ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

Vulnerable groups

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

What’s at risk? Who’s responsible? Moving beyond the physical, the immediate, the proximate, and the individual0

 

Building the Conversation

This month’s addition to the Building the Conversation series reflects upon how we approach risks beyond those that are physical, harm people other than a project’s participants and harms that are not immediate.

To some extent, when researchers reflect upon those harms associated with a project, they may well limit their assessment of risk to the here and now and to identifiable individuals. In addition, for projects in the medical sciences, those risks were long understood as predominantly physical in the form of injury, infection or disability and related to direct participants (e.g. persons who received an experimental pharmacological agent). This limited vision is not particularly surprising. One of the perverse consequences of requiring researchers to reflect on whether the potential benefits of research justify risk to participants is that some researchers are dissuaded from looking too carefully for risks and therefore avoid developing strategies for minimising these risks and mitigating possible harms. Even more perversely, this reluctance can trigger in human research ethics committees an unrealistic level of risk aversion.

It is vital that we remember that it is primarily the responsibility of researchers to identify, gauge and weigh the risk. Research ethics review bodies have the role of providing feedback to researchers to facilitate projects, not catch out researchers and chastise them for neglecting a risk. This is especially true if we do not have resource material to assist researchers with regard to this wider focus.

We need to improve our understanding of the complexity of risks, extending our vision to look beyond the physical, the immediate, the proximate, and the individual risks. At the same time, we need to review our understanding of on whom the responsibility for the identification, mitigation ad management of all of these risks should fall.

In recent decades, national human research ethics frameworks, such as the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (National Statement) (NHMRC 2007a) have augmented their original interest in physical harm with a much broader set of psychological, legal, economic and social harms. Documents such as the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (NHMRC 2007b) cast this net wider still to include societal and environmental risks. However, the likelihood of incidence, the significance of the harm and the timing of such harms can be harder to predict, quantify and mitigate.

We are fuelling the potential for an adversarial climate (Israel et al., 2016) if we fail to provide researchers and our research ethics reviewers with guidance on how to approach such matters.

Human research ethics committees, guided by the frameworks in which they function, focus on immediate risks directly to the participants in a project. For example, the National Statement requires committees to be satisfied that “the likely benefit of the research must justify any risks or discomfort to participants.” (NHMRC, 2007, 10). Committees can feel less equipped to tackle risks that can affect participants after the active phase of a project, such as harms to the reputation and standing of a group that can come from the research output that is distributed long after data collection and perhaps years after the research ethics review.

Harm can also impact upon populations and social/professional/community groups much wider than the actual participants. For, example, research into the academic performance of children from schools in a low socio-economic area if reported insensitively by researchers or, indeed by the media, can further stigmatise the kids, and harm the reputation of the schools and teachers. Again, work on the informal income of members of marginalised communities might be used subsequently by government to target tax avoidance by the already vulnerable. Lastly, research on the attitudes of residents in coastal communities to climate change and rising sea levels can detrimentally effect the value of surrounding land. Indeed, some review processes require researchers to consider the possibility of adverse findings (both medical and non-medical in nature). Although the National Statement, (NHMRC, 2007 p.13), recognises risks of this kind, it leaves unclear whose responsibility they are.

Focussing on the rights of individuals from a Western liberal democratic perspective is unlikely to be helpful in other contexts, such as an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, in a cultural context where a Confucian approach would be more appropriate (Katyal, 2011), or even in some organisational settings where accountability is partly achieved through openness to external scrutiny in the form of research and evaluation. As a result, there have also been prompts to consider risks to identifiable third parties, groups, institutions, communities (Weijer et al., 1999). Values and Ethics and the Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (GERAIS) do recognise such matters might be considered by some potential participant pools on a collective basis and perhaps with an knowledge of a history of research abuse and exploitation of their communities and this attention to collective interests can be echoed in other work on research ethics and Indigenous peoples around the world (Israel, 2015).

This is perhaps one of the reasons why some minorities have produced their own research ethics guidance documents (for examples, see Hudson et al. (2010), Nordling (2017) and Islamic Council of Victoria (2017)). The value of this kind of guidan this on some for the moments that it clarifies that it is on researchers that the important responsibility lies to foresee, mitigate and manage these risks.

Another example of deleterious impacts from research that might not be immediately obvious to researchers, research ethics reviewers or research office staff arises in the category of ‘dual use’ research (Miller and Selgelid, 2007). This where a technique, technology or an apparently non-military discovery can be used for military or terrorist purposes – sometimes with devastating effect. Initially, the concern of biomedical scientists, the issue has also troubled anthropologists, geographers, sociologists, political scientists and international relations experts in the face of overt or covert funding by military or intelligence agencies (Israel, 2015). One of the growing challenges for a significant proportion of such work (e.g. quantum computing, computer security/intrusion/hacking, smart materials, computer vision and energy storage) is the work will not typically require research ethics or any other form of independent review. The existing model of human research ethics review is initially attractive as a response, but some reflection will quickly show that ethics committees are not likely to possess the expertise/information to identify the dual use and the work may be occurring in disciplines that have not built their capacity to think through the ethics of working with human participants.

Australia has a strengthened export control framework with regard to security classification, Defence Department permits/approvals and other requirements (e.g. data security). Many Australian universities have established dedicated teams and processes for this particular area of concern. It remains an area of community concern (see Hamilton and Joske, 2017). Such controls involve balancing academic freedom, a commitment to open science and the value of scientific discovery against (inter)national security, trade and diplomatic interests. Such a balancing exercise is plainly beyond the capacity required for human research ethics review, so that the responsibility needs to rely on another mechanism.

The implications of all of this are not trivial. This all requires a change in thinking for researchers, institutions, funding bodies, learned academies and regulators. Our attention to the potential harms from a project needs to encapsulate research outputs, impacts upon communities, persons who were not direct participants in the project as well as national interests. At the same time, the consideration of a project vis-à-vis the ethical principle of research merit needs to include broader societal benefits and contributions to knowledge that might also involve a much wider group and a longer timeframe than the ones to which we are accustomed. However, in order to reach a more sophisticated analysis of the balance between potential harms and benefits, we need to more clearly allocate responsibility for such risks and devise mechanisms that reassure the community that these responsibilities have been fulfilled.

In our view, merely widening the scope of the responsibilities of human research ethics committees to address all these risks could not only exacerbate the propensity for risk aversion, but could also distort their important focus on the welfare of research participants. The current review system needs to find ways of working constructively with other processes that build the capacity of researchers and their institutions to work with these broader risks and benefits.

Institutions must have resource materials for researchers and research ethics reviewers that have the primary objective of resourcing reflective practice and building expertise in risk assessment and mitigation. Researchers must recognise these matters as their primary responsibility and research ethics reviewers must focus upon facilitation not enforcing compliance. We have written about how institutions can implement such an approach (Israel and Allen, in press).

In short, we cannot afford to ignore these challenges. Instead, we should take innovation seriously and seek constructive solutions.

References

Allen, G. and Israel, M. (in press, 2018) Moving beyond Regulatory Compliance: Building Institutional Support for Ethical Reflection in Research. In Iphofen, R. and Tolich, M. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics. London: Sage.

Hamilton, C. and Joske, A. (2017) Australian taxes may help finance Chinese military capability. The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/australian-taxes-may-help-finance-chinese-military-capability/news-story/6aa9780c6a907b24993d006ef25f9654 [accessed 31 December 2017).

Hudson, M., Milne, M., Reynolds, P., Russell, K. and Smith B. (2010) Te Ara Tika. Guidelines for Māori Research Ethics: A Framework for Researchers and Ethics Committee Members. http://www.hrc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Te%20Ara%20Tika%20Guidelines%20for%20Maori%20Research%20Ethics.pdf (accessed 29 December 2017).

Islamic Council of Victoria (2017) ICV Guidelines for Muslim Community-University Research Partnerships. http://www.icv.org.au/new/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ICV-Community-University-Partnership-Guidelines-Sept-2017.pdf (accessed 29 December 2017)

Israel, M. (2015) Research Ethics and Integrity for Social Scientists: Beyond Regulatory Compliance. London: Sage.

Israel, M., Allen, G. and Thomson, C. (2016) Australian Research Ethics Governance: Plotting the Demise of the Adversarial Culture. In van den Hoonaard, W. and Hamilton, A. (eds) The Ethics Rupture: Exploring Alternatives to Formal Research-Ethics Review. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp 285-316. http://www.utppublishing.com/The-Ethics-Rupture-Exploring-Alternatives-to-Formal-Research-Ethics-Review.html

Katyal, K.R. (2011) Gate-keeping and the ambiguities in the nature of ‘informed consent’ in Confucian societies. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 34(2): 147-159.

Miller, S. and Selgelid, M. (2007) Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual use dilemma in the biological sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 13: 523-580.

NHMRC (2007a) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e72 (accessed 29 December 2017).

NHMRC (2007b) Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/r39 (accessed 29 December 2017).

Nordling, L. (2017) San people of Africa draft code of ethics for researchers. Science, March 17. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/san-people-africa-draft-code-ethics-researchers (accessed 29 December 2017).

Weijer, C., Goldsand, G. and Emanuel, E.J. (1999) Protecting communities in research: Current guidelines and limits of extrapolation. Nature Genetics 23: 275-280.

Contributors
Dr Gary Allen
Senior consultant | AHRECS | Gary’s AHRECS biogary.allen@ahrecs.com

Prof. Mark Israel
Senior consultant | AHRECS | Mark’s AHRECS biomark.israel@ahrecs.com

This post may be cited as:
Allen G. and Israel M. (2018, 1 February 2018) What’s at risk? Who’s responsible? Moving beyond the physical, the immediate, the proximate, and the individual. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/whats-risk-whos-responsible-moving-beyond-physical-immediate-proximate-individual

Ethical research with young children: Whose research, whose agenda?0

 

The last decade has seen increased global focus on research with young children within and across a range of disciplines (Farrell, 2016). The period, birth to age eight years, known colloquially as the ‘early years’ or ‘early childhood’, has been conceptualized as pivotal to young children’s current wellbeing and future life chances and, in turn, the increasing focus of research within the disciplines of education, health, human services, developmental science, law, economics and neuroscience. New theoretical perspectives, expanded methodological approaches and fresh lines of inquiry are being brought to bear on the ethical design, conduct and dissemination of early childhood research (Kagan, Tisdall & Farrell, 2016). The global focus on ethical research with young children has been prefaced, to some extent, by global recognition of the rights of children to participation and protection in everyday activities (Tisdall, 2012). Despite the focus on children and their rights, child research is largely an adult enterprise serving adult-driven agendas, albeit driven by genuine adult concern for children’s rights to participation and protection. On the one hand, it is driven by the imperative to protect children, quite rightly, from risk of harm, often drawing upon normative views of child development and young children’s pre-competence or developmental incapacity to consent to, participate in or withdraw from research. On the other hand, there is a growing quest to listen to and consult with children as competent and active research participants, while still enacting protective ethical obligations towards them (Alderson & Morrow, 2011). While much child research claims to be with children rather than on, for or about children, the enterprise is typically driven by the agendas of research productivity, performativity and empirical leverage of research within policy and provision for young children – by and for adults. The upshot is that some children, families and communities increasingly experience the over-burden of research, their demographic characteristics making them prime sites for research and their participation essential for attaining research targets and outputs. The enterprise of ethical research with children calls for ethical consideration of the adult performance-driven agendas that drive much child research. It calls for consideration of the agency and active participation of children, families in communities in ways that respect their decision to engage in the research and greater affordances of co-constructed research for children and adults than is currently the case.

References

Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2011). The ethics of research with children and young people. A practical handbook (2nd Ed).London: Sage.

Farrell, A. (2016). Ethics in early childhood research. In A. Farrell, S.L. Kagan & E.K.M. Tisdall (Eds.), Sage handbook of early childhood research (pp. 163-184). London: Sage.

Kagan, S.L., Tisdall, E.K.M., & Farrell, A. (2016). Future directions in early childhood research: Addressing next-step imperatives, In A. Farrell, S.L. Kagan & E.K.M. Tisdall (Eds.), Sage handbook of early childhood research (pp. 517-534). London: Sage.

Tisdall, E.K.M, (2012). Taking forward child and young people’s participation. In M Hill, G. Head, A. Lockyer, B. Reid & R. Taylor (Ed), Children’s services: Working together (pp.151-162). Harlow: Pearson.

Contributor
Professor Ann Farrell
Head, School of Early childhood and Inclusive Education
Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology
QUT staff page a.farrell@qut.edu.au

 

This post may be cited as:
Farrell A. (2017, 23 October 2017) Ethical research with young children: Whose research, whose agenda? Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/ethical-research-young-children-whose-research-whose-agenda

A Model for the Participation of Indigenous Children and Young People in Research0

 

Following my September 2017 piece: Ethics and the Participation of Indigenous Children and Young People in Research, this article briefly overviews the research model I developed in my PhD. The model is based on a children’s rights-based approach (CRBA) to research informed by Indigenous research methodologies. It combines Laura Lundy’s[1] analysis of Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) with aspects of Indigenous research methodologies articulated by Ray (Indigenous convergence methodology)[2] and Nakata (Indigenous standpoint theory).[3] The field research methods sought to engage with children and young people in a culturally appropriate and child friendly way by using Bessarab and Ng’andu’s[4] ‘yarning’ approach, as well as a range of other child friendly and play based methods such as drawing, modelling with playdough, as well as photography and peer-to-peer video interviewing using iPads[5].

Lundy’s diagram below highlights the interpretation of Article 12 of the CRC adopted in the research. This interpretation emphasises that Article 12 requires governments to ensure children and young people not only have the opportunity to voice their views about matters affecting them, but that their views are taken into consideration and influence the decisions that are made.

Lundy’s Conceptualisation of Article 12[6]

The child rights-based model used prioritised child-centred play in the research process and engaged with children, rather than doing research on or about children[7]. Some of these interactions are depicted below in the photographs.

10-Year-Old Child Modelling Something that is Important to Him—‘My Family’[8]

10-Year-Old Child Modelling Something that is Important to Him—‘I Like Toys, and Robots … and Dreamtime and Culture Dance’[9]

Experimental Photography, Testing the Functionality of the iPads [10]

Making an iPad Video [11]

Taking part in social research can expose Indigenous children and young people to varying degrees of risk however ‘the line between gate-keeping intended for the protection of participants and their communities and the risk of sliding into paternalism is a thin one.’[12] Research that is carried out in an ethically robust, age appropriate and culturally sensitive way can present avenues for Indigenous children and young people to express their views and have these views taken into consideration in accordance with Article 12 of the CRC.

This research suggests Indigenous children and young people are ready, willing and able to voice their perspectives about matters affecting them, if given the opportunity in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate setting. The findings of this research debunk conceptualisations of Indigenous children and young people as passive and vulnerable. The implications of viewing and defining Indigenous children and young people in this way limits their civic participation and reduces opportunities for their voice to be heard about matters affecting them.

A children’s rights-based approach to research positions children and young people as empowered co-researchers, with expertise and valuable perspectives capable of leading and informing the research process. It is an approach which engages children and young people in research in a collaborative way that fulfils, promotes and protects a range of rights provided for by the CRC, in particular, their rights to participate in decision making processes.

For more information about the research model see Doel-Mackaway, Holly, ‘I think it’s Okay … But it’s Racist, it’s Bad Racism’: Aboriginal Children and Young People’s Views about the Intervention’ (2017) 43(1) Monash University Law Review 76.

In 2018 Routledge is publishing a book about this PhD research.

References

Barker, John and Susie Weller, ‘“Is It Fun?” Developing Children Centred Research Methods’ (2003) 23(1/2) International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 33.

Bat, Melodie et al, ‘Ethical Moves: Innovation in Qualitative Research: An Example of an Ethical and Effective Cross-Cultural Research Methodology Using Video’ (Paper presented at the AARE Annual Conference, Canberra, 2009);

Bessarab, Dawn and Bridget Ng’andu, ‘Yarning about Yarning as a Legitimate Method in Indigenous Research’ (2010) 3(1) International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies 37.

Coram, Stella, ‘Rethinking Indigenous Research Approval: The Perspective of a “Stranger”’ (2011) 11(2) Qualitative Research Journal 38.

Kral, Inge (2010) ‘Plugged In: Remote Australian Indigenous Youth and Digital Culture’ (Working Paper No 69/2010, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, May 2010). http://caepr.anu.edu.au/Publications/WP/2010WP69.php

Lundy, Laura, ‘“Voice” Is Not Enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’ (2007) 33 British Educational Research Journal 927.

Nakata, Martin, Disciplining the Savages: Savaging the Disciplines (Aboriginal Studies Press, 2007), chapter 11.

Ray, Lana, ‘Deciphering the “Indigenous” in Indigenous Methodologies’ (2012) 8(1) AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 85, 88, 88. See also Lester-Irabinna Rigney, ‘Indigenist Research and Aboriginal Australia’ in Julian Kunnie and Nomalungelo Ivy Goduka (eds), Indigenous Peoples’ Wisdom and Power: Affirming Our Knowledge Through Narratives (Ashgate Publishing, 2006) 32.

Contributor
Dr Holly Doel-Mackaway | Lecturer | Macquarie Law School |
Dr Doel-Mackaway’s Macquarie staff page | holly.doel-mackaway@mq.edu.au

This post may be cited as:
Doel-Mackaway H. (2017, 20 October 2017) A Model for the Participation of Indigenous Children and Young People in Research Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/model-participation-indigenous-children-young-people-research

Footnotes

[1]Laura Lundy, ‘“Voice” Is Not Enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’ (2007) 33 British Educational Research Journal 927.
.
[2]Lana Ray, ‘Deciphering the “Indigenous” in Indigenous Methodologies’ (2012) 8(1) AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 85, 88, 88. See also Lester-Irabinna Rigney, ‘Indigenist Research and Aboriginal Australia’ in Julian Kunnie and Nomalungelo Ivy Goduka (eds), Indigenous Peoples’ Wisdom and Power: Affirming Our Knowledge Through Narratives (Ashgate Publishing, 2006) 32.
.
[3]Martin Nakata, Disciplining the Savages: Savaging the Disciplines (Aboriginal Studies Press, 2007), chapter 11
.
[4]Dawn Bessarab and Bridget Ng’andu, ‘Yarning about Yarning as a Legitimate Method in Indigenous Research’ (2010) 3(1) International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies 37.
.
[5]Melodie Bat et al, ‘Ethical Moves: Innovation in Qualitative Research: An Example of an Ethical and Effective Cross-Cultural Research Methodology Using Video’ (Paper presented at the AARE Annual Conference, Canberra, 2009); Inge Kral, ‘Plugged In: Remote Australian Indigenous Youth and Digital Culture’ (Working Paper No 69/2010, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, May 2010).
.
[6] Laura Lundy, ‘“Voice” is Not Enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’ (2007) 33(6) British Educational Research Journal 927, 932
.
[7]John Barker and Susie Weller, ‘“Is It Fun?” Developing Children Centred Research Methods’ (2003) 23(1/2) International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 33, 33.
.
[8]10-year-old male, Primary Class Group Discussion, Field Research Session 1 (of 4) (Northern Territory, 13 May 2014).
.
[9] 10-year-old male, Primary Class Group Discussion, Field Research Session 1 (of 4) (Northern Territory, 13 May 2014).
.
[10]14-year-old male, Secondary Class Group Discussion, Field Research Session 3 (of 4) (Northern Territory, 20 May 2014).
.
[11] 10-year-old male, Primary Class Group Discussion, Field Research Session 1 (of 4) (Northern Territory, 13 May 2014
.
[12]Stella Coram, ‘Rethinking Indigenous Research Approval: The Perspective of a “Stranger”’ (2011) 11(2) Qualitative Research Journal 38, 45.

Ethics and the Participation of Indigenous Children and Young People in Research0

 

Indigenous children and young people’s participation in social research raises a range of ethical issues that researchers and participants must grapple with prior to and throughout the research process. These issues include for example, matters to do with protocols for seeking consent, ensuring the research process is culturally respectful and age appropriate, whether the research environment and methods used are child friendly and participants can freely express their views, and ensuring the research endeavour is mutually beneficial.

In Australia, all research involving Indigenous children and young people must be guided by, and adhere to the principles articulated in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (‘National Statement’), particularly chapter 4.2 of that Statement. If the research is health related it must comply with the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Values and Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research (‘NHMRC Values and Ethics Guidelines’). These documents instruct researchers about how to undertake research in an ethically sound manner, and the principles they contain are fundamental to the manner in which Australian ethics committees assess human research applications. Additionally, the Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (‘AIATSIS Guidelines’) are particularly instructive and helpful and are becoming more widely used by researchers and ethics committees alike.

There is a gap however, in relation to a comprehensive ethical framework for the involvement of Indigenous children and young people in social research. The National Statement communicates the ethical parameters for the involvement of children in research; and the NHMRC Values and Ethics Guidelines and the AIATSIS Guidelines set out a framework for the involvement of Indigenous people in research. The National Statement specifically refers to research relating to children and young people, but does not mention research relating to Indigenous children and young people; and there is no mention of children or young people in either the NHMRC Values and Ethics Guidelines nor the AIATSIS Guidelines. Thus, in Australia there is no single overarching ethical framework that specifically pertains to the involvement of Indigenous children and young people in research. Read together however, these three documents provide a firm basis upon which to develop and assess the breadth of ethical considerations regarding the involvement of Indigenous children and young people in research, particularly when read in conjunction with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

There is much to say about the CRC and the UNDRIP in relation to Indigenous children and young people’s participation in research. All research endeavours involving children and young people must uphold the comprehensive body of children’s rights set out in the CRC. These rights are numerous, therefore the task of ensuring compliance with the CRC for child related research may at first instance appear overwhelming for researchers. One vital provision in the CRC is worthy of focused attention. This is the principle articulated in article 12—children’s right to participate in ‘all matters affecting’ them. This is an instructive and appropriate starting point for researchers to base their considerations of how a research process can adhere to children’s rights principles, and in doing so create a child friendly, culturally respectful and age appropriate research environment that reduces risks participants may experience as a result of taking part in the research. Article 12 of the CRC provides that:

States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

Article 12 aligns well with the ethical considerations specific to children and young people outlined in chapter 4.2 of the National Statement. Article 12 is widely accepted as the ‘lynchpin’ of the CRC, and a foundational right upon which other rights depend and emerge. The Committee responsible for overseeing the global implementation of the CRC makes this clear when they said article 12 ‘establishes not only a right in itself, but should also be considered in the interpretation and implementation of all other rights.’

The language of this provision is strong. Note the use of compelling words such as ‘shall assure’ emphasising children’s right to free expression, and the all-encompassing subject matter to which the provision applies, namely to ‘all matters affecting’ them. These words are emphatic and when they came into force this drastically altered the pre-CRC, and post CRC, rights framework for children globally.

Involving Indigenous children and young people in research processes, particularly by non-Indigenous researchers, must be carried out in accordance with national guidelines, and in a way that upholds participant’s rights as children in accordance with the CRC, as well as their rights as Indigenous peoples in line with the UNDRIP.

In the absence of a comprehensive and unified ethical framework for engaging Indigenous children and young people in research I developed a model and detailed this in my PhD as well as in the Monash University Law Review. This model is a child rights-based approach informed by Indigenous research methodologies that uses child friendly and culturally sensitive research methods: yarning and peer-to-peer video interviewing to engage children and young people in research. This model is based on national ethics guidelines, the provisions set out in the CRC and UNDRIP, and draws on current scholarship in the area. The development of this model contributes to enhancing the ethical framework that regulates and guides the participation of Indigenous children and young people in social research.

References

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (2nd revised ed, 2012)

Bessarab, Dawn and Bridget Ng’andu, ‘Yarning About Yarning as a Legitimate Method in Indigenous Research’ (2010) 3(1) Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies 37

Convention on the Rights of the Child opened for signature 20 November 1989, 44 UNTS 25 (entered into force 2 September 1990)

Doel-Mackaway, Holly, ‘“I think it’s Okay … But it’s Racist, it’s Bad Racism”: Aboriginal Children and Young People’s Views about the Intervention’ (2017) 43(1) Monash University Law Review (forthcoming Sept, 2017)

Freeman, Michael, ‘Whither Children: Protection, Participation, Autonomy?’ (1994) 22(3) Manitoba Law Journal 307

National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, ‘National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research’ (2007, updated December 2013)

National Health and Medical Research Council, Values and Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research (Commonwealth of Australia, 2003)

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No 12, ‘The Right of the Child to be Heard,’ UN Doc CRC/C/GC/12 (1 July 2009)

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Res 61/295, UN GAOR, 61st sess, 107th plen mtg, Supp No 49, UN Doc A/RES/61/295 (13 September 2007)

Contributor
Dr Holly Doel-Mackaway | Lecturer | Macquarie Law School | Dr Doel-Mackaway’s Macquarie staff pageholly.doel-mackaway@mq.edu.au

This post may be cited as:
Doel-Mackaway H. (2017, 21 September 2017) Ethics and the Participation of Indigenous Children and Young People in Research Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/ethics-participation-indigenous-children-young-people-research