looking at these frameworks and how some research we have studied may fit into this,
will we be able to surmise that a fully ethical study would mean that all ethical issues
are fully resolved?
A Duty-based framework emphasises the equal rights and importance of every person
involved in research.. Regards research with children and young people, their rights
are of equal importance as that of adults. The researcher has a moral ‘duty’ towards
the participants and shows respect, sensitivity and fairness wherever possible.
When Samantha Punch took on research in rural Bolivia, she entered a place where
power relations are extremely evident, with adults tending to dictate the boundaries
within which their children live.
Looking at the duty-based framework, this immediately highlights the fact that, as
with all research, it is hard to stick to a definite method and to work to a set ethical
mind set. The way ethics work in this country as opposed to other countries can
greatly differ, and you have to be considerate to other cultures. Punch is very
sympathetic to this, taking time to build relationships with parents, teachers and, of
course, the children themselves. In this scenario, it is very hard to pinpoint the ethical
status of the children participating, due to language, culture and social issues, but it is
evident from Punch’s report that they are active participants and enjoy the experience
of this outsider entering their world, despite any hint of adult suspicion.
Looking at gender relations, it may be that as a woman, the children found it easier to
relate to Punch than they would a man, but the parents may have found her
involvement more of a threat. However, such sweeping generalisations have no place
in the complex world of research, and indeed each project has its own difficulties. As
stated in Unit of the Study Guide, ‘it is not always easy to find the right balance
between ethical purity and research design’, but it is clear that Punch takes her duty
as a researcher very seriously, with ethics very much on the agenda. However, I do
have one concern about Punch’s research, and that is regards the benefit of the
research she has undertaken.
When looking at the Harm/Benefit-based framework, the researcher considers
whether the possible benefit to the child is worth the risk of any possible harm that
participating in the research could cause. Naturally, this has far more relevance in the
world of medical research, where research can be dealing with life and death , and it
would be highly relevant to examine this framework using my ‘The girls with
too much skin’ TV documentary scenario, but I have found myself questioning what
Punch’s research would ultimately achieve. It is evident that no harm came to the
children during the research process and that Punch was making every effort to
ensure the rights of the children were met, but ultimately, what definite purpose did
the research paper serve? It was unlikely to improve the lives of the children in rural
Bolivia as one assumes there would be a deep resistance to an outsider ‘criticising’
their culture and way of life, and it is unlikely that the said society would have the
resources to change anyway. Whilst it is, no doubt, a very interesting piece of
research, and gives a fascinating insight into the workings of a child’s mind within
another culture, as Punch’s academic history is of Spanish and Latin American
studies, I feel it could also be seen as self gratifying. I am unaware if
this was funded research or undertaken for personal development, but I do not feel
that this research resolved all ethical issues, although the researcher was very
considerate of her ethical obligations.
Barrie Thorne’s research titled ‘Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School’, is an ideal
paper to illustrate the topic of gender relations. Not only does it give insight into the
differing ways in which boys and girls interactions can differ, but also raises some
very interesting ethical issues. In Chapter 9 of ‘Doing Research with Children and
Young People’, Rob Pattman and Mary Jane Kehily discuss gaining access to the
social worlds of children and young people, and clearly state that to understand the
world from their perspective, the researcher has to recognise that the respondents
know more about it than anyone else. This is an issue that is obviously not only
relevant to research, but is also what both my teenage son and books on teenagers say
is the most important issue between adults and teens. Naturally, being a parent
gives you first hand knowledge and even practise of the approach, but like there are
good and maybe not so good parents, can perhaps the same be said for researchers?
When I first read Thorne’s paper, albeit abridged, I was immediately struck by a
sense of unease. Phrases like ‘I was struck not only by kids’ rapid movements but
also by their continual engagement with one another’s bodies’, gave me a sense of
voyeurism, purely as the wording appeared quite explicit. This probably says more
about myself and my prudish attitude than those of the researcher, who is indeed
highly respected and credited and whose morals are not in question, but it also raises
the question of how ethical issues can be viewed differently depending on your own
personal viewpoint. My feeling here is that the language used is typical of an
American styling, whereas in the United Kingdom we are more reserved and wary of
offence, and this shows how ethics can vary, even between similarly modern
societies.
I was also concerned that Thorne’s target groups were to some extent, unwilling
objects of research. She mentions obtaining permission to use the school for research
purposes by going through ‘adult gatekeepers’, and there is no direct mention of the
children having given consent or truly knowing what Thorne is doing there. One girl
expresses her concern as to what Thorne is writing down, concerned that Thorne is
gaining information that may get the children into trouble. This raises the question,
based on the Harm/Benefit-based framework, as to whether those children were truly
comfortable with Thorne’s presence, or indeed whether they felt slightly threatened
and anxious. My feeling of unease was further emphasised when I read “but of course
what I wrote was not under their control, and, like all fieldworkers, I lived with
ambiguous ethics.” Thorne seems very aware of the ethical issues, but seems almost
blasé about not having to consider it to great extent, as she is a researcher and there
for a purpose. She further writes, “I guarded the information from local exposure, but
intended it, with identities disguised, for a much larger audience. I was the sole judge
of what was or was not reported and how to alter identifying information.”
On the surface, this paper may seem to defy all three frameworks I have previously
identified, with Thorne not taking her duty as a researcher responsibly enough, not
considering the rights of those involved and not weighing up the harm to the children
versus any benefit. This paper was first published in 1993, and we have to bear in
mind that the world and its values were very different even then, as well as
considering the other issues of culture I have previously stated. However, in my
opinion, this is not a fully ethical study, and there seems to be only sporadic attempts
to resolve ethical issues.
In contrast to Thorne, the research by Alison Clark entitled ‘The Mosaic Approach
and Research with Young Children’, very clearly demonstrates that a lot of effort has
been taken to try to resolve ethical issues. As she had previously taught 4-7 year olds,
it is clear that she already had an inbuilt set of ethics towards children and a desire to
both know more about them, leading to potentially improve their lives in some way,
however small. This fits in some way with the Rights-based framework, taking into
account the aims and effects of research, and the benefits it might bring. Clark also
states that she acknowledges that children have “important perspectives to contribute
about their lives in an early childhood institution’. This is a good example of a
researcher using a duty-based framework, treating them as unique people with value,
or as Langsted (1994: 42) states, ‘experts in their own lives’.
It is on reading Clark’s commentary on the paper, that you get a real insight as to the
extent she takes her ethical obligation seriously. Throughout the paper, it is clear that
Clark is keen to involve parents and their views wherever possible. As she rightly
acknowledges in the commentary, the parent’s involvement was of benefit to both
parties. The parents were keen to hear about their children’s experiences, and they in
turn could also help Clark by providing more information about their own child and
their recent experiences. This approach shows Clark working very much within all
three ethical frameworks as previously discussed.
When we consider whether Clark managed to fully resolve all ethical issues within
this study, I would imagine that as she had not initially trained in research, the
mixture of her two career paths led to her being able to resolve issues without directly
concentrating on doing so. It is clear that many ethical issues have been resolved, and
this paper is perhaps the best example of doing so out of the three papers I have
chosen to discuss. However, there is a highly interesting point contained within the
‘Questions that arose’ section of the commentary. Clark states that colleagues in
Scandinavia were concerned that by Clark listening in to the children, their privacy
was in someway being invaded. Clark herself admits that these comments took her
back, and led her to re-examine which elements of acquired knowledge she used. It is
armed with knowledge of this scenario that I have made my decision on the question
posed at the beginning of this assignment.
So, does a fully ethical study mean that all ethical issues are fully resolved? Based on
what I have studied, I would have to say no. Researchers can be very aware of their
duty towards respondents and act with their interests in the forefront at all times, and
this is a good framework to work within. However, as Alison Clark’s Scandinavian
colleagues show, there will always be somebody who sees your efforts very
differently than you intended. This happens just the same in research, as it does in life
itself.
Word Count: 2199
References
Punch, S. (2001) ‘Negotiating Autonomy: children’s use of time and space in rural Bolivia’ in V. Lewis, M. Kellett, C. Robinson, S. Fraser and S. Ding (eds) The Reality of Research with Children and Young People, London: Sage in association with the Open University.
Punch, S. (2001) ‘Multiple methods and research relations with children in rural Bolivia’ in V. Lewis, M. Kellett, C. Robinson, S. Fraser and S. Ding (eds) The Reality of Research with Children and Young People, London: Sage in association with the Open University.
Clarke, A. (2001) ‘The Mosaic Approach and research with young children’ in V. Lewis, M. Kellett, C. Robinson, S. Fraser and S. Ding (eds) The Reality of Research with Children and Young People, London: Sage in association with the Open University.
Thorne, B. (1993) ‘Gender play: Girls and Boys in School’ in V. Lewis, M. Kellett, C. Robinson, S. Fraser and S. Ding (eds) The Reality of Research with Children and Young People, London: Sage in association with the Open University.
Langsted, O. (1994)’Looking at quality from the child’s perspective’, in P.Moss and A.Pence, (Eds), Valuing Quality in Early Childhood Services: new approaches to defining quality. London: Paul Chapman.
Alderson, P., Morrow, V. and Macdougal, H. (2003, 2nd edn) Listening to Children: Ethics and Social Research, Barkingside: Barnado’s.