Including and involving young people (under 18’s) in hate research without the consent of parents

Abstract

This article provides a reflection on the ethical challenges faced when seeking ethical approval to include young people in a research project examining LGBT+ ‘hate’ experiences. I outline the ethical parameters constructed when attempting to recruit under 18’s into the project and justify the rationale for doing so. I detail how ethical approval was gained and reflect on the safeguards put in place to protect young participants. The methodological position adopted took a youth affirmative outlook, premised on enabling and championing the autonomy and agency of young people. Traditional ethical guidelines maintain that parental consent is required to include young people within sensitive research. Seeking parental consent placed young participants in a position of greater risk than what would occur during participation. Parental consent was not sought for young people to participate, nor were they informed about the involvement of their children in the project. This article provides justifications on rejecting the notion that parental consent is the only means for youth inclusion, and details how young people were empowered during participation. I argue that young people should not be instinctively excluded from sensitive research but should be actively enabled by minimising but not eradicating possible and potential risk.

Body mass index and peer victimization: A transactional model

“…All attention focused on the students filling out the questionnaires by addressing their questions and keeping them at task during data collection. Given that there was minimal risk in participation for the students in the present study, protection of confidentiality of the information provided, and the voluntary nature of participation where students could opt out of research, the present study deemed cogent support as per global ethical standards (Coyne, 2010; Tigges, 2003), and as seen in western research on bullying (O'Brien & Dadswell, 2020; Pickles, 2020), to conduct research with students by obtaining informed consent from participating students and Principals acting in loco parentis.…”

Centring the voices of disabled LGBT+ young people in research

“…This has resulted in the term 'Gillick competent', meaning a child can consent if they have been able to assess the situation. This has led to calls and debate concerning young people under 16 years being able to consent to take part in research in their own right, without the need for parental consent (Coyne, 2010;Pickles, 2019). It is not unprecedented to rely in children's consent without parents' consent (Alderson, 2005;Morris et al, 2012;Pickles, 2019).…”

“…This has led to calls and debate concerning young people under 16 years being able to consent to take part in research in their own right, without the need for parental consent (Coyne, 2010;Pickles, 2019). It is not unprecedented to rely in children's consent without parents' consent (Alderson, 2005;Morris et al, 2012;Pickles, 2019). This is rarely discussed, and would possibly not be familiar to the often generic ethics committees, which are predominantly not used to research with children.…”

“…Examples of this approach being undertaken within more structured, formal settings such as schools are difficult to locate. Pickles (2019) specifically highlighted the dangers of seeking parental consent with young LGBT+ participants. We would argue that the additional barriers placed on disabled young people to expressing their LGBT+ identities increase these dangers.…”

Co-producing and navigating consent in participatory research with young people

“…Despite some recognised shortcomings (See Pearce, 2013; Cave, 2014 for critiques of Gillick approach), foregoing parental consent is more often accepted in what could be seen as 'higher risk' areas (Pickles, 2019) Coyne notes that "The parental consent requirement may be seen as a well-intentioned safeguard meant to protect children" (2010:228) but highlights that this can restrict their ability to participate voluntarily in research. She goes further, suggesting that parental consent can at times result in researcher complacency regarding time and energy spent informing and negotiation participation with the young participants (2010).…”