DOCUMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Access to both children and their perspectives raises various ethical and methodological concerns. Not only must standard ethical requirements be sought with families such as briefing, consent, and data protection, but researchers must also consider the extent of the child’s involvement in deciding on their participation. This section discusses some of these ethical issues pertaining to conducting research with children and specific issues regarding the use of drawings as data.

Research approaches, agendas and design remain an area which is still predominantly determined and controlled by the researcher. This will inevitably impact children’s level of participation, opportunities to voice their preferences, and the level of power over how they are part of the research process. This is further developed by authors such as Uprichard (2009) who argues that there is a significant discrepancy between theory and practice

99 Despite what is discussed theoretically in child and childhood research, if we look at the kind of empirical research that children are actually involved in, practice would suggest that children are still considered to be only affective in terms of their own spaces, their own childhoods; even then, most recognise that children’s lack of power relative to adults in the social world limits the extent to which children’s agency can be exercised. (Ibid, 2009:4)

For this reason, there is a need to question issues of power within the research process and individuals’ roles: firstly, between the researcher and participant; and secondly, between the adult and the child.

3.4.1. Children, gatekeepers and consenting to participation

The participation of children in research is controlled by a hierarchy of gatekeepers such as parents, ethics committees, teachers, and caregivers (Hill et al., 2004). Consequently, Powell and Smith maintain that, ‘it is not easy…for children to exercise their right to participate in research’ (2009:125). Understandably, gatekeepers have a responsibility for children, protecting them from potential distress or coercion.

The inclusion of children in research relies heavily on the beliefs and values held by parents. These may include: perspectives on academic research, the positioning of children within society, the topic of research, as well as the methods and ethics involved in the research process.

In terms of gaining consent, the benefit offered by my study is that the method (drawing) and subject to be drawn (play) were seen as non-threatening and unobtrusive. Parents expressed interest in the study by asking questions and showing me their children’s previous drawings. They also allowed their children to escort me to their

100 bedrooms to see toys and play as well as leaving me alone with children after a very short period of time. These observations suggest that families did not consider the process as scrutinising private aspects of their lives, or that children were going to have a negative experience from participating in the research. Nevertheless, some studies have highlighted the ways in which research topics can impact the ease of gaining access to children. For instance, certain subjects discourage gatekeepers to involve their children in research if perceived as controversial or sensitive in nature (Powell & Smith, 2009). However, as demonstrated in the first pre-pilot, the father had great interest in my exploration of children’s drawing and illustrated great involvement in his daughter’s artistic expressions by showing me examples of her drawings on his personal blog.

It is the responsibility of the researcher to carry out research according to ethical codes of practice. One aspect of this is ensuring consent has been sought from all those involved at each stage of the research process (Morrow & Richards, 1996). Indeed, the issue of consent is a complex issue (Cameron, 2005; Danby & Farrell, 2004). It is a disputed topic where researchers critique the term as being inappropriate for research with children. Instead, researchers suggest children’s agreement to participate should be a process of informed assent (Harcourt & Conroy, 2005). In legal terms, it is the parents’ consent that is necessary for a child to participate in research (Cameron, 2005). However, studies are now emphasising the importance of gaining consent directly from children by actively consulting them and valuing their personal choice (Coyne, 2010; Tangen, 2008). For this reason, consent was sought from both parents and children. Initial consent from the child should be regarded as conditional, and continually revisited and revised in response to children’s willingness to participate (Einarsdottir, 2007; Flewitt, 2005). So it seemed more appropriate to consider their willingness to

101 participate as assent. Assent refers to the child’s acquiescence to participate rather than a commitment to take part. This requires the researcher to carefully detect non-verbal signals or behaviour reflecting any discomfort or dissent on account of the child’s agreement to participate being considered provisional (Stephen et al., 2008).

The use of children’s consent forms actively consults children in terms of their own participation, values their decisions, and empowers them through opportunities to provide their own signatures on adult-type forms. As became apparent from feedback from a number of families, the formalities of ensuring children’s rights have filtered down to most contexts and, as a result, parents are accustomed to the necessary protocols such as reading briefings to children and signing consent forms.

3.4.2. The ethical complexities of using drawings as data

Anonymity, confidentiality and safe storage are all concerns which seem obvious when dealing with participant information such as interviews transcripts, questionnaires or consent forms. Likewise, we must ensure that drawings are respected in the same manner as any other personal data (Malchiodi, 1998).

The extract below from my pilot study shows the personal nature of drawings and the deep meanings they possess, not only to the child, but between the child and someone significant in their lives.

I asked Juliet if I could keep the pictures which she had just drawn. Juliet’s expression suggested slight apprehension as she picked up her drawing, looking at it pensively …then suddenly smiled and said ‘Yeah’ handing me her drawings while explaining to her mother, ‘I’ll draw another when she’s gone, Okay?’

102 As if not to offend her mother, Juliet reassures her that she will draw more therefore allowing me to have these ones. Even though both parent and child had given consent at the beginning of the research in terms of me retaining the data produced, there is an obligation to respect the child’s prerogative at the time of creation. The child will have their own agenda for drawings which may have significant personal meaning and so we may need to confirm that drawings can be kept or photographed throughout the research process.

Many studies highlight the range of ethical issues pertaining to the use of visual images such as photos, video and drawings, with each posing unique challenges and choices to be made regarding anonymity, participant confidentiality, identity, and ownership. An important ethical concern regarding children’s drawings is the removal of a child’s name and how this relates to the integrity and authenticity of data. Indeed, it is common practice in nursery for children to put their names on drawings. However, this can raise various ethical concerns in the context of research. If children’s names are visible in the drawing, the researcher faces an important question: to remove or not to remove? Removing an aspect of a child’s drawing could be perceived as affecting the integrity of the data. If one removes the child’s name, something of great significance, then where would one stop? An older child may have the skill to produce a self-portrait with uncanny resemblance to themselves. Would this have to be censored to avoid the risk of identification? In addition, considering that many children at four years old may not be able to write their own names, the fact that they have written it on a drawing may be empowering for the child. Therefore, the ability to assign ownership to one’s own creation may hold significant meaning to a child. Some researchers have dealt with this issue by inserting a blank field over the name (Hopperstad, 2010:434). However, I question whether this is the best approach to managing the issue of anonymity.

103 Anonymity may be something that should be discussed and negotiated with both parents and children and could be dependent on the nature or topic of research. For instance, children and parents may be more concerned to maintain anonymity when sensitive topics are being explored such as abuse or deprivation. Therefore, guided by my theoretical approach I considered the inclusion of children’s names as an important part of that process as well as a symbol of ownership. A name is a representation and symbol in itself, therefore its addition within a picture may have important signification for the child. Accordingly, I decided to contact children and parents to seek their consent for using these drawings in my work, publications, and presentations, without removing the child’s name.