Identificación con valores y pareja ideal

Ethical approval was given by the School Research Ethics Panel at the University of Huddersfield. Proxy consents were not obtained from any organisation or family members of the children to take part in the study, as children ‘of’ the street were living freely on their own. However, the study sought permission from the participants for in-depth interviews, to comply with ethical standards.

126 4.8.2 Informed consent

4.8.2.1Dispensing with consent - an ethnographic observation

Obtaining informed consent is obtaining permission for data collection, which is necessary for all types of data collection methods (Mack et al., 2005; Piper &

Simons, 2005). However, informed consent for observation in ethnographic studies is inappropriate (Mack et al., 2005; Wiles, 2005) and difficult (Wiles, 2005). Wiles (2005) assert that it is impossible to obtain informed consent from all the participants who are being observed in a public place such as a pub or in the street. Emond (2005) supports this view, suggesting that informed consent in an observational approach is determined by the research topic. In this case, I was faced with the dilemma of whether to obtain consent or not in the observation method of data collection. The question raised at first was how to obtain consent and what the participants should consent to. Informed consent in this preliminary aspect of my research of street children was inappropriate and impossible.

Primarily, observation in this research meant to observe widely, not to observe a particular child in a particular corner and therefore it was not feasible to obtain informed consent. Also, because of their mobile nature (Bemark, 1996;

Kombarakaran, 2004), gathering information from street children in a public place after informed consent was difficult. Street children are often reluctant, opposed or hesitant to engage in conversations with outsiders (Ayuku et al., 2003). Robson (2002) suggests that trying to get permission from participants to take part in an observation of them might not be accepted and if participants know that someone is in their midst and observing them, the researcher would be unable to preserve natural data in natural settings (Denscombe, 2003). Similarly, Emond (2005) notes that if the researcher aimed to gain consent before observation, it would

significantly disturb the participants’ natural state, and they would be unable to observe true events. Skaggs (2010) suggests that participants who are not influenced by a researcher will keep doing their natural activities and the researcher will be able to perceive real activities. Otherwise, the children may

127 intentionally decide to change their usual practices and so their natural activities would be destroyed by pre-scheduled observations (Green et al., 2006).

Therefore the idea of obtaining consent before the observation placed me in dilemma.

The issue of consent also arose in the light of the sensitivity of the research. The main purpose of utilising an observation method in this research was to observe naturally occurring behaviour from the street children’s natural context. It would have been impossible to collect information on behaviour and practices regarding HIV/AIDS/STIs after obtaining consent. For example, if children had been informed that a researcher was watching them to collect information, they would not have wanted to be seen using drugs or watching pornography. Observation was the only way to collect naturally occurring behaviour in their natural context.

Obtaining informed consent from the street children may have had a negative impact on the quality of the information, especially given the sensitivity of the research topic. Wiles (2005) takes a radical stance and argues that obtaining consent from participants in an ethnographic approach is inappropriate, because it undermines the exposure of social problems is the only way that some areas of social contexts can be exposed in order to aid understanding.

Hence, the information about street children’s natural habitats and behaviour was gathered through observation without informing the young people. However, information was collected by observing children in their natural contexts in ethical ways, without harming them physically or psychologically. Documentation of the observation information has not indicated the name of any particular child or a particular group. Information from the observation showed the behaviour and practices of the street children as a whole, which occurred in the public domain where anybody could observe them in their general context.

128 4.8.2.2Informed consent in in-depth interview

Informed consent in the case of in-depth interviews is essential, as it is the right of the participants to be informed about the research and its risks and benefits to them. It is difficult to gain consent from participants who have no responsible adults acting for them, such as street children who live on their own and are not associated with any organization or family. The study was of children ‘of’ the street who were not accessible through guardians, parents, relatives, care givers or service providers. Therefore, these children are autonomous individuals, and they make their decisions on their own. On the other hand, legal constrictions state that children under 16 are not legally competent to provide consent (Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA), 2012).Ethically however, it is important to gain informed consent from children who wish to take part in any research (Piper

& Simons, 2005). This was not a straightforward process and required the establishment of a rapport in the first instance. After building up rapport, and before the interviews started, participants were given information about the research: they were informed about the aims of the study and the kinds of topics that would be discussed in the interview, including the possible outcome of the research, its expected benefit and the time likely to be required. The young people were also fully informed about the anonymity and confidentiality of the

information collected from them and their rights during the interview (see

Appendix A). In order to adhere to ethical issues, I used a snowballing method to identify participants; once children were comfortable with me being in the area, had got to know me, and knew the reason I was there, they would inform others about the study. In this way children acted as gatekeepers and protected one another’s interests. The information provided to participants is shown in Appendix A. After the research information was provided, the consent form was explained verbally to each of the participants in their regional language. The consent form was written both in English and in Nepali languages. I read the consent form for those street children who were unable to read. Then they were given the choice between written and verbal consent, and assured that they could withdraw at any

129 time thereafter without giving a reason. The consent form is presented in

Appendix B.

4.8.3 Anonymity

Anonymity is a process of using pseudonyms in a report, in order to offer protection of privacy and confidentiality (Piper & Simons, 2005). Anonymity attempts to avoid identifying the people who have participated in research. The participants of the research remained anonymous throughout the study, as their identities were protected by using pseudonyms. The participants were informed about the possibility of using direct quotations from the interview and any future uses, but told that these would be fully anonymised. Anonymity was also

maintained by conducting the interviews in a private place so that a participant taking part was not observed by outsiders. Also, permission was obtained from the participants to take and to use their photos. However, the photos used in the research were obscured, and other identifying features changed, to anonymise them.

4.8.4 Confidentiality

Confidentiality is a procedure whereby a researcher talks in confidence and assures the participant of the confidentiality of the information collected during research (Piper & Simons, 2005). Prior to data collection, the street children were informed that all the information they provided would be treated in the utmost confidence except where there was risk of harm, in which case referral to an appropriate agency would be suggested. Confidentiality was maintained according to the data collection guidelines: field notes were accessed by the researcher and were kept secured and confidential while in Kathmandu. Only the researcher and supervisory team accessed the written information at University, field notes from

130 the interviews were kept in a secure place in a filing cabinet, and all electronic data were stored in the researcher’s password-protected computer.