Subdirección de Control Interno y Transparencia

The sensitive nature of the topic and the age of the teenage participants raised ethical concerns (Alanen, 1990; Renzetti and Lee, 1993). There was a need to balance teenagers’ participation and promoting their empowerment with their rights to protection within this research process (see Percy-Smith and Thomas, 2010). Teenagers’ participation is necessary as they are directly concerned and are therefore best placed to describe their understanding and experience (see James et al, 1998), ‘adolescence is not only a time of vulnerability, but also an age of opportunity’ (UNICEF, 2011: iii). Protection from harm is a valid concern (Butler and Williamson, 1994). However, a strong protectionist discourse can deny teenagers the right to give their views on issues and experiences they consider important (Morrow and Richards, 1996; Powell and Smith, 2009) by excluding them on ‘the basis of potential risk’ (Graham and Fitzgerald, 2010; Heptinstall, 2000). Emphasis was placed on the importance of

139

establishing sound relationships with organisational gatekeepers to navigate this process (Berrick et al, 2000; Powell and Smith, 2009; Thomas and O'Kane, 1998). It was hoped that my personal experience of work in the refuge sector would support successful negotiation and satisfy gatekeepers that this study was valuable (Sime, 2008).

This research followed the standards presented by Graham et al (2013) in the ‘Ethical Research Involving Children’ Compendium. According to this compendium, the fundamental principles of research should be respect, benefit and justice. These principles are underpinned by ethics of harms and benefits, informed consent, privacy, confidentiality and payment. Each concern will be discussed below. The bulk of the discussion will concern teenage participants due to the nature of this research and their position as ‘vulnerable’.

Potential Harm

Protection from further harm (Alderson and Morrow, 2004) was considered an integral part of the research planning, implementation and dissemination (Graham et al, 2013). This was balanced with enabling potential participants to make informed choices to participate (Dickson-Swift et al, 2008; McLaughlin and Shardlow, 2009; Schenk and Williamson, 2005). All participants received an information sheet (Appendices Three and Six). For teenagers, this included details of relevant helpline numbers, websites and services to access additional support, if required. Participants were provided with opportunities to discuss the interview afterwards or ask questions. I was prepared to end interviews if

140

participants became distressed. The potential for harm was less for staff who were not asked to discuss personal experiences.

Benefits

It was explained to teenagers that this study would not directly benefit their immediate situation. Existing research suggested participants might indirectly benefit by voicing their opinions regarding future improvements for others (e.g. Buckley et al, 2006; Cater and Øverlien, 2014; Stafford et al, 2007). Of direct immediate benefit was a gift voucher they received at each session. Added potential benefits were later identified by participants and included increased confidence, personal development, and enhanced social skills. Interviews also helped participants make sense of their own experience of staying in a refuge(s). The most important benefit reported by teenagers in this study was feeling listened to.

Direct benefit to staff was not a focus of this study, but some found giving their opinions and contribution to knowledge a positive experience in helping to improve awareness of interventions they provided. Participation also encouraged reflection and potential service development. At least one refuge successfully applied for funding for new equipment for teenagers specifically. Other staff found participation interesting, or wanted to exercise autonomy through participation. This was particularly meaningful for those undergoing organisational changes.

141

A short summary sheet will be produced containing the key messages from the findings and emailed to those refuges recruited. It will also be available to those individual participants who requested it.

Payment and Compensation

There is no consensus regarding paying young people for participation in research (Kellett and Ding, 2004) or what is appropriate (Gallagher, 2009; see Alderson and Morrow, 2011 for discussion). Teenagers were provided with a £10 gift voucher after each interview to acknowledge that their time and effort was valued (Fargas-Malet et al, 2010; Hill, 2005; Laws and Mann, 2004). Teenagers were required to participate in their own time, between other activities, on multiple occasions (if they wished). Payment appeared to motivate some teenagers in this study; others opted in with no knowledge of the voucher available. Teenagers wanted to talk about or raise awareness of their experiences, or to pass the time. Many teenagers reported that they wanted to continue to participate regardless of the voucher. Often teenagers emailed or texted to arrange the next visit or communicate about particular issues, suggesting control over their research participation. It was stressed that participants could withdraw from the research at any stage without consequence (Gallagher, 2008; Veale, 2005). Four participants withdrew at various stages regardless of payment, demonstrating they did not feel obliged to continue (Laws and Mann, 2004). Staff participating in this research did not receive payment as they usually participated during work hours and undertook a single interview.

142 Informed Consent

Consent was promoted as a process and checked throughout. This decision was shaped by the view that negotiation of consent is always contingent and situated (Sin, 2005), underpinned by Larkins’ (2014) principle of ‘fluid consent’. Teenage participants were required to ‘opt-in’ using written consent. Appropriately designed detailed information sheets (Appendices Two, Three, Five and Six) were provided to a series of gatekeepers and potential participants (Alderson and Morrow, 2011; Gallagher et al, 2010). Staff were asked to ‘opt in’ on a voluntary basis. I could not be entirely sure if this was the case as staff had been forwarded the email by a manager.

This research planned to elicit teenagers’ active agreement and their mothers’ passive agreement to privilege teenagers’ decision making and participation rights (Carroll-Lind et al, 2006; Thomas and O'Kane, 1998). The University of Central Lancashire’s PsySoc Ethics Committee directed, however, that mothers should provide active consent for their child’s participation. This reinforces the view that young people are often not considered ‘competent enough to give their informed consent’ which ‘needs to be gained from a “more competent adult” (Kellett and Ding, 2004: 166). Teenagers gave consent for participation themselves from the age of 16, as 16 to 18 year olds can reside in refuges independently. Seeking parental consent in such situations was inappropriate for safety reasons, whilst seeking parental consent for dependent 16 to 18 year olds would have subjected them to arbitrary age discrimination.

143

It was emphasised that non-consent would not adversely affect the support families received in the refuge. In the event, obtaining mothers’ or carers’ consent did not pose a barrier to participation (Alderson, 1995; Hart and Lansdown, 2002; Skelton, 2008). Mothers reported that the decision had been made by their son or daughter, demonstrating perceptions of teenagers’ decision-making capacity. On a practical level, where mothers’ first language was not English, staff translated the consent form verbally or in writing.

Staff consent to telephone interviews was sought by emailing information, sometimes via a manager and then through telephone contact. Where staff expressed an interest, staff were contacted to agree a time for interview. Staff may have felt in a more powerful position compared to teenagers in this study, as seen by staff’s repeated postponement of planned telephone interviews or lack of response to emails. One staff member did not consent to audio recording. She reported this was a management instruction.

Privacy and Confidentiality

Privacy is considered to be a ‘vital’ ethical concern (Alderson and Morrow, 2011). It means that ‘entrusted information received from children must be respected and safeguarded’ (Graham et al, 2013: 75). Privacy was respected under the Data Protection Act 1998. I confirmed participants’ understanding that their data would be used without compromising rights to confidentiality, privacy and anonymity (Williamson et al, 2005). Identifying information, including real names and location, has been removed.

144

Teenage and adult participants had the same rights, with the understanding that confidentiality would not over-ride the duty to protect participants’ welfare (Alderson and Morrow, 2011; Laws and Mann, 2004; Schenk and Williamson, 2005). Issues of safety, privacy and anonymity were acknowledged as important for these teenagers (Baker, 2005; Stafford et al, 2007; Stafford and Smith, 2009). Confidentiality encompassed public and social network confidentiality, and third party breach of privacy (Hill, 2005). Rights to, and limits of, confidentiality were explained verbally and included in consent forms (Alderson, 1995). Cater and Øverlien (2014: 74) advise that children exposed to domestic violence often have ‘extensive experience of not being listened to, of not being asked about their preferences or wishes, and of having to adjust to adult decisions taken over their heads’. Processes were therefore set up to ensure that, as much as possible, young people would be involved in decisions, including those relating to confidentiality.

Teenagers were able to choose who was present during interviews. Two teenagers undertook their initial interview together. This raised issues of privacy and confidentiality but also resulted in them distracting each other, amending answers, and perhaps ‘holding back’. Two teenagers were happy to have their mothers present. One of these mothers could not speak English but could understand parts of our discussion. Both mothers interrupted participants with their own views.

I learned from staff that one mother had asked her son about the content of his initial interview. The teenage participant informed his mother that the interview was confidential. Concerned this may cause alarm and prevent further

145

participation, I clarified the nature of confidentiality. The participant explained that he had chosen not to inform his mother about his views and our discussion. He insisted that the interview was his space to talk about feelings and things he found difficult to verbalise. Surprisingly, lack of child to parent disclosure did not prove to be a barrier to continued parental consent.

I had planned for teenagers to choose their own pseudonym. Pseudonyms were used owing to the small number of teenagers in refuges and confidential nature of refuge loctions (see Creswell, 2013; Patton, 2002). It was, however, a stipulation of the ethics committee that teenagers were provided with a pre- formulated list to avoid the risk of choosing a known or identifiable nickname. Three girls chose names from the boys section (Mohammed and Bob). Two of these girls selected the same name (Mohammed). Another boy also chose Bob, wanting to be called Bob Marley. The teenagers’ selected pseudonyms have been retained to help reduce our unequal power relationship. Staff are referred to numerically, for example, S1, to S25.

Power and Participation

Attention has been given to addressing power relations inherent in the research process (Christensen and Prout, 2002; Cocks, 2006; Komulainen, 2007) There are power differences in any research, particularly when involving child participants and adult researchers (Grover, 2004; Mayall, 2000; Robinson and Kellett, 2004). In this research, this extends to an ethics committee, staff and parents. While a feminist methodology cannot eliminate power, hierarchy and

146

control in the research process, it can be helpful in partly reducing it by validating participants’ experience (Esim, 1997).

This research adopted Renold et al’s (2008) approach to work with young people in care. They aimed to develop a research environment where participants could choose their own methods with the intention of disrupting the ‘researcher gaze by generating genuinely reflexive research practices’ (Renold et al, 2008: 432). This approach was supported through the availability of a choice of methods and provision of choice of focus, intended to support the idea that there were no right or wrong answers and to allow participants to give in- depth accounts about issues important to them (Punch, 2002a; Thomas and O'Kane, 1998; 2000). Teenagers had control of the digital audio recorder (Thomas and O’Kane, 1998) and some participants stopped the recording when they felt they had finished.