Smith & Powell—Ethical guidelines for research with children

Kōtuitui

New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online

Ethical guidelines for research with children: a review of current research ethics documentation in New Zealand

Mary Ann Powell
Anne B. Smith

Children’s Issues Centre
University of Otago
PO Box 56
Dunedin 9054, New Zealand

Abstract Children’s rights to participate in matters affecting them, including research, have gained increasing recognition over recent decades. This recognition, and the growth in research with children as participants, has given rise to greater attention from researchers to ethical issues related to child research. This article reviews the current ethics documentation in New Zealand. The findings indicate that considerable variation exists between ethical codes and guidelines in relation to research with children. The dominant focus is on attending to issues of consent and protection from harm, at the outset of the research, rather than recognition of the ongoing nature of ethical issues throughout the research process. Although the findings indicate an increase in the consideration of ethical issues, the existing documentation is inconsistent and inadequate in attending to specific child-related issues. Suggestions are made to enhance children’s participation in research and demonstrate a respect for their participation rights.

Keywords ethics; children’s rights; children

BACKGROUND

This article examines the issue of the ethical standards and guidelines which guide the New Zealand social science community’s research with children. It reviews and compares the content of this documentation in light of theoretical and policy issues for child research.

Ethics are a critical issue in all research, including research with children and young people. Ethics are defined as “a set of moral principles and rules of conduct” (Morrow & Richards 1996: 90) that weave through every aspect of research and are “concerned with respecting research participants throughout each project” (Alderson & Morrow 2004: 11). Ethical -issues, decisions, and requirements are important to researchers and research participants, and relevant to the quality of research outputs. The danger of the misuse of power in research was revealed by Coney & Bunkle (1989) in The Unfortunate Experiment, and this issue is also particularly pertinent in relation to research with children. Like many other minority groups, children lack power and have often been silenced, unheard, unprotected, and viewed as “unpeople” (John 2003: 12). The extent to which ethics documentation is sensitive to the position, rights, and status of children and specific childhood issues is therefore important.

As a consequence of new theoretical perspectives developed in the interdisciplinary field of childhood studies over the last two decades, there has been a change in the conceptualisation of childhood and an emphasis within research on accessing children’s own understanding of their childhood experiences, both internationally (Christensen & James 2000; Mayall 2002; Pufall & Unsworth 2004) and in New Zealand (Smith et al. 2000; Munford & Sanders 2004). Woodhead (2004: xi) points out that childhood studies represent:

…an emphasis on children as social actors, and empowering their participatory rights in all areas of social life, including child research.

These new theoretical perspectives emphasise children’s voice and agency, recognise children’s role as social actors in the construction of their own childhood, and “advance a view of children as competent and both willing and able to make decisions about matters such as participation in research” (Munford & Sanders 2004: 472). In accordance with these perspectives, research methodologies have been developed that emphasise the role of children as participants in research, rather than the passive objects of study as they were traditionally viewed (James & Prout 1997).

New Zealand ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) in 1993, and this widely used international treaty recognises children’s participation rights. In particular, Article 12¹ affirms children’s right to express their opinions and have these taken into account in any matters that affect them, while Article 13² recognises children’s right to freedom of expression and access to information about matters affecting them. Participation in any matters affecting children clearly includes participation in research. In ratifying the UNCROC, the New Zealand Government, as with other ratifying countries, has undertaken to “implement the Convention in law, policy and practice” (Alderson 2000: 22). There is an obligation therefore to ensure that children’s rights, including their right to participate, are respected and integrated into policies and documentation concerning research ethics.

The recognition of children’s participation rights and the developments in research with children participating have occurred both internationally and in New Zealand and have given rise to increased attention from researchers to ethical issues and standards. Sinclair (2004: 115) states that the growth in children’s participatory activity has meant that “the research community has examined their traditional ethical approaches to make them more relevant to research with children”.

This review of New Zealand ethics documentation, specifically relating to research with children, was undertaken as part of a larger study focusing on access and ethical issues impacting on children’s participation in research. The purpose of the review is to explore the content of the ethics documentation related to child research, with a focus on how children’s participation rights are respected in these documents.

ETHICAL GUIDELINES AND ETHICS COMMITTEES

Research with children gives rise to ethical issues that encompass those related to research with any human participant and those that are specific to child participants. Christensen & Prout (2002) suggest that a starting point in conducting research with children is the a priori assumption of “ethical symmetry”: “the view that the ethical relationship between researcher and informant is the same whether he or she conducts research with adults or children” (Christensen & Prout 2002: 482). The implications of this are that the same ethical principles and considerations apply in research with children as adults, including the three primary principles of respect, beneficence, and justice (Mishna et al. 2004).

Researchers generally contend, however, that there are unique ethical and methodological issues related to research with children (Lindsay 2000; Alderson 2004; Alderson & Morrow 2004; Mishna et al. 2004) mainly resulting from the power difference between adults and children. Disparities in power between adults and children are recognised as being the biggest ethical obstacle and challenge to researchers including children in research (Alderson 1995; Morrow & Richards 1996; Mayall 2000).

Research ethics is guided by ethical codes, standards, and guidelines and through a process of application to and scrutiny of research proposals by ethics committees. Researchers conducting research with children stress the ongoing nature of ethical considerations and that dilemmas may arise at any stage of the research process (Alderson 1995; Morrow & Richards 1996; Lindsay 2000). However, most ethical codes place a disproportionate emphasis on particular features of the research process (Lindsay 2000). A focus on specific ethical issues, such as gaining access to participants, recruitment, consent, anonymity, and confidentiality, is an indication that these requirements are in order. Less attention, however, may be given to ethical practice during the ongoing research process (Christensen & Prout 2002).

Since the early 1990s, New Zealand universities have established human research ethics committees (Social Policy Evaluation and Research Committee (SPEaR) 2005), as have other institutions (such as educational institutions Wintec and Unitec). Research ethics committees set up processes for evaluating research proposals and ensuring that research meets ethical guidelines. They play a vital role in the research process, raising awareness and monitoring ethical research standards. Ethics committees “can help prevent poor research, safeguard research participants, and be a protective barrier between potential participants and researchers” (Alderson & Morrow 2004: 77).

However, an interesting tension exists as ethics committees also “exist as much to protect researchers and institutions where research is being carried out as those who may be the subjects of research” (Morrow & Richards 1996: 96). Casey (2001) suggests that the bureaucratic formalisation of ethics that is being institutionalised within New Zealand universities, for example the requirement for written consent of subjects, is not primarily to ensure ethical conduct. “It is a more pragmatic, political concern that is a means by which the university acts to protect itself against harm or risk of legal attack” (Casey 2001: 139). Ethics committees are in the unenviable position of protecting all parties involved in the research process.

Vetting and approval of a research proposal, by an ethics committee, does not guarantee that the research project itself will be ethical, or that unethical research will be prevented. Ethics is an ongoing social practice and “ethical dilemmas may arise at any stage of the research and cannot be immunised against by having ethics approval” (Sligo 2001: 204). The -responsibility for ethical research ultimately lies with the researcher, but there is a danger that researchers may abdicate this responsibility to ethics committees (Alderson & Morrow 2004).

Ethical codes and guidelines are used to guide researchers in the design and implementation of research and to assist ethics committees in ensuring that ethical issues are attended to. This review of ethics documentation looked at the content of these ethical codes and guidelines, and asked the following research question:

To what extent do the ethics documents of institutions and research associations in New Zealand reflect a respect for children’s participation rights and specific child-related issues within social science research?

METHOD

This review of ethics documentation focuses on the ethical codes and guidelines of universities, the institutions accredited by the Health Research Council (HRC), and research associations. The focus of enquiry is the content of the codes and guidelines.

Eight tertiary educational institutions in New Zealand have recognised university status. These eight universities are AUT (Auckland University of Technology), Lincoln University, Massey University, the Universities of Auckland, Canterbury, Otago and Waikato, and Victoria University of Wellington. With the exception of two universities (Canterbury, Waikato), these universities have ethics committees accredited by the HRC. A further three institutions have ethics committees that are accredited by HRC, two of which were included in this review (Unitec, Wintec).³ Ethics documents from a total of 10 tertiary educational institutions were reviewed in this study.⁴

Each of these institutions has documentation relating to research ethics, providing guidance for research with regard to ethical issues. The ethics documentation from these institutions was usually readily available through the institution’s website. The ethics documentation not available on website was accessed by request from two institutions (Lincoln, Unitec), who sent the relevant information by email. Additional information to that available on the website was requested from three institutions (Victoria, Waikato, Wintec) and received from one (Waikato).

Ethics documentation from two relevant research associations—the New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE) and the Association of Social Science Researchers (ASSR)—was also reviewed. Again, this was available on organisation websites.

A limitation of this review is that it is based on documentation that is available on institutional websites and received from institutions on request. It is conceivable that further documentation exists that has not been accessed and thus not reviewed. Also, the review is limited solely to the ethical considerations specifically related to research with children within the ethical codes and guidelines accessed.

This review is part of a larger study which included interviewing researchers who had conducted research with children participating. The findings from the interviews are written about in detail elsewhere (see Powell 2006). However, this article also includes reference to interview data regarding researchers’ experience with ethics committees and the ethics approval processes.

The research study was qualitative in nature, using a hermeneutic methodology with an emergent research design and an inductive process of analysing data. An email interviewing method was used to interview 12 researchers who met the selection criteria of having carried out research with child participants and gained ethical approval for their research from some academic or professional body. The interview began with a written questionnaire style email which asked 10 starter questions, including one relating to what form of ethical approval was required for a project outlined, the process undergone to receive this, and asking participants to comment on this process. When the participants had responded to the initial questions, follow-up questions were sent to the participant to seek clarification and additional information.⁵

FINDINGS

Institutions’ ethics documentation

Reference to children

The extent of reference to research with children and specific child-related issues varied considerably in the documentation reviewed. It ranged from no reference at all, in the case of one institution (Wintec), to sections of documentation dedicated to ethical guidelines for research with child participants, in the case of three institutions (AUT, Auckland, Massey). The other six institutions fell somewhere in between these two poles, with children referred to as dependent or vulnerable research participants.

Within this latter group, there is considerable variation as to the degree of specific reference made to children as a unique group, and ethical issues specifically pertaining to child participants. Some ethical guidelines and policies make general statements: for example, there must be “special care taken of vulnerable participants (e.g., children)” (Victoria). The nature of the “special care” to be taken is not elaborated on. Children are included within a larger group of “vulnerable” people, and ethical issues specific to child participants are not referred to. On the other hand, some universities discuss research issues related to children in the context of special care for vulnerable participants but go on to discuss specific issues. As an example of this, one university (Otago) provided legal definitions of children and young people, and guidelines for obtaining informed consent and providing information to children. The Otago ethics documentation also includes an example of an information and consent sheet particularly tailored for child participants. So while children are subsumed within a larger “vulnerable” group in this documentation, specific detail relevant to children is provided.

As noted, the majority of the institutions whose ethics documentation is under review are accredited by the HRC. These institutions therefore have an established avenue for the ethical assessment of applications in the Operational Standards for Ethics Committees (Ministry of Health 2002). The ethics documentation of one university (AUT) directly incorporates the principles from the Operational Standards⁶ in its own ethics guidelines. Glimpses of phrasing from the Operational Standards can also be seen in the documentation of two other universities (Auckland, Massey). Interestingly, it is only three institutions that have alluded to this, despite eight of the institutions whose documentation was reviewed being HRC accredited.

Ethical issues

The specific ethical issues relating to research with children addressed in the documentation reviewed include consent, protection of child participants, information, confidentiality and anonymity, and financial inducements. The variation in documentation was considerable, as summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Ethical issues relating to children, addressed in the ethics documentation of institutions.

Consent

Protection

Information

Confidentiality/ anonymity

Financial inducement

Number of institutions addressing issues

9

5

5
(2 provide examples)

3

3

Consent

The ethical issue that dominates the documentation with regard to child participants is that of obtaining consent to participate. It is a key issue and is raised in all the policies and guidelines accessed that make reference to children.⁷

Two of the institutions (Canterbury, Lincoln) have the issue of consent as the sole mention in ethical guidelines relating to children. Both of these institutions require that for projects involving children written consent must be obtained from a legal representative, parents, or those acting in loco parentis. Both institutions also state that children must not be required to participate against their will. One university (Canterbury) says that consent of dependent persons (children) must be obtained as far as possible, and that “children are seen as having rights and that age appropriate consent is required”. However, what constitutes “age appropriate consent” is not detailed, and the statement that “children are seen as having rights” is not clarified or elaborated on. Three institutions (Auckland, Massey, Waikato) explicitly indicate that it may not always be in the child’s best interest to obtain consent from a parent or guardian. For example, one university (Massey) states that consent will normally be gained from a parent or guardian unless there is the potential for harm in doing so.

The age at which it is considered necessary to obtain consent from an adult varies between institutions, as does the flexibility around this issue. Three institutions (Canterbury, Lincoln, Unitec) require consent from a parent or caregiver for all child participants. One of these and three other institutions (AUT, Auckland, Massey, Unitec) consider a participant a child if under the age of 16 years. However, the guidelines appear somewhat more flexible with the latter three, and parental consent is not always required.

All of the documentation reviewed includes recognition in the general ethical provisions that participants have the right to decline to participate in the research. However, this is only mentioned specifically with regard to child participants by five of the institutions (AUT, Auckland, Canterbury, Lincoln, Otago). One other institution (Massey) makes reference to protecting the anonymity of children who do not wish to participate, which implies that children are not compelled to participate.

Thus, ethics documentation about the child’s consent, a parent or guardian’s consent, and the age or understanding of the child at which it is deemed appropriate to obtain consent, varies considerably. Most institutions require consent from a parent or guardian if the child is under 16 years. However, some institutions have flexibility around the obtaining of parental consent, dependent on the nature and features of the research project (Auckland, Otago) and the understanding of the child (AUT, Massey). The guidelines of two institutions (AUT, Auckland) include obtaining informed assent if children are considered unable to give informed consent.

Protection of child participants

The ethics documentation of five universities (AUT, Auckland, Massey, Otago, Victoria) refers to the vulnerability of children and the need for special care or protection. Again, the extent of guidance provided in the documentation varies widely between these institutions. One of them (Victoria) states that special care is to be taken and refers to children as vulnerable participants, but there is no further comment. Two universities (Massey, Otago) discuss this in terms of obtaining consent for participation.

Three universities (AUT, Auckland, Massey) have included a statement to the effect that research with children should not be undertaken unless there is a specific and demonstrable need for it and no other way to gain the knowledge. This echoes one of the key principles in the Operational Standards for Ethics Committees (Ministry of Health 2002): namely, that research should only be done with children if comparable research with adults could not answer the same question. These three institutions also state that the research must not be against the interests of the individual child participant.

The guidelines of one university (Auckland) give reasons for protecting children, including the potential for research to raise concerns for children. Another university’s (AUT) ethics documentation refers to the particular vulnerability of children, the need for special consideration of ethical issues surrounding their involvement in research, and the power imbalance that exists between adults and children. It states that “pressure must not be placed on a child to agree to participate in a research project”. The requirements for both institutions (AUT, Auckland), in addition to those for adult participants, include issues of consent and assent, provision of information, and inducements.

Information

Ethics documentation from five of the institutions (AUT, Auckland, Massey, Otago, Unitec) states that information must be provided for children in a form that is appropriate and understandable for them. Information sheets are to be provided for children, although Unitec notes that with young children it may be more appropriate to provide a verbal explanation. The University of Auckland’s guidelines specify that children must be fully informed, have the opportunity to ask questions and have those answered satisfactorily.

Two of the institutions (AUT, Otago) provide an example of an information sheet and consent form for children with their ethics documentation. These are specifically tailored for children and use appropriate language for child participants.

Confidentiality and anonymity

Little mention is made of confidentiality or anonymity, specifically in relation to research with children, in institutions’ ethics documentation. One university (Waikato), in providing guidelines for observation and research in schools and early childhood centres, states that research data must be kept confidential and that no individual should be identifiable. Parents do not have a right to access individual data, and this is expected to be clearly explained to parents and children before obtaining consent.

Two universities (Auckland, Massey) provide a statement regarding the anonymity of children in school class or group settings. Procedures must be put in place to protect the anonymity of those children who do not wish to participate, or whose parent or guardian has declined consent to participate. The provisions for non-participants, when others in the group are participating, must be explained in the information sheet.

Financial inducements

Three of the universities (AUT, Auckland, Massey) refer to financial inducements in the ethics documentation. In keeping with the guidelines of the Operational Standards for Ethics Committees (Ministry of Health 2002), they all state that no financial inducement is to be offered to children or to families to persuade them to allow the child to participate in the research. Provisions may be made for the compensation of research-associated costs, and a small gift for children may be offered after their participation in the project.

Research associations’ ethics documentation

The two research associations particularly relevant to this study are the NZARE and the ASSR. Both of these associations play a supportive and guiding role for researchers. They do not have ethics committees or consider research proposals, but both have ethics documentation to guide researchers.

The NZARE Ethical Guidelines (1998) include avoiding harm, informed consent, and confidentiality. The guidelines state that these are to be read in conjunction with institutional guidelines and the ethical codes promulgated by professional bodies. A specific reference is made to children in regard to informed consent, stating that this should “normally be obtained from parents or others who are responsible for them, and (where age permits) the child” (NZARE 1998: 2).

The ASSR Code of Ethics (1996) states that members should abide by the ethical codes of their professional organisations. However, the ASSR Code of Ethics operates as a default ethical code for applicants to the Research Access Committee operated by Child, Youth and Family Services if they do not have an ethical code to abide by: for example, if they are not members of a professional body. The ASSR Code specifically mentions children and informed consent. The UNCROC is referred to, with the statement that “children should give informed consent on their own behalf, subject to the limitations of the age and maturity of the child, in accordance with Article 12” (ASSR 1996: 1). The code states that normally parental consent should be sought but that sometimes the refusal of consent by a parent or caregiver may not be in the best interests of the child, citing Article 3 of the UNCROC (paramountcy of best interests). Age is also mentioned in the ASSR Code in regard to avoiding harm and being sensitive in relation to individual circumstances.

Researchers’ interview data

The majority of participants were familiar with the process of applying for ethics approval and found it relatively straightforward. Some participants commented on the lengthy time involved but indicated that it was a worthwhile process. Comments included reference to ensuring that the project was well thought through, worthwhile and of benefit, and provided back-up for both the researcher and participants if needed.

The key issues raised by participants regarding the ethics approval process were related to consent and protection from harm. The requirement to gain parental consent is a controversial issue, and there were indications of inconsistency in participants’ experiences of ethics committee requirements with regard to this. However, in all the research projects outlined in this study, the ethics committees required parental consent with research involving children under the age of 16 years, which suggests that this is the usual requirement.

Ensuring children’s safety and using skilled researchers/interviewers were required by most ethics committees. Several participants had the view that clearly attending to these features, particularly when sensitive research topics were involved, contributed to a straightforward ethics approval process, whereas two other participants expressed frustration that their skills and expertise appeared to be disregarded.

Lack of consistency from ethics committees, both between committees and within them, was raised as an issue, mostly with regard to consent requirements. One participant also raised cultural issues in relation to consent requirements, noting that for Pasifika representatives, parental consent is always deemed necessary.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this review demonstrate considerable variation in the existing ethics documentation with regard to research with child participants. The extent to which specific child-related issues are addressed fluctuates widely as does the extent to which the documentation reflects a respect for children’s participation rights.

The findings indicate that, for the most part, the situation in New Zealand is congruent with Lindsay’s (2000) assertion that scant attention has been devoted specifically to children in existing codes of research. Therefore, consistent respect for children’s participation rights within social science research ethics documentation is demonstrably lacking. The variations between ethical codes, policies, and guidelines would seem to suggest that this is not a static state. However, these variations and the experiences of the researchers who participated in the study reflect an increase in consideration of ethical issues relating to research with children and young people.

The child-related issues that occur most frequently in the ethical policies, guidelines, and codes in New Zealand are those of informed consent and protection of research participants. These were also the key issues raised by participants we interviewed and are consistent with Morrow & Richards’ (1996) contention that discussions about research ethics with children are centred on these two key preoccupations.

There is considerable variation in the guidance provided with regard to these two issues. While obtaining informed consent for any research participant is recognised by the institutions as critical, the overall impression gained is that there is no real consensus regarding child research as to the nature of the consent to be gained, the process through which this should occur, or the ethical considerations involved. This has serious ramifications for children’s participation in research in New Zealand, with a lack of consistency between institutions, as noted by some of the participants interviewed. Some institutions continue to require only parental or guardian consent, and we share Ireland & Holloway’s (1996: 157) assertion that gaining consent from parents or guardians “does not negate the moral obligation of asking children for their agreement”. Although the majority of researchers interviewed consider children’s consent a critical component of the research process, it clearly needs to be specifically stated as a requirement in ethical codes and guidelines. Two institutions make reference to gaining a child’s assent as an alternative to consent. Assent is regarded by some researchers as a substitute for consent, so that children do not consent in their own right but assent to their parent’s consent. This is a view not shared by the authors, as we would argue that obtaining consent is fundamental to respecting children’s participation rights.

An important aspect of informed consent is the provision of information to the participants. The need for age appropriate information to be provided to child participants was addressed in the ethics documentation of one-half of the institutions, with two providing samples. Informed consent involves children understanding the purpose and the process of the research and “is a two way exchange of information” (Alderson 2002), continuing through the research process (Alderson 1995). Discussions of competence to give informed consent usually focus on the age of the children (Morrow & Richards 1996). This is being challenged, however, and studies have demonstrated that even very young children are able to give informed consent if approached ethically (Hedges 2002; Bone 2005). We contend that obtaining the informed consent of children is an essential aspect of the research process and a necessary requirement for ethical research practice, demonstrating respect for children and their participation rights, and that the ethics documentation must be amended to reflect this.

There is also considerable variation between institutions regarding the issue of the protection of child participants. Generally, there is a lack of elaboration around the understanding of protection or the vulnerability and dependency of children. The use of undefined terminology and generalised statements and the lack of procedural detail are problems. How ideas of protection, vulnerability, and dependency impact on children’s participation in research is not addressed. However, this is not the case across the board, as some institutions have gone to considerable lengths to ensure that children are both protected and have access to participation in research.

There is a need for elaboration on these issues if the ethical codes are to provide useful guidance. While other child-related issues are present in the documentation, for example, anonymity, confidentiality, and financial inducements, the dominance of the issues of informed consent and the protection of child participants has important implications. It highlights the tension that exists in balancing the participation and protection rights of children, both of which are important areas as recognised in the UNCROC. The inherent vulnerability of children, as a consequence of biological immaturity and thus a greater dependency on adults for guidance and safety, means that researchers and significant adults in children’s lives have an ethical responsibility to protect children. This ethical responsibility can develop into overprotection, however, which affects their access to participation in a range of experiences including research (Morrow & Richards 1996). The overprotection contributes toward the structural vulnerability of children, which is not a biological reality but rather children’s lack of power and status within our societal structures (Lansdown 1994). Although this is most salient in relation to sensitive topics, it is also evident in other research, with a general perception of children as vulnerable implying a need for adult protection (Miller 2000). The nature of protection is a disputable concept, however, with some researchers noting that overprotection may be as harmful as neglect (Alderson 1995) and that true protection of children requires protection of their rights, including that of participation (Sandbaek 1999; Miller 2000).

Lindsay (2000: 18) notes that “research on ethical dilemmas has indicated that practice cannot be made to fit written codes, however well they are devised”. There is a danger that after gaining approval from an ethics committee, a project may be regarded as ethical in its entirety. The issues given precedence by ethics committees (consent and protection), and the requirements that are consequently attached to these, can mean that other ongoing ethical issues are given less attention (Christensen & Prout 2002). This is of particular concern given the fluctuating level and depth of reference to children and the lack of consistency found in the review of ethics documentation. It is conceivable that research projects could be undertaken attending only to the ethical requirements as stipulated by the specific codes and requirements. Conversely, ethical codes do not necessarily reflect research practice, as indicated in our interviews with researchers, or ethics committees’ requirements.

Ethical issues are ongoing throughout the research process (Alderson 1995; Morrow & Richards 1996; Lindsay 2000; Tolich 2001) and the recognition of this is particularly pertinent when the research participants are children, given the existing and ongoing power differential between adult researchers and child participants. We share Tolich’s (2001: 10) view that “ethics, then, is not just access-related or concerned with informed consent … Its focus needs to be the entire research process so as to protect the people in the study”.

The research associations considered each have a code of ethics for members, focusing on ethical professional conduct. These codes contain specific reference to child-related issues, including the issues of consent and protection. The ASSR regards the issue of children’s informed consent in the context of the UNCROC and thus a children’s rights framework. In doing so, it brings the policy into line with New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention.

The findings show that institutions differ in the amount and nature of guidance given to researchers regarding ethical issues with children. Influences of differing views about children, competency, vulnerability, protection, and rights are apparent in the differing guidelines. However, the existing documentation in New Zealand, like ethical codes in other countries, currently has a relative lack of specific and consistent attention to these unique ethical issues (Lindsay 2000; Mishna et al. 2004).

A disparity clearly exists between the increased recognition of children’s participation rights as a consequence of new theoretical perspectives and the lack of recognition specifically accorded children and child-related issues in research ethics documentation. The vast majority of researchers interviewed indicated a keen awareness of, and consequent attendance to, ethical issues in conducting research with children. The overwhelming implication is that the institutions in New Zealand have been slow to grasp and systematically address the ethical issues specific to conducting research with child participants.

A key issue to arise out of this review is how the unique ethical issues can be attended to within the codes. Ethical principles may conflict and researchers sometimes have to give greater emphasis to one principle over another. Alderson & Morrow (2004) suggest that ethics raise questions rather than provide clear solutions. They promote the use of frameworks that have been developed, based on philosophical debate about duty, rights, and harm and benefit, which “offer useful ways to think about potential problems in social research and of preventing or reducing the problems” (Alderson & Morrow 2004: 31).

Frameworks and guidelines that encourage researchers to consider ethical issues and methods that enhance children’s participation throughout the research process do exist in some areas and could usefully be incorporated into ethics documentation. Ethical guidelines have been written in the New Zealand context, relating to health research with children (Peart & Holdaway 2000) and research in early childhood settings (Cullen et al. 2005). Peart & Holdaway’s (2000) guidelines have been incorporated into the Health Research Council and Ministry of Health ethics documentation, and are cited in some institutional ethics guidelines. The framework developed by Cullen et al. (2005) is structured around the processes of planning, undertaking, and disseminating research in early childhood settings, and raises practical questions and considerations for researchers and others involved in the research process.

The indications from this review are that ethics documentation lacks specificity and consistency, and that ethics committees vary widely in their responses. An implication of this is that the level of expertise and knowledge fluctuates within and between ethics committees. A possibility in providing ethical guidance to ethics committees, organisations, and researchers, could be the development of specialist research ethics committees for consultation regarding research with children and young people, which would allow those with specific expertise and greater awareness of the ethical issues to review research proposals (Stalker el al. 2004). A further suggestion is the use of independent agencies to review research proposals (Gilbertson & Barber 2002). The Office of the Children’s Commissioner “is an independent authority and promotes children’s and young people’s wellbeing through advocacy, consultation, monitoring, research and investigation” (Office of the Children’s Commissioner 2004). As such, the Office and its Young People’s Reference Group could potentially have a role in reviewing research proposals.

It would seem there is some way to go before ethics documentation across the board in New Zealand achieves an ethical balance reflecting respect for children’s participation and protection rights. There are some fundamental issues that we argue should be standard to ethical requirements. Firstly, children should always be required to give consent to participation and the opportunity to refuse and withdraw at any stage during the research process. Secondly, information should always be provided in a child-friendly form about the project, including what participation will require, the purpose of the research, and any potential risks or effects. Thirdly, the researchers should have sufficient knowledge and understanding to be able to reflexively consider children’s responses as the research process unfolds, and thus any ethical issues as they arise. We consider that these three criteria are essential ethical requirements and integral to ensuring children’s participation rights are upheld. Ethical research should:

… enable children to be heard without exploiting them, protect children without silencing and excluding them, and pursue rigorous inquiry without distressing them. (Alderson & Morrow 2004: 12)

REFERENCES

Alderson P 1995. Listening to children: children, ethics and social research.London, Barnardos.

Alderson P 2000. Young children’s rights: exploring beliefs, attitudes, principles and practice.London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Alderson P 2002. Children, healing, suffering and voluntary consent. In: Bendelow G et al. ed. Gender, health and healing: the public/private divide.New York, Routledge. Pp. 198–211.

Alderson P 2004. Ethics. In: Fraser S, Lewis V, Ding S, Kellett M, Robinson C ed. Doing research with children and young people. London, Sage Publications. Pp. 97–112.

Alderson P, Morrow V 2004. Ethics, social research and consulting with children and young people. Barkingside, Barnardos.

ASSR (Association of Social Science Researchers) 1996. Code of ethics. http://www.assr.rsnz.org/membshp/ASSRETHI.doc [accessed 1 August 2005]

Bone J 2005. An ethical journey: rights, relationships and reflexivity. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 30: 1–6.

Casey C 2001. Ethics committees, institutions and organisations: subjectivity consent and risk. In: Tolich M ed.Research ethics in Aotearoa New Zealand: concepts, practice, critique. Auckland, Pearson Education. Pp. 127–140.

Christensen P, James A 2000. Researching children and childhood: cultures of communication. In: Christensen P, James A ed. Research with children: perspectives and practices.London, Falmer Press. Pp. 1–8.

Christensen P, Prout A 2002. Working with ethical symmetry in social research with children. Childhood 9: 477–497.

Coney S, Bunkle P 1989. The unfortunate experiment: the full story behind the inquiry into cervical cancer treatment. Auckland, Penguin.

Cullen J, Hedges H, Bone J 2005. Planning, undertaking and disseminating research in early childhood settings: an ethical framework. Wellington, Childforum’s Early Childhood Research Network.

Gilbertson R, Barber J 2002. Obstacles to involving children and young people in foster care research. Child and Family Social Work 7:253–258.

Hedges H 2002. Beliefs and principles in practice: ethical research with child participants. New Zealand Research in Early Childhood Education 5:31–47.

Ireland L, Holloway I 1996. Qualitative health research with children. Children and Society 10:155–164.

James A, Prout A ed. 1997. Constructing and reconstructing childhood: contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. 2nd ed. London, Falmer Press.

John M 2003. Children’s rights and power: charging up for a new century.London, Jessica Kingsley.

Lansdown G 1994. Children’s rights. In: Mayall B ed. Children’s childhoods: observed and experienced. London, Falmer Press. Pp. 33–44.

Lindsay G 2000. Researching children’s perspectives: ethical issues. In: Lewis A, Lindsay G ed. Researching children’s perspectives.Buckingham, Open University Press. Pp. 3–20.

Mayall B 2000. Conversations with children: working with generational issues. In: Christensen P, James A ed. Research with children: perspectives and practices. London, Falmer Press. Pp. 120–135.

Mayall B 2002. Towards a sociology of childhood: thinking from children’s lives. Buckingham, Open University Press.

Meho L 2006. E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: a methodological discussion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57: 1284–1295.

Miller S 2000. Researching children: issues arising from a phenomenological study with children who have diabetes mellitus. Journal of Advanced Nursing 31: 1228–1234.

Ministry of Health 2002. Operational standards for ethics committees. http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/49ba80c00757b8804c256673001d47d0/ffc06a2c2009deeecc256b9400787b61?OpenDocument [accessed 1 August 2005].

Mishna F, Antle B, Regehr C 2004. Tapping the perspectives of children: emerging ethical issues in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work 3: 449–468.

Morrow V, Richards M 1996. The ethics of social research with children: an overview. Children & Society 10: 90–105.

Munford R, Sanders J 2004. Recruiting diverse groups of young people to research. Qualitative Social Work 3: 469–482.

NZARE (New Zealand Association for Research in Education) 1998. Ethical guidelines. http://www.nzare.org.nz/pdfs/NZARE-Ethical-Guidelines.pdf [accessed 1 August 2005].

Office of the Children’s Commissioner 2004. About the Commissioner. http://www.occ.org.nz/childcomm/about_us/about_the_commissioner?eZSESSIDchildcomm=74378c41d189709f9c1f27920eb7fc0e [accessed 8 January 2006].

Peart N, Holdaway D 2000. Ethical guidelines: health research with children. New Zealand Bioethics Journal 1: 3–9.

Powell MA 2006. Children’s participation in research: access and ethical issues. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Pufall P, Unsworth R ed. 2004. Rethinking childhood. New Brunswick NJ, Rutgers University Press.

Sandbaek M 1999. Adult images of childhood and research on client children. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2: 191–202.

Sinclair R 2004. Participation in practice: making it meaningful, effective and sustainable. Children and Society 18:106–118.

Sligo J 2001. Conducting an ethical research project with children. In: Children’s understandings about success. Unpublished Masters thesis, Otago University, Dunedin. Pp. 201–228.

Smith A, Taylor N, Gollop M ed. 2000. Children’s voices: research, policy and practice. Auckland, Pearson Education.

Social Policy Evaluation and Research Committee 2005. SPEaR best practice guidelines starter paper: applying ethics. http://www.spear.govt.nz/SPEAR/SPEAR/documents/attachments/DRAFT-Good-Practice-Guidelines-Package-3-May-05.doc [accessed 16 August 2005].

Stalker K, Carpenter J, Connors C, Phillips R 2004. Ethical issues in social research: difficulties encountered gaining access to children in hospital for research. Child: Care, Health and Development 30: 377–383.

Tolich M 2001. Beyond an unfortunate experiment: ethics for small-town New Zealand. In: Tolich M ed. Research ethics in Aotearoa New Zealand: concepts, practice, critique. Auckland, Pearson Education. Pp. 2–12.

Woodhead M 2004. Foreword. In: Kehily MJ ed. An introduction to childhood studies. Maidenhead, Open University Press. Pp. x–xi.

¹Article 12: State parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

²Article 13: The child shall have the right to freedom of expression, freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.

³Zenith Technology Corporation, the other institution accredited by HRC, does not conduct research with participants under the age of 18 years and thus is excluded from this review.

⁴These include the eight universities and the two relevant HRC accredited institutions—Wintec and Unitec.

⁵For detail regarding the email interview method used, see Powell (2006), or for an excellent guide see Meho (2006).

⁶Operational Standards for Ethics Committees (Ministry of Health 2002), Appendix 1, Guidelines for Health Research with Children.

⁷That is, with the exception of Wintec, which as noted makes no specific reference to children in the ethics documentation accessed.

This year's abstracts | Journal home page | All abstracts | Publishing home page