their perspectives and experiences. Skelton (2008) suggests, while there may be risks to young participants, there can be benefits in having their voices heard, and exploring their perspectives, ideas and experiences. She questions whether it is ethical to exclude those who wish to participate and understand their participation, and suggests “the ethical starting point [should be] ‘what is best for the children and young people’” (ibid: 33). I did not want to exclude those who arrived to participate but were a matter of months younger than others. I confirmed their understanding of the research and they chose whether to participate and what they shared, in line with Coyne’s (2010) emphasis on ethical practice. On balance, I felt the ethical course of action was to allow willing volunteers to participate. Essentially, I chose to value the young person’s right to participate and express themselves, which they had chosen to do, over the need to protect them by gaining parental consent. The groups were mixed in terms of age, with the 15-year-olds participating alongside 16-year-olds, so I did not consider it exploitative to include them despite the lack of parental consent. I considered it more disempowering to exclude them, while their similarly aged peers, often friends, would have proceeded without them. When there are challenges to gaining parental consent, Keenan (2015) suggests finding a “trusted or responsible adult” (p.11). I discussed it with the gatekeeper and as head of safeguarding and child protection, he was content for the young people to participate as they had adequate understanding of the research and it was believed there was little risk to their participation that could not be managed. I ensured appropriate mechanisms were in place for safeguarding and support.
their perspectives and experiences. Skelton (2008) suggests, while there may be risks to young participants, there can be benefits in having their voices heard, and exploring their perspectives, ideas and experiences. She questions whether it is ethical to exclude those who wish to participate and understand their participation, and suggests “the ethical starting point [should be] ‘what is best for the children and young people’” (ibid: 33). I did not want to exclude those who arrived to participate but were a matter of months younger than others. I confirmed their understanding of the research and they chose whether to participate and what they shared, in line with Coyne’s (2010) emphasis on ethical practice. On balance, I felt the ethical course of action was to allow willing volunteers to participate. Essentially, I chose to value the young person’s right to participate and express themselves, which they had chosen to do, over the need to protect them by gaining parental consent. The groups were mixed in terms of age, with the 15-year-olds participating alongside 16-year-olds, so I did not consider it exploitative to include them despite the lack of parental consent. I considered it more disempowering to exclude them, while their similarly aged peers, often friends, would have proceeded without them. When there are challenges to gaining parental consent, Keenan (2015) suggests finding a “trusted or responsible adult” (p.11). I discussed it with the gatekeeper and as head of safeguarding and child protection, he was content for the young people to participate as they had adequate understanding of the research and it was believed there was little risk to their participation that could not be managed. I ensured appropriate mechanisms were in place for safeguarding and support.
eThesis%20Emily%20Setty.docx