The process of assessing the project for ethical approval provided an opportunity not only to “proof” the research from a child-rights perspective, but also to critically examine the
rationale for researching a potentially sensitive subject area with vulnerable girls. Despite the project´s commitment to taking a child-centred approach, the ethical examination of the research plans and materials highlighted a number of areas where children´s rights could be undermined or where a conflict of rights could occur.
As Alderson and Morrow (2004) state, the ethical context will vary from project to project, depending on its approach, location and subject matter and so it was important to reflect in- depth on the possible challenges and pitfalls associated with the chosen methodology and the impact the research could have on both researchers and informants. In advance of the
fieldwork for this project, ethical approval was secured from the University of Essex Ethical Committee, which examined the justification for the research, the methodology, the
information and consent process, and the safeguards in place. The ethical approval
documents submitted to the Committee were based upon the original premise of the research, which was to examine the right to education of girls deprived of their liberty. Amendments to
the research hypothesis that took place following the data analysis did not affect the research tools during the fieldwork in Freetown to any great extent.
The main issues flagged by the ethics Committee included the risks posed to participants and researchers, the role of guardians in the consent process, and payment to participants. A significant concern centred on the area of confidentiality and anonymity, particularly with regard to the disclosure of abuse or harm. The ethical approval application originally stated that participants´ right to anonymity would be guaranteed, except in situations where they disclosed threats of serious harm. A member of the ethics board took exception to the reference to ´serious´ harm, commenting: “Of course anonymity is important, maybe even
with respect to risk of harm, but I thought it slanted too far of there needing to be really quite a risk before action might be taken, and also, there is no indication of whether there are effective actions that might be taken”7. As a result of this feedback, the application was amended to state that any disclosures of harm and abuse would have to be reported, while adding a segment on DCI-SL´s links to child protection and specialist services that would provide protection and support to girls and young women in the event of a disclosure. This was clearly communicated to research participants before the fieldwork process and, in hindsight, it was a fortunate amendment given that the discussions on the right to education frequently touched upon girls´ experiences of threatening and abusive behaviour in their schools and communities. In addition, I had not anticipated carrying out a discussion with such a large group as in Bonga Town, which took place in an open and public space, in the centre of the slum community. Although no personal accounts of harm or abuse were
7 Quotation is taken from feedback on my University of Essex Application for Ethical Approval of Research
Involving Human Participants (June 2012).
disclosed during the groups (the girls generally used the collective term “we” when
discussing their experiences of discrimination, threats and violence), it was fortunate that the blanket guarantee to anonymity and confidentiality had been removed and the limitations explained to the girls in advance of their giving consent to participate.
Another contentious subject that arose during the ethical approval process for the research was based on the reimbursement of participants. Special care was needed to ensure that incentives were not used to ´bribe´, in particular young people, to get involved, especially those from poor and disadvantaged communities. However, it is important that the input of participants is recognised, and so, in advance of the fieldwork, DCI-SL staff were consulted to organize appropriate ways of acknowledging people´s contributions. While the adults (professionals and community group members) did not receive any direct personal reimbursement, contributions were made to their community organisations and NGOs, including the Girl Power participants in Bonga Town and Rokupa. The girls and young women each received a certificate following the focus group discussions, which
acknowledged their input to the research, as well as a gift of stationary – pens, pencils and notebooks – a non-monetary incentive suggested by DCI-SL key workers that could be useful for the girls´ schoolwork. Finally, feedback was provided via a one-page summary of the research findings, alongside copies of a report based on the research titled A Mountain to
Climb, which was published by the DCI International Secretariat in 2015. The publication
and dissemination of the research findings and their use by NGOs, including DCI-SL, was an effective way of highlighting to research participants the value of their contributions, while raising awareness of issues of importance and providing an evidence base for advocacy and policy development. However, it was stressed to all the participants that the research would not lead to immediate changes for the better, so as not to raise expectations regarding the
outcomes.
The process of attaining ethical approval was worthwhile for a number of reasons. As a researcher, it was reassuring that the research methodology and tools had been assessed and approved by a group of objective outsiders, particularly from the viewpoint of safeguarding vulnerable participants. The process entailed considering the research from different angles, to explain why it was a meaningful undertaking and to consider its potential impact on those involved. Finally, analysing the research from an ethical perspective also provided an opportunity to put the child-rights ideals and language, set out in the research proposal, into practical reality and uncovered many of the project´s limitations in this respect, particularly with regard to the right to participation.