Amplifying voices,dismantling silences: Ethical praxis in multimodal child-centered research

Abstract

Research involving children and youth, particularly those from culturally sensitive and vulnerable backgrounds, presents intricate ethical, methodological, and epistemological challenges. While acknowledging parents’ legitimate protective role, unjustified parental gatekeeping often regulates access to minors’ participation and can create tensions between adult-centric authority and minors’ evolving capacity for agency. These ambiguities get further obscured when minors’ self-identified experiences and fluid identities—especially in multilingual and culturally diverse contexts—diverge from parental assumptions or hegemonic discourses surrounding identity and autonomy. In this paper, I critically interrogate these tensions, foreground the limitations of procedural ethics when faced with emergent obstacles, and advocate for adaptive, participant-centered frameworks rooted in dialogic engagement. Drawing on three research projects that I conducted in Canada, I demonstrate how child-engaging, multimodal methodologies can facilitate semiosis and empower minors to articulate their lived realities while safeguarding their emotional safety and agency. In this regard, intersectional reflexivity emerges as a constitutive and vital framework, allowing me to address power asymmetries and ethical dilemmas with situational responsivity. This paper reconceptualizes consent as an iterative and relational process rather than a static obligation by foregrounding minors’ narratives and respecting their welfare. Ultimately, the study contributes to advancing ethically robust and transformative research practices that amplify marginalized voices, dismantle systemic inequities, foster nuanced, inclusive engagements with vulnerable participants, and challenge dominant epistemological hierarchies and centering minors’ perspectives as constitutive of broader social discourse.

Introduction

In research involving minors, parents or guardians often serve as gatekeepers and exercise their agency to regulate access to the research domain by granting or withholding consent (Kay, 2019). This dynamic can introduce a distinct set of epistemological and methodological challenges, especially when the themes arising from the investigation may be considered sensitive or contested, and demand insights into minors’ lived realities. These matters are not unprecedented or unexpected; indeed, researchers have long recognized that working with multiple marginalized children and youth entails unique ethical and practical considerations (Panel on Research Ethics, 2022). Nevertheless, emerging contexts, shifting cultural dynamics, and novel forms of identity expression necessitate creative, context-responsive approaches that explicitly account for the dual roles parents play (Pinter and Kuchah, 2021). While parents may limit minors’ ability to share experiences that conflict with parental perspectives, they also serve as vital protectors of their children’s welfare and rights. In many instances, their role helps ensure that minors are not exposed to undue risk or exploitation (Bradshaw et al., 2024).

Balancing parental authority with the minor’s autonomy becomes increasingly complex when the minor’s self-identified identities and perspectives diverge from parental assumptions, which potentially exposes the minor to discomfort or harm (Bradshaw et al., 2024). These ambiguities can get further obscured in multilingual and culturally heterogeneous contexts, where minors’ experiences must be communicated and conceptualized across linguistic and cultural boundaries (Larson et al., 2020). Within this landscape, the researcher’s responsibility transcends standard procedural ethics (e.g. obtaining parental consent) to encompass the deployment of methodologies that affirm their voices and also maintain a pragmatic stance in real-time decision-making (Sun et al., 2023). For instance, using child-engaging and age-appropriate data collection tools can establish a space that affords minors the opportunity to exercise their communicative competence and reconceptualize ethical inquiry beyond adult-centric norms. Simultaneously, the researcher remains reflexive and adaptable to maintain a heightened sensitivity to the personal, subjective dimensions of their self-expression and continually navigates the inherent ambiguity and nuanced ethical considerations that emerge throughout the research process (Stapf et al., 2023). In this regard, transparency, member-checking, and ensuring a constitutive sense of inclusion are central to establishing research settings that protect minors and honor their intrinsic perspectives (Stapf et al., 2023).

Building upon these foundational ethical considerations, I draw upon insights from three empirical research projects that interrogated minors’ plurilingualism ¹ and identities, lived experiences of discrimination, and emergent self-identifications potentially divergent from adult-centric assumptions. Below, I provide a succinct overview of each project, which will subsequently be elaborated in greater depth.

My initial project investigated the development of plurilingual identities among Canadian-Iranian children in relation to parental investment in second language acquisition. Employing a multimodal methodology, I engaged both children and adolescents to capture rich qualitative data. This child-centric methodological framework incorporated diverse communicative modes (e.g. drawings, photographs, interviews) to actively involve them as participants. The primary objective was to elucidate how plurilingual identities are constructed among minors, examine how parental engagement shapes their language acquisition trajectories, and illuminate the intricate relationship between familial involvement and multilingual identity formation. My second inquiry centered on minors’ gender self-identification and examined the role additional language learning plays within gender identity construction during childhood and adolescence. Initially, a monolingual English research protocol constrained minors’ expressive capacities until I revised ethical approval protocols to incorporate translanguaging spaces, conceptualized as fluid, and flexible environments where speakers draw on their entire linguistic repertoire to communicate and resist imposed linguistic boundaries (Li, 2011). This modification revealed how a procedural approach, albeit unintentionally, could suppress critical dimensions of minors’ self-expression. Using Clark’s (2017) multimodal Mosaic approach with children and youths, I facilitated diverse expressive forms (e.g. storytelling, drawing, photography) to capture their gender-related experiences. My third project explored children’s perceptions of discrimination through pictorial narratives. Iranian-Canadian minors aged 7–12 created illustrative representations to depict their personal experiences or conceptual understandings of discrimination. These visual artifacts subsequently served as elicitation tools during parental interviews, enriched contextual understanding, and provided insight into each child’s interpretive framework. Collectively, these empirical investigations emphasized how multifaceted linguistic and cultural realities necessitate methodologically responsive, child-centered research paradigms.

In this study, I address a critical lacuna in the epistemology of research ethics involving children and youth and explore the ways researchers can ethically engage with these young participants from culturally diverse backgrounds in Canada. These contexts are shaped by longstanding traditions, collective values, and embedded cultural norms, which frequently stand in dissonance with Western paradigmatic frameworks and generate unique ethical issues. For instance, cultural norms influencing parental consent and access negotiations often fail to account for diverse gender identities, expressions, or sexual orientations, further complicating the research process (Cochat Costa Rodrigues et al., 2017). I demonstrate strategies for cultivating environments where minors feel empowered to articulate their experiences safely while also acknowledging the variability of transjurisdictional policies in Canada. I conclude with insights on balancing harm prevention and child agency to address power asymmetries in this domain.

National context: TCPS2 and provincial nuances

Three separate research studies were conducted in Manitoba, Quebec, and Alberta—provinces whose ethics-related legislation and practices exhibit slight variations. Nevertheless, each study rigorously adhered to Canada’s Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans—TCPS2 (Panel on Research Ethics, 2022). Under TCPS2, researchers are guided by core principles of Respect for Persons and concern for Welfare and Justice, which ensure respect for autonomy, minimization of harm, and fair inclusion of participants.

In this respect, Quebec has specific civil legislation which governs research with minors, while Manitoba and Alberta demonstrate nuanced institutional interpretations of TCPS2 provisions concerning informed consent and participant capacity, leading to provincial variability in thresholds for parental permission, mature minor consent, and guardian oversight (Taylor, 2008).

Global context

Internationally, research ethics is also guided by widely recognized frameworks. The Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979) set forth the fundamental principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, which closely mirror the values emphasized in TCPS2. The Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2013) similarly emphasizes participant welfare and parallels TCPS2’s focus on concern for welfare. Meanwhile, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) accentuates minors’ right to be heard—an approach that resonates with TCPS2′s inclusion of child assent and heightened protections for youth in research.

Bridging procedural and practical ethics

The conduct of academic research is strictly governed by ethical standards that have their foundations in the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration (Ellis et al., 2023). While The Nuremberg Code (1996) famously required autonomous consent, effectively excluding minors from participating, later frameworks recognized the ethical importance of involving them under carefully monitored conditions that uphold informed assent and non-maleficence. These principles continue to inform research practice and emphasize the ethos of beneficence alongside non-maleficence (Kaplan et al., 2020). Formal ethical frameworks and protocols are designed to support researchers in planning and conducting studies congruent with the principles of their institution and the conventions of the broader social research community (Richards et al., 2015). Although ethical protocols may appear excessively rigid in certain contexts, it is essential to acknowledge that ethical review procedures frequently involve robust deliberation and substantive engagement with the ethical dilemmas inherent to participants’ rights and welfare. When implemented with diligence and sensitivity, these frameworks would enable researchers to anticipate ethical risks, establish safeguards for vulnerable populations, and embed participant-centered values within methodological choices.

Undoubtedly, the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2) in Canada mirrors the value of flexibility, particularly with respect to qualitative research, a position actively endorsed by numerous Research Ethics Boards (REBs). However, my experiences suggest these guidelines, despite their clarity and merit, can be challenging to operationalize effectively within actual research contexts. Such challenges do not negate existing ethical provisions but instead illuminate tensions inherent to translating procedural ethics into workable research practices.

While procedural ethics—the formal processes required to obtain ethical approval—remain indispensable in compelling researchers to consider potential harms and baseline ethical criteria, they might occasionally fail to capture the nuanced, evolving realities of empirical research. Nevertheless, carefully structured ethics reviews would encourage meaningful dialog to protect participant welfare. Even well-structured ethics reviews cannot fully account for the unpredictable dilemmas that arise in practice and often demand that researchers confront paradoxical ethical tensions with immediacy and discernment.(Tolich and Tumilty, 2020).

Ethical challenges and tensions in research with vulnerable populations

Minors’ perspectives have historically been overshadowed in research, with adults—whether experts, caregivers, or professionals—typically steering conversations on topics that directly affect young people (Vujčić et al., 2019). This adult-dominated framework has led to a body of epistemological constructs where minors’ lived subjectivities are often mediated or selectively portrayed (Ellis et al., 2023). The adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989, particularly Article 12, signified a seminal moment by formally acknowledging their rights to express their views on matters concerning them (Davies et al., 2023). Since this milestone, scholars across various fields have increasingly prioritized studying minors’ perspectives to inform more inclusive, child-centered paradigms and practices.

This shift has fueled extensive research on minors’ everyday lives, leaving its mark across fields such as health, social services, youth justice, and education (Gibbs, 2005; Tilbury, 2013). However, including children and youths’ voices in research brings its ethical ambiguities. Although researchers and gatekeepers are committed to faithfully representing their experiences, it is essential to consider the influence of their role within the broader context of how knowledge about the minors is socially constructed. Rather than serving as ultimate judges of truth, researchers function as interpreters who inevitably mediate the selection and representation of narratives (Theobald, 2017). Nonetheless, this role of researchers introduces an ongoing challenge to authentically prioritize minors’ voices within the research landscape. Furthermore, involving youth participants can more faithfully represent their lived realities and aligns with rights-based approaches that foreground minors’ agency in shaping discourses and research outcomes relevant to their experiences (Mayne and Howitt, 2019).

Including vulnerable populations in research is widely acknowledged as valuable, yet it introduces significant ethical tensions, especially when working with minors (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2018). One of the fundamental ethical challenges in many social science contexts lies in the fact that minors, as participants, may not experience direct benefits from the research, primarily serving the goals of academic and policy-making communities (Dubois et al., 2022). Although clinical research can sometimes yield direct benefits for minors, especially in life-saving therapies, many social science studies do not. Moreover, these studies are tasked with balancing the epistemic pursuit of scholarly knowledge against the demands of practice and policy stakeholders, who may inadvertently marginalize the participants’ perspectives (Shonkoff and Bales, 2011). This tension is further heightened by the risk of re-traumatization, as revisiting specific experiences can evoke psychological distress in young participants (Morris et al., 2012). While researchers aspire to raise awareness and enhance services for future minors in comparable circumstances, the immediate benefits often elude current participants, as the protracted timeline between knowledge dissemination and policy enactment diminishes the research’s direct relevance (Sani and Martins, 2021).

While the amplification of minors’ voices remains paramount, their narratives often reveal uncomfortable truths that challenge prevailing assumptions. Prioritizing professional interpretations of their firsthand accounts risks marginalizing their lived experiences and echoes an ethical imperative to present these stories authentically and handle them with sensitivity (Ellis et al., 2023).

Intersectional reflexivity and ethical epistemologies in second language identity research

Canada’s colonial legacy and multicultural ethos present a complex framework where minors’ expressions of self often conflict with parental viewpoints. Parental representations of their minors’ identities frequently embody aspirations rooted in cultural preservation or integration and might lead to deep conflicts. Also, minors’ perspectives historically have been systematically excluded from research, with adults—including professionals, practitioners, and parents—acting as proxies for their views on matters that affect their lives (Carter, 2009). This exclusion began to recede with the formal acknowledgment of minors’ rights (Cohen, 1989), which foregrounds minors’ entitlement to share their views on matters that concern them. As a result, an expanding body of research has focused on capturing minors’ perspectives to elucidate their lived experiences (Maybin, 2013; Muhati-Nyakundi, 2021; Tangen, 2008) and influencing inclusive policies and practices (Ellis et al., 2023).

While researchers worldwide have integrated minors’ perspectives across fields such as health (Clavering and McLaughlin, 2010; Thai et al., 2023), social work (Heinsch et al., 2020; Winter, 2010), youth justice (Josefsson and Wall, 2020), and plurilingual education (Pinter and Kuchah, 2021), ethical dilemmas persist. Gatekeepers such as parents, school administrators, and social workers often restrict access to vulnerable populations, ostensibly to protect minors (Rice et al., 2007). However, this gatekeeping suppresses critical perspectives, particularly those challenging societal or institutional norms (James and James, 2004). For minors identifying outside conventional gender and sexual norms, these dynamics are especially acute, as their identities may conflict with familial or societal expectations, further marginalizing their voices.

Nonetheless, some jurisdictions have begun to address these challenges by recognizing minors’ capacity for independent decision-making. In Canada, the mature minor doctrine offers a pathway for minors’ assessed as sufficiently mature to provide independent consent for research participation (Health Canada, 2022). Likewise, the American Psychological Association supports broadening mature minors’ ability to consent independently, emphasizing their capacity to comprehend research and its ramifications (American Psychological Association, 2018).

Ethical complexities intensify when engaging with minors’ who experience discrimination, trauma, or identity conflicts. Including their narratives is critical for advancing equity and understanding but risks reactivating painful memories that may cause psychological harm (Clandinin et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2020). In this regard, researchers are urged to employ reflexive and empathetic methodologies to handle these narratives with care. Sensitively facilitated narrative recounting can be therapeutic for participants (Silverio et al., 2020). However, reconciling the emotional demands of such research requires navigating competing imperatives, including the researcher’s dual role as both documentarian and interpreter of these narratives (Beazley et al., 2009).

Studies that focus on marginalized groups who identify outside heteronormative frameworks demonstrate the ethical necessity of amplifying their voices. These studies contest exclusionary practices and reduce the censorship or manipulation of minors’ narratives. As a result, they reconceptualize understandings of their realities and provide insights to inform support systems more effectively (Sevón et al., 2023). Although research benefits often do not immediately impact participants due to delays in implementation, enabling minors’ participation offers a vital opportunity to record their perspectives and contribute to societal transformation (Checkoway and Gutierrez, 2006).

Ethical proficiency is indispensable in research with minors, particularly when addressing power imbalances. In this vein, intersectional reflexivity, as conceptualized by Collins and Bilge (2020) and Crenshaw (1989), informed my methodological approach and allowed me to prioritize relational ethics while adapting procedural protocols to the needs of participants.. As a plurilingual scholar employing an intersectional framework, I relied on my experiential insights as a racialized, neurodiverse individual along with other personal realities who has navigated multifaceted cognitive, cultural, and linguistic domains. My pre-immigration life capital and adaptation to Canadian academic contexts shaped my commitment to transformative paradigms of knowledge production. Although I critique the limitations of rigid procedural ethics, my intersectional perspective enabled me to assess minors’ ability to grasp research implications, affirm their autonomy, and engage parents through culturally attuned conversations while adhering to established research ethics protocols. I attempted to disrupt dominant discourses and fostered inclusive epistemic spaces to center minors’ voices in alignment with the principles articulated by Pérez, Saavedra, and Habashi (2017). Their theoretical framework foregrounded decolonial critiques and emphasized power asymmetries, which facilitates a more nuanced interpretation of minors’ intersecting cultural, linguistic, and gendered identities. This approach remains germane to my study, as it validates participants’ multifaceted experiences and mandates ethical paradigms that honor minor’s agency while contesting hegemonic norms.

Ethical and methodological insights

While it is well recognized that research involving multiple marginalized minors can present substantial ethical complexities, these projects allowed me to explore how those known challenges manifested in new linguistic and cultural contexts and prompted innovative adaptations within the scope of established ethics guidelines.

In the first project, some participants from diverse minor age groups self-identified as non-cisgender, which presented significant ethical challenges, particularly as their gender self-identifications were in conflict with parental expectations and norms. One participant expressed their gender identity through creative pictorial representation to provide insights into their identity development beyond linguistic boundaries. However, their gender identity was not entirely accepted and acknowledged by their parent, and this divergence led to significant ethical dilemmas during the member-checking process. To safeguard the participant from potential harm, I applied for an amendment from the Research Ethics Board of the University to withhold the child’s gender-related productions from the parent, recognizing that the child, as a mature minor, was capable of comprehending the consent form.

Similarly, some other plurilingual minors in the same project asserted non-cisgender identities or revealed heritage-cultural perspectives. Yet they encountered subordination from guardians or parents who enforced boundaries on acceptable discourse. These tensions became evident when the gender minors identified in assent forms did not align with parental beliefs. In those instances, I respected participants’ autonomy and permitted them to adopt their self-identified gender. Recognizing that consent legislation varies by province (e.g. Ontario does not specify a minimum age of consent for research, whereas Quebec sets the age at 18), I adopted a mature-minor framework where permissible. For participants 15 years of age or older, and in jurisdictions allowing it, I pursued the mature-minor consent route, permitting independent consent without parental approval. For children, I offered the standard parental consent coupled with youth assent or, where recognized, the mature-minor approach, then invited participants to choose the most suitable option.

Moreover, the dyadic nature of the semi-structured interviews in this project profoundly influenced the communication dynamics. The presence of parents in these interviews, while intended to capture interpersonal dynamics and co-construction, often circumscribed open dialog and restricted the minors’ ability to discuss sensitive topics freely. In response to these constraints, some children and youth resorted to translanguaging or drew on their plurilingual, multimodal, and multisemiotic resources to effectively convey their thoughts and emotions and bypass these limitations. The Mosaic Approach (Clark, 2017), a paradigmatic multimodal framework, proved particularly useful in this context. It enabled me to explore minors’ language use and identity through linguistic and non-linguistic tools. This child-centered approach respected their agency and balanced the parental role in the research process. Despite these challenges, the project placed young people’s narratives at the forefront to reveal insights into their lived experiences that are often overlooked or dismissed.

In the second project, although the research protocol mandated the use of English as the language of interviews, and I ensured that the participants demonstrated advanced proficiency in English during recruitment, I observed that this restriction severely hindered most plurilingual participants. Many struggled to articulate nuanced thoughts and emotions in English. Enforcing a monolingual policy disrupted the interview process and marginalized their entire linguistic and cultural identities (Li, 2011). To address these issues, I applied for an amendment to the research ethics protocol and encouraged participants to establish their own translanguaging spaces. This adjustment allowed participants to reassert their agency and share their narratives more authentically.

In the third project, I worked with minors who had experienced microaggressions and negative assumptions in school or other sociocultural spaces due to their ethnicity or perceived proficiency in English. During the semi-structured interviews, I shared my experiences as a plurilingual individual to build rapport with participants. This reciprocity fostered trust, resonated with participants, and encouraged them to be more forthcoming about their lived experiences. However, I found myself unintentionally assuming a counseling role in these interactions, which raised significant ethical considerations. These dilemmas required continuous adjustment and a relational approach, which revealed the limitations of static frameworks. My original protocol did not anticipate certain emotional disclosures, so built-in flexibility was necessary from the outset.

Given the rigorous nature of research ethics protocols—which, to be sure, often accommodate flexibility for qualitative work—I nevertheless found it necessary to submit protracted and labor-intensive amendments to address emergent issues in these specific contexts across all three projects. These necessary administrative protocols significantly impacted my research timeline, as some participants opted to withdraw from the study due to the prolonged waiting period. These administrative factors demonstrated the requirement for participant-centered methodologies. In this purview, Christensen and James (2017) asserted that research is supposed to align with participants’ needs and the specific questions at hand. Therefore, I sought to address the distinct challenges encountered by participants of varying ages and social contexts by using contextually sensitive and adaptable approaches.

Ethical challenges frequently arose, including the nuances of securing informed consent, balancing power imbalances, and navigating institutional privilege. These dilemmas demanded ongoing adjustments and relational strategies, which demonstrate the limitations of static ethical frameworks. When working with vulnerable populations and minors, researchers must remain adaptable and empathetic, responding to evolving circumstances without compromising participants’ rights. Although conventional ethical guidelines can, at times, be insufficient in contested research spaces, adopting adaptive practices can facilitate genuine representation and equitable inclusion of marginalized voices.

In response to these dilemmas, I adopted three primary strategies for researchers who face analogous ethical obstacles with marginalized minors. The first strategy, contextual amendments to ethics protocols, addressed rigid requirements that frequently left participants’ linguistic identities or gender expressions unsupported. I submitted mid-study ethics amendments whenever data revealed participants’ need for alternative channels to convey their experiences without jeopardy, such as translanguaging spaces and mature-minor consent (Clark, 2017). This approach emphasized the necessity of planned flexibility in ethics protocols and underscored the value of explicit communication with prospective participants, which mitigated withdrawals triggered by lengthy amendment processes.

The second strategy, child-centered multimodal engagement, accommodated minors who struggled to express complex realities within exclusively verbal or monolingual interview formats. I selected the Mosaic Framework (Clark, 2017), pictorial representations, and translanguaging environments to safeguard participants’ agency and linguistic identities. These methods acknowledged minors’ autonomy and eliminated the constraints typical of conventional interview procedures. Researchers who conduct inquiries with plurilingual or otherwise vulnerable populations can benefit from similar approaches and thereby affirm minors’ voices.

The final strategy, balancing parental involvement with child autonomy, recognized the potential for parental gatekeeping to obstruct free expression, especially regarding non-cisgender identities or culturally sensitive beliefs. Where possible, I pursued mature-minor consent for participants 15 years of age or older and provided flexible assent or consent paths for children. I also relied on discrete follow-up conversations to accommodate child preferences and prevent needless conflicts with parents. This clear demarcation of parental authority and minors’ emerging autonomy helped preserve participants’ rights and avoided ethical dilemmas that arise when adults’ beliefs conflict with minors’ self-identifications.

Rethinking research rules

University governance procedures, such as Research Ethics Board oversight and institutional guidelines, are intended to safeguard participants in alignment with national policies like the Tri-Council Policy Statement (Ellis et al., 2023). However, these procedures often generate tensions with researchers who strive to amplify the voices of marginalized populations (Spencer et al., 2020). Strict adherence to established protocols may conflict with the varied backgrounds and personal needs of research participants. The Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement (Panel on Research Ethics, 2022) emphasized that informed consent depends on participants’ ability to comprehend the risks and implications of research. Nonetheless, institutional protocols frequently fail to accommodate participants with varying literacy skills, epistemic backgrounds, or prior exposure to complexities in institutional forms, particularly in participatory methods. Participatory approaches, which prioritize co-constructive decision-making by participants, inherently require a fluid and iterative consent process (Whittington, 2019).

In my research, which examined themes such as minors’ identities, discrimination, and gender, I also encountered significant ethical ambiguities. The process of obtaining consent and navigating ethics reviews was inherently dynamic due to the evolving and sensitive nature of conducting research with underage and vulnerable participants. Preparing detailed materials—including information sheets, consent forms, and participant support mechanisms—posed dual challenges: meeting institutional ethics committees’ standards while ensuring equitable accessibility for young participants.

In one case, a participant who sought mature minor consent initially declined to sign the consent form but still desired to participate. They explained a lack of trust in the anonymity process and feared inadvertently revealing sensitive information to adults. I honored the participant’s self-identified gender and did not record data until formal consent was obtained. After further discussion, the participant signed the forms and demonstrated meaningful informed consent. Conversely, young children with limited literacy presented distinct challenges. Their self-expressed and illustrated contributions, as noted previously, occasionally conflicted with parental views on sensitive issues. To prioritize their safety and mitigate familial conflict, I opted to redact valuable but ethically fraught data.

The iterative process aligned with Whittington’s (Whittington, 2019) characterization of consent as “fluid, constantly renegotiated, communicated verbally and nonverbally, voluntary, mutual, and withdrawable” (p. 205). While not all qualitative research with young participants adopts a participatory design, a more adaptable and dynamic approach to consent enhances ethical practices. I conceptualized participatory design as a co-owned approach that positions minors as active decision-makers at every stage of the research cycle. I integrated it into these projects by granting children the space and inviting them to share their perspectives. I recognized their linguistic preferences and affirmed them as co-collaborators. This design extends beyond standard protocols, and it respects their experiential knowledge so they can reframe research questions in ways that reflect their realities. Thus, in my studies, participants’ engagement deepened only after they fully understood the research process and perceived my ethos as trustworthy. This resulted in consent that was more grounded and meaningful than any obtained through traditional procedures.

This adaptability corresponds with recent scholarship (Whittington, 2019), which critiques the rigidity of conventional informed consent frameworks. For instance, rigid procedures often alienate participants who associate such systems with epistemic distrust toward institutions. Also, my studies reflected that standardized ethical protocols, while vital for institutional governance, frequently inhibited engagement from participants who otherwise valued the research.

Across all three projects, these ethical ambiguities required amendments to address emergent issues. For instance, in the first project, where minors self-identified as non-cisgender, ethical amendments safeguarded gendered expressions and protected their symbolic agency. In the second project, monolingual policies were revised to encourage translingual practices and enable participants to draw on their entire linguistic repertoire. In the third project, emotionally sensitive disclosures necessitated modifications to address unforeseen moral contingencies. These procedural issues delayed research timelines and occasionally led to participant withdrawal due to extended waiting periods. Also, earlier studies (Loveridge et al., 2023; Renold et al., 2008) emphasized the importance of iterative, phenomenologically informed, and multidisciplinary approaches to ethical dilemmas, particularly in contested spaces involving minors. Transparent communication about confidentiality and the repercussions of assent proved vital for maintaining trust and safeguarding participants. Without such clarity, moral rectitude and participant relationships risked being compromised.

Considering power dynamics in research, power imbalances are an intrinsic part of all research, especially involving minors, chiefly in contexts where minors are conditioned to defer to adult authority figures. These dynamics evoke a nuanced dichotomy of ethical, social, and procedural dilemmas, which become increasingly pronounced when the research engages vulnerable populations, such as minors who have endured traumatic episodes related to educational institutions (Panel on Research Ethics, 2022). Although these principles form the cornerstone of procedural ethics guidelines, addressing these multi-dimensional issues still requires researchers to apply the principles of Respect for Persons, Concern for Welfare, and Justice (Panel on Research Ethics, 2022).

In this perspective, the inclusion of tailored support services constitutes a critical element in conducting ethical research on vulnerable populations (Ellis et al., 2023). These services contribute to a bricolage of strategies designed to foster trust between participants and researchers and engender a dialogic relationship characterized by transparency and mutual respect. Therefore, it is indispensable for researchers to re-envision traditional power dynamics and ensure transparency in their role and the data’s intended application (Greyson and Spear, 2023). Moreover, they are ethically enjoined to select tools and techniques that resonate with the specificities of participants’ needs to preserve their agency and maintain the sense of identity of their perspectives (Ortju et al., 2023). For instance, using innovative tools such as visual aids or question cards functions as an essential component of this bricolage and can offer minors alternative modalities for engaging in the research process. These tools are particularly effective in accommodating participants with varying literacy levels and enable them to set boundaries, including the right to dissent or opt out of uncomfortable discussions, without verbal articulation (Dockett et al., 2012).

Nevertheless, even with such a thoughtfully constructed bricolage of strategies, ethical dilemmas often persist in real-time contexts. For instance, a child’s non-verbal cues, such as avoidance or discomfort, may indicate hesitation despite having formally consented. In such cases, researchers are supposed to engage in iterative reflexivity and revisit the consent process to ensure the participant’s continued willingness to engage (Davies, 2008). As stipulated in the Canadian Panel on Research Ethics (2022), participants must retain the unequivocal freedom to withdraw at any stage without fear of adverse consequences. Furthermore, addressing sensitive topics—such as when a child has internalized trauma as a form of deserved punishment—requires sensitivity and ethical responsivity. While researchers may encourage them to re-evaluate harmful beliefs, this process must uphold the child’s dignity and integrate seamlessly with their existing support systems (Panel on Research Ethics, 2022).

In essence, the mélange of procedural and situational considerations signifies the inherent limitations of traditional ethics frameworks. Although these frameworks conform to institutional requirements, they often lack the flexibility required to address the nuanced and evolving needs of participants effectively (Van Goidsenhoven and De Schauwer, 2022). To illustrate, the unexpected participation of a marginalized child in a group interview required immediate adaptation of procedural guidelines to ensure their inclusion. My decision during the research process adhered to ethical principles while also providing critical insights into systemic inequalities. Such examples illustrate the necessity of employing an ethically responsive bricolage of strategies that prioritize participants’ welfare and agency. In order to maintain the epistemological purpose of research, which is to advance understanding while preserving the dignity and autonomy of those involved, researchers must consistently balance institutional obligations with real-time ethical considerations (Panel on Research Ethics, 2022).

Discussion

Research involving minors who have endured sensitive and compounded experiences foregrounds ethical concerns about potential risks, which inadvertently marginalizes the epistemological validity of their lived experiences. Such unintentional exclusion of diverse narratives may impede efforts to address systemic inequities and entrenched injustices. While the legitimacy of these ethical risks cannot be understated, it is equally salient to recognize the transformative potential of this research. Studies engaging these populations can serve as constitutive acts that validate experiences, amplify historically silenced voices, and inform policies to dismantle structural oppression (Canosa and Graham, 2022). Moreover, mediating these ethical tensions demands nuanced and heuristic approaches to uphold participants’ welfare and dignity, reflecting the principles of Respect for Persons, Concern for Welfare, and Justice (Panel on Research Ethics, 2022).

In particular, the power asymmetries between researchers and participants are further magnified when researchers explore traumatic or adverse contexts. Such scenarios necessitate a relational and reflexive ethical approach that negotiates imbalances while prioritizing autonomy, agency, and inherent dignity. From an intersectionality standpoint (Collins and Bilge, 2020), minors’ vulnerabilities emerge at intersections of age, cultural identity, gender expression, and socioeconomic status—which necessitates flexible, context-responsive strategies. Meanwhile, relational ethics emphasizes mutual respect and empathy in researcher–participant interactions and acknowledges that building trust is foundational for meaningful data (Clavering and McLaughlin, 2010). Child-centered methodologies, in turn, grant minors a participatory role to reinforce the principle that minors have the right to influence decisions affecting them (Tangen, 2008).

Drawing on my lived experiences as a plurilingual, racialized researcher corroborated how an insider perspective can deepen empathy and cultivate rapport in emotionally charged inquiries. While procedural ethics reviews occasionally constrain participant-centered adaptations, many ethics committees work collaboratively with investigators to uphold flexible, context-sensitive standards that safeguard their rights. Integrating intersectionality, relational ethics, and child-centered methodologies demonstrated how theoretical frameworks could guide ethical practices that foreground equitable inclusion and respectful representation. Such theoretical alignment would ensure that ethical reviews mitigate risk and harness the potential of research with vulnerable minors to foster empowerment, resilience, and progressive social change.

Conclusion

This work focused on amplifying the voices of minors who shared their experiences of trauma and discrimination through various child-centric qualitative tools, including illustrations, storytelling, and writing, facilitated by translanguaging practices. These methods provided a nuanced and supportive, validating space for self-expression and honored the participants’ sociocultural repertoires to articulate their narratives in intrinsic and empowering ways. Participants in all three studies were identified as especially precarious within the educational spaces where they studied and through university ethical review processes. It is essential to reconceptualize these voices to prevent their epistemological marginalization by those claiming to act in their best interests or by policies that conflate paternalistic care with ethical responsibility and thereby shape their support experiences. Hence, researchers must respect participants’ agency, safeguard their welfare, and ensure their perspectives are not subjugated or overshadowed by hegemonic institutional priorities.

As research in this area is inherently complex and multifaceted, balancing asymmetrical power dynamics and creating a safe, ethical space for participants necessitates careful, iterative reflexivity. Researchers need to prioritize and empower young people to define the parameters of their participation and address competing priorities to acknowledge agency and accommodate diverse, context-specific needs within ethical research designs. While procedural ethics are constitutive in preemptively identifying risks, they can, at times, be insufficient in practice. The realities of ethical practice frequently demand contingent flexibility and ethical responsivity to address unanticipated complexities that even well-intended procedural frameworks alone cannot fully anticipate.

In practice, creating inclusive and participant-centered research spaces involves balancing procedural ethics with situational responsiveness. This approach respects the fluid nature of consent and confidentiality. Therefore, consistent with the Panel on Research Ethics (2022), institutional review boards are also meant to ensure that consent remains an ongoing, informed process rather than a one-time event. This iterative approach to consent aligns with established ethical principles, including the Tri-Council Policy Statement’s emphasis on ongoing participant autonomy. My experiences reinforce rather than contradict this principle, demonstrating how vital continual re-consent becomes when participants navigate sensitive issues. This principle is particularly relevant when working with vulnerable populations, as their circumstances and comfort levels may evolve during the research process. Also, understanding the concept of dynamic consent as an adaptable framework to address ethical concerns in evolving research contexts is increasingly recommended for longitudinal research; however, the value of investing in such systems is unclear.