complex negotiation of wishes and agendas. Further, the impact of this involvement may be positive or negative and will necessarily be dependent on the research setting, focus and the needs of the participants to be included. Nevertheless these competing factors have the potential to impact on the research process (and outputs) in a range of ways which we now discuss.

The effect of significant adults in research with children

The involvement of parents or other significant adults in research with children can have positive impacts. Their presence, for example, can lead to spontaneous interactions and discussions which may occur between parent and child (Bushin, 2007), introducing topics which a researcher in isolation would not otherwise have been able to draw out. Parents and other significant adults may also support the development of rapport and communication between a researcher and their young participant, who will generally be unknown to each other before the study was instigated. As we have already discussed, working with adults on an unfamiliar project can be daunting for young people (Alderson and Morrow, 2004), and therefore ethically it is important to employ strategies to place them at ease during the research process. Here, we cite an example from a project that we recently completed with children who are wheelchair users (Pyer, 2009). The study sought to gather their experiences of different leisure environments. The following excerpt is drawn from the transcript of an interview undertaken within a school, where a 13-year-old participant (Simon) had requested that his teacher be present to support his communication with the researcher:

MP:

… and what about the other people on the bus. Do you ever do anything together? [Pause] Play games or anything?

Simon:

[Remains silent, grasps his hands together and looks at the floor]

Teacher:

Who’s the driver when you’re not driving, Simon? What’s the driver’s name?

Simon:

[Eye contact] David.

Teacher:

David, and who helps David?

Simon:

Shirley.

Teacher:

And what do you do with Shirley when you’re on the bus?

Simon:

Talk to Shirley, we laugh a lot.

Although the researcher had met the participant on several occasions before his interview took place, the presence of the teacher in this instance was considered by the participant actively to support his participation in the study. The child’s nerves were calmed by her presence and, owing to their longstanding relationship, she was able to support him (Rabiee et al., 2005), interpret his confusion and instigate the rephrasing, or the breaking down of a question where it was needed.

There is a distinction to be made here between the involvement of ‘other’ adults as a form of proxy (Lloyd et al., 2006; Morris, 1998), offering their own opinions on behalf of a child, and their involvement as an advocate (see Dalrymple, 2005). Proxy responses are considered to have poor reliability in research which seeks to gather an understanding of the views of children and young people because they offer viewpoints from an adult perspective and are underpinned by adult experiences (Stalker et al., 2004). The involvement of parents as advocates brings with it its own associated challenges. Adults often have their own priorities and agendas, of which researchers should be mindful (Barker and Weller, 2003). During interviews, for example, the use of a parent or other adult as a facilitator may lead to a distortion of views. In addition they may respond critically to a child’s views or stifle them where they wish to put forward their own contribution (Punch, 2002).

The use of child-friendly methods is increasingly common in research that seeks to develop an understanding of children’s views and experiences (Barker and Weller, 2003). Where these are instigated and left with children to be completed over a period of time, for example, adult support – whilst in some instances justified and necessary – may also serve to impact on the data received. In our research with children for example, we employed a child-led photography exercise. Our experience of using this method of data collection offered us a range of instances in which the perceptions and ideas of adults capturing images may vary widely from that of a child:

James’ mother looked at the photographs he had taken and began to highlight other subjects which could have been in them – the garden, front of the house, for example. This highlighted how the capture of images may have been very different if his mother had had more of a part to play in the process. Her contribution here was to show the positive areas both internally and externally to their home, whereas James’ selection was largely based on his computer and Xbox. (Research diary extract, Pyer, 2009)

Whilst there was no discernible impact on the visual data produced on this occasion, this instance serves to highlight the ways in which adult involvement in data collection may – often with the best of intentions – provide opinions or views that differ from those which children themselves would have shared. Other researchers have discussed more direct impacts on the process of data collection, for example where adults may take photographs ‘on behalf’ of the child that they are accompanying (Barker and Weller, 2003).

These examples begin to show the ways in which the planned presence of an ‘other’ adult can impact upon the data collection process, influencing a child’s responses (Bushin, 2007; Fargas-Malet et al., 2010; Mauthner, 1997; Scott et al., 2006). The involvement of ‘other’ adults in the completion of research may also impact on a study and raise associated ethical issues in more subtle ways. As part of our discussions above we signalled the ways in which the environment in which research is undertaken can bring about opportunities for the involvement of ‘other’ adults during data collection. Children’s homes and schools in particular are generally thought to offer a supportive context for participation (Dockett and Perry, 2011). Whilst completing data collection in these contexts provides these obvious advantages, previous authors have stressed the impact of this on research where indirect adult involvement results. A central tenet of good ethical practice is the negotiation of boundaries for confidentiality and anonymity within the research process. Lewis (2002) shows how the indirect involvement of ‘other’ adults in studies seeking children’s views may challenge even projects which have been planned meticulously and instigated with the best of ethical intentions. She recounts an experience gleaned during her research in schools with children who had a disability, sharing an instance whereby during the researcher’s interaction with a child in a school playground school staff members would move to within hearing distance, challenging the continuation of confidential discussions with her participants.

Childhood researchers often apply methods which are not solely reliant on the written or spoken word, seeking to enable children to communicate effectively during research (Cook and Hess, 2007; Gabhainn and Sixsmith, 2006; Schäfer and Yarwood, 2008; Young and Barrett, 2001). They may also employ subtle techniques to build an enhanced level of rapport with young participants, for example by dressing informally or beginning discussions with a focus on something important to the child that they are consulting (for example, computer games or a recently released film at the cinema) (Barker and Weller, 2003; Matthews and Tucker, 2000). In addition, researchers may attempt to respond to particular requests relating to where data collection should take place. When researching in children’s homes, for example, the rapport between researcher and participant can be enhanced by completing data collection whilst sitting on the floor, rather than in a more formal way by sitting at the dining room table (Punch, 2002). These approaches offer further opportunity for ‘other’ adults to impact on the completion of data collection, for example in schools where staff recommend a more formal dress code for researchers, or in the home environment where parents may be uncomfortable with an (adult) researcher sitting on the living room floor rather than making use of a perfectly good dining table (Bushin, 2007)! We have also encountered instances whilst researching in schools, where well-meaning adults have offered to close the door to a room to enhance the privacy that we as researchers are afforded with participants. Subtle interventions of this kind can pose further challenges in the ethical conduct of research and need to be addressed in ways which afford confidentiality whilst ensuring safety for both participant and researcher.

Responding to the ‘involvement’ of significant adults in research with children

We have discussed a range of ways that ‘other’ adults can become involved in, and subsequently impact, the completion of research. Here, we will focus on some of the options available to researchers in effectively responding to these challenges before, during and after data collection takes place. Responding to these challenges effectively is key to enabling young participants to voice their opinions within research; sharing their contributions in a manner which is unimpeded by the actions or agendas of others.

It is our belief that in dealing with these issues (at any stage of the research process), research teams should focus on two key issues. First, there is a need to balance the agendas of all those involved; empowering the child whilst not dis-empowering the adult(s) in their lives. Where parents wish to share their views boundaries should be defined for this. The involvement of adults in research with children can yield positive influence in a study, and this should not be overlooked. Our focus, however, is on providing a research context in which children can put forward their views in ways that meet their needs and on an ethical basis; establishing a relationship based on open-mindedness and sensitivity (Kjørholt, 2003). Second, researcher reflexivity before, during and after data collection is vital to achieving this task (Cocks, 2006).

When researching with children in contexts where ‘other’ adults may be present, it is important to plan ahead in order to define the boundaries for their – planned or unplanned – involvement. In particular, when conducting research in family homes, researchers need to negotiate a position as a guest (Mayall, 2000), navigating a range of obstacles whilst not wanting to alienate parents. These negotiations should form a central part of the data collection planning process. Whilst an ‘other’ adult (a parent or professional, for example) may seem an obvious selection, the young person themselves may prefer to select a friend or sibling to support them in discussions. Further, consideration of adapting the methods that you may use might prove more appealing to them. There are a range of ways to redefine a communication approach towards one which does not rely solely on the written or spoken word; for example, the use of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ or symbol choice cards often works effectively with very young children and others who are used to using symbol communication techniques.

Pre-data collection visits, telephone calls or a participant needs questionnaire are positive illustrations of the range of ways in which researchers can raise these issues in advance of data collection taking place. Information sheets distributed to parents and potential participants have the potential to empower children and the ways in which their contributions are protected. Pre-meeting information provides an ideal opportunity to set out ground rules for the involvement of ‘other’ adults during data collection should they opt to be present. It may also be useful to signal the preferred context for data collection to take place; whilst researchers may seek to meet with a child in a private (rather than secretive) setting (Children’s Rights Alliance for England, 2004; Morrow and Richards, 1996), parents may have made the choice over which room in their home is suitable before you arrive (Bushin, 2007). Incorporating information about the research process, in addition to the research protocol, into information sheets for all parties ensures that there is an opportunity prior to data collection taking place for the various agendas of different parties to be discussed, and that the roles of all those who are to be involved are agreed.

A number of strategies can also be employed during data collection to ensure that children are able to communicate their views effectively. As we have noted above, the careful negotiation of a suitable context in which data collection can take place without interruption is of great importance to enabling a participant to speak more freely about matters relating to family life. It is important that parents are comfortable with the ways in which their children are engaged within the research process, and their discomfort may stem in part from their child speaking to a researcher independently. A useful tactic for ensuring that parents have an opportunity to oversee the process – without becoming directly involved in it – is to invite them to leave the door to the data collection room open, and suggest that they return from time to time to satisfy any concerns that they may have. This is also a useful exercise for researchers in protecting themselves against allegations (Barker and Weller, 2003).

Where it is agreed that ‘other’ adults will accompany a child during data collection, researchers may need to be prepared to respond to the views of an ‘other’ adult being put forward. In our recent research with teenage wheelchair users, for example, a number of parents spoke at length of the day-to-day difficulties that they faced, presenting challenges with bringing interviews back to a child-focused process. The ease with which this was done depended largely on the individuals involved. Care was taken not to give the impression that parental input was unimportant, as, particularly when participants asked that a parent should be present, their involvement often created a better flow of dialogue than had been achieved within a more formal setting. It was also important not to alienate the adults who so passionately contributed their views. Usually, the focus of the situation could be re-directed towards the participant through directing the following question to them, and occasionally the order of questions would be changed to one that was only answerable by the participant themselves – a question less ‘factual’ and more related to their personal feelings. Other useful strategies include researchers limiting eye contact with parents, using the child’s name when directing a question to them. In some instances it may also be necessary to sensitively re-iterate the importance of obtaining the child’s opinions.

Above, we signalled some of the challenges faced by researchers in negotiating the involvement of ‘other’ adults whilst using child-centred methods in research with children. In particular, where the use of these methods necessitates a child recording data in time spent outside the presence of a researcher, for example in the completion of a diary, or a self-directed photography exercise (Aitken, 2001; Young and Barrett, 2001), it is advisable to ensure that a follow-up meeting is planned to discuss the data as presented. This approach enables researchers to discern where photographs, drawings or diary entries were the product of their own thoughts, or the contribution of an (often well meaning) ‘other’ adult.

Our discussion here has focused on the issues and strategies associated with face-to-face interviews. We are also aware that challenges may arise where focus groups are the chosen method applied during a research project. In these contexts, researchers and children alike need to be mindful of additional challenges arising from the disclosure of information in the group context which may involve both adults and peers. Researchers working to collect data using group methods must affirm the boundaries in such discussions sensitively, obtaining agreement to these from each group member in order to enable children to manage the information that they share proactively.

Conclusion

Our discussions throughout this article have signalled the practical and ethical tensions arising from the involvement of ‘other’ adults in research with children and young people. We have discussed the range of reasons that adults who are not members of a research team may become involved in the research process, and the potential benefits and challenges that may result. Whilst it is usually necessary to involve the parent or legal guardian of a young participant in some elements of the research process (for example, in relation to obtaining consent), other, often more subtle, interventions require researchers to have a collection of strategies at their disposal to ensure that the agendas of ‘other’ adults do not adversely affect the research process, or indeed the meaningful participation of young participants. Whilst the presence of ‘other’ adults in the data collection stage of any study may serve to put young participants at their ease or enhance communication (in itself an ethically sound strategy), it may also pose challenges where their expectations or actions conflict with a child’s agenda. The promotion of an adult’s views in place of (rather than alongside) a child’s is ethically unsound. This is therefore an issue for which researchers need to be prepared. There is a range of practical and often simple ways in which researchers can ensure that the young participants of research projects are enabled to voice their opinions, whilst negotiating the input of the adults in their lives respectfully.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the two anonymous referees who provided constructive comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Abebe

(2009) Multiple methods, complex dilemmas: Negotiating socio-ethical spaces in participatory research with disadvantaged children. Children’s Geographies 7(4): 451–465.

Aitken

(2001) Fielding diversity and moral integrity. Ethics, Place & Environment 4: 125–130.

Alderson

Morrow

(2004) Ethics, Social Research and Consulting with Children and Young People. Barkingside: Barnado’s.

Barker

Weller

(2003) ‘Never work with children?’: The geography of methodological issues in research with children. Qualitative Research 3: 207–227.

Beresford

(1997) Personal Accounts: Involving Disabled Children in Research. Social Policy Research Unit. London: The Stationery Office.

Bushin

(2007) Interviewing with children in their homes: Putting ethical principles into practice and developing flexible techniques. Children’s Geographies 5: 235–251.

Carter

(2009) Tick box for child? The ethical positioning of children as vulnerable, researchers as barbarians and reviewers as overly cautious. International Journal of Nursing Studies 46: 858–864.

Children’s Rights Alliance for England (2004) Ready Steady Change. London: Children’s Rights Alliance for England.

Cocks

A J

(2006) The ethical maze: Finding an inclusive path towards gaining children’s agreement to research participation. Childhood 13: 247–266.

10.

Cook

Hess

(2007) What the camera sees and from whose perspective. Childhood 14: 29–45.

11.

Dalrymple

(2005) Constructions of child and youth advocacy: Emerging issues in advocacy practice. Children & Society 19: 3–15.

12.

Dockett

Perry

(2011) Researching with young children: Seeking assent. Child Indicators Research 4: 231–247.

13.

Duncan

Drew

Hodgson

Sawyer

(2009) Is my mum going to hear this? Methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative health research with young people. Social Science & Medicine 69: 1691–1699.

14.

Fargas-Malet

Mcsherry

Larkin

Robinson

(2010) Research with children: Methodological issues and innovative techniques. Journal of Early Childhood Research 8: 175–192.

15.

Gabhainn

Sixsmith

(2006) Children photographing well-being: Facilitating participation in research. Children & Society 20: 249–259.

16.

Heath

Charles

Crow

Wiles

(2007) Informed consent, gatekeepers and go-betweens: Negotiating consent in child-and youth-orientated institutions. British Educational Research Journal 33: 403–417.

17.

Horton

(2001) ‘Do you get some funny looks when you tell people what you do?’ Muddling through some angsts and ethics of (being a male) researching with children. Ethics, Place & Environment 4: 159–166.

18.

Kirk

(2006) Methodological and ethical issues in conducting qualitative research with children and young people: A literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 44: 1250–1260.

19.

Kjørholt

(2003) ‘Creating a place to belong’: Girls and boys hut-building as a site for understanding discourses on childhood and generational relations in a Norwegian community. Children’s Geographies 1(1): 261–279.

20.

Lancaster

Broadbent

(2003) Listening to Young Children. Berkshire: Open University Press.

21.

Lewis

(2002) Accessing, through research interviews, the views of children with difficulties in learning. Support for Learning 17: 111–116.

22.

Lloyd

Gatherer

Kalsy

(2006) Conducting qualitative interview research with people with expressive language difficulties. Qualitative Health Research 16: 1386–1404.

23.

Masson

(2004) The legal context. In: Fraser

Lewis

Ding

Kellet

Robinson

(eds) Doing Research with Children and Young People. London: The Open University, 43–58.

24.

Matthews

Tucker

(2000) Consulting children. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 24: 299–310.

25.

Mauthner

(1997) Methodological aspects of collecting data from children: Lessons from three research projects. Children & Society 11: 16–28.

26.

Mayall

(2000) Conversations with children: Working with generational issues. In: Christensen

James

(eds) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices. London: Routledge Falmer, 120–135.

27.

Morris

(1998) Don’t Leave Us Out: Involving Disabled Children and Young People with Communication Impairments. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York Publishing Services Ltd.

28.

Morrow

(2009) The Ethics of Social Research with Children and Families in Young Lives: Practical Experiences. Oxford: Young Lives.

29.

Morrow

Richards

(1996) The ethics of social research with children: An overview. Children & Society 10: 90–105.

30.

Powell

Graham

Taylor

Newell

Fitzgerald

(2011) Building capacity for ethical research with children and young people: an international research project to examine the ethical issues and challenges in undertaking research with and for children in different majority and minority world contexts (Research Report for the Childwatch International Research Network). Dunedin: University of Otago Centre for Research on Children and Families / Lismore: Centre for Children and Young People.

31.

Punch

(2002) Research with children: The same or different from research with adults? Childhood 9: 321–341.

32.

Pyer

(2009) The difference that difference makes: Leisure, space and teenage wheelchair users. Unpublished PhD thesis. The University of Northampton.

33.

Rabiee

Sloper

Beresford

(2005) Doing research with children and young people who do not use speech for communication. Children & Society 19: 385–396.

34.

Schäfer

Yarwood

(2008) Involving young people as researchers: Uncovering multiple power relations among youths. Children’s Geographies 6: 121–135.

35.

Scott

Wishart

Bowyer

(2006) Do current consent and confidentiality requirements impede or enhance research with children with learning disabilities? Disability & Society 21: 273–287.

36.

Sinclair

Franklin

(2004) Young people’s participation. Quality Protects Research Briefing. Available from: http://www.rip.org.uk/publications/documents/QPB/QPB3.PDF (accessed 7 July 2011).

37.

Skelton

(2008) Research with children and young people: Exploring the tensions between ethics, competence and participation. Children’s Geographies 6: 21–36.

38.

Stalker

Carpenter

Connors

Phillips

(2004) Ethical issues in social research: Difficulties encountered gaining access to children in hospital for research. Child Care, Health and Development 30: 377–383.

39.

Thomas

O’Kane

(1998) The ethics of participatory research with children. Children & Society 12: 336–348.

40.

Valentine

(1999) Being seen and heard? The ethical complexities of working with children and young people at home and at school. Ethics, Place and Environment 2: 141–155.

41.

Young

Barrett

(2001) Adapting visual methods: Action research with Kampala street children. Area 33: 141–152.

42.

Young Lives (2011) Methods guide: ethics. Available from: http://www.younglives.org.uk/files/methods-guide/methods-guide-research-ethics (accessed 10 September 2012.

The ‘other participant’ in the room: The effect of significant adults in research with children

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Context: Involving children (and ‘other’ adults) in research

The involvement of ‘other’ adults in research

The effect of significant adults in research with children

Responding to the ‘involvement’ of significant adults in research with children

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Funding

References