Ethical Considerations

I obtained approval from the University of Liverpool ethics committee prior to conducting fieldwork at KCC Live. I also ensured that my research was consistent with ethical guidelines as outlined in the ESRC 2010 Research Ethics Framework (see updated version, ESRC, 2015). However, as Horton (2008) recalls in his research diary, there is more to doing research than the parts that are covered and described by guidelines of ‘good practice’. Participatory methods are heralded as more ethically acceptable than traditional methods (Thomas and O’Kane, 1998; Manzo and Brightbill, 2007; Gallagher, 2008). Employing a participatory methodology is not, however, a universal remedy for ethical concerns. Use of a participatory methodology requires research conduct to be respectful and view those immersed in the lived experiences as subjective experts (Fleming and Boeck, 2012). Importantly, as Morrow and Richards (1996b) note, it is impossible for researchers to foresee what ethical dilemmas will arise throughout the research process; as such, considering ethics as situational and responsive is essential. Research with children and young people raises the same methodological and ethical questions that all researchers face, for instance: issues of appropriate and honest ways of collecting,

101

analysing and interpreting data and of disseminating findings, as well as issues of protecting research participants (Morrow, 2008). However, there are additional concerns related to the perception of young people as “a powerless group in society” (Morrow, 2008:16). Though I do not perceive young people as powerless, in adherence to legal requirements, I ensured I had a DBS check and clearance prior to entering the field. I also undertook Knowsley Community College’s safeguarding training and new staff induction, including health and safety training. However, as Horton (2001:159) tells, being “police cleared” is only the start of ethical considerations with children, and I add young people. While ethical considerations are oft considered limiting, I joined Halse and Honey (2005) in considering ethical considerations as facilitating good research practice during my data collection and analysis.

Owing to my immersion in the KCC Live community and the relationships I built with volunteers over an extended period of time (see also Murphy and Dingwall, 2007), it was important for me to ‘remind’ volunteers of my role as a researcher. It is worth recalling that my research project was staggered with different activities (e.g. interviews, follow-up interviews, focus groups, listener survey, and the co- production of audio artefacts). I found this useful for reminding young people of my role, both formally (through acts that required participants, for instance, to read information sheets and to sign consent forms), and informally through acts that were associated with research and thus implied my role as a researcher. Also useful, was a poster produced by station management of ‘key members’ at KCC Live. On this poster was my photograph and a description of me as a ‘PhD researcher’. The poster was placed prominently on a wall of the station, and remained there throughout my research. This was helpful as a reminder to young people of my role at the station. Further, my role as a researcher was reaffirmed through a presenter biography on the KCC Live website. However, I did not consider these more passive acts, which required the young people to see this information, to be enough. Other, more active, strategies I employed included emphasising my role as a researcher through conversations. For instance, I informed young people of academic conferences I was attending and publications I was writing, which stood as reminders of my role. For me, these actions were paramount in maintaining ethical rigour. This ensured that, when I received data from young people, particularly during more informal

102

interactions, they were telling me this information as a researcher, not as a fellow volunteer or friend.

5.9.1 Informed consent and right to withdraw

A key challenge in conducting research with young people is negotiating access at multiple levels with adults who control the spaces (Sime, 2008). School-based research with children requires that access is facilitated by adult gatekeepers, highlighting ethical implications regarding the principle of informed consent (Morrow, 2008). Within my study, permission was granted by adult gatekeepers, including the Principal of Knowsley Community College and management at KCC Live. A further level of access, however, can take place through young people’s parents. Importantly, at the time of this study, no volunteers at KCC Live were under the age of 16, therefore it was not necessary to seek consent from parents or legal guardians.

I handed staff and volunteers Participant Information Sheets detailing the nature of the research and what involvement would mean for them. I left additional copies on a desk within KCC Live for people to read at their leisure. I provided separate Participant Information Sheets for staff and young people (see Appendix 11 and Appendix 12, respectively). Throughout the fieldwork process, I continually emphasised the voluntary nature of participation and ensured that young people understood their right to withdraw at any point. I positioned consent as being continually reviewed throughout the research process (see also Morrow, 2008; Rose, 2012). I therefore opted for a “process consent” stance (Heath et al., 2007:409), as opposed to a one-off written preamble prior to commencing research. Thus, although written consent was required from participants at the outset for initial interviews and focus groups, and the co-production of the audio artefacts, for follow-up interviews and more conversational interactions, following Hall (2009), I considered verbal and renegotiated consent appropriate.

103

5.9.2 Remuneration

The issue of remuneration raises a further ethical dilemma, particularly when young people are engaged as co-researchers (Murray, 2006). Morgan et al. (2002) make a valuable point in asserting that, just like adults, young people have economic lives and, as such, they should be compensated for their participation. Sime (2008), too, argues that young people should be valued for their participation in research in the same manner as adults. Though I agree that young people’s participations should be rewarded, I support Gibson’s (2007) view that use of a cash reward is problematic. This is particularly so as KCC Live is a voluntary organisation; as such, young people do not receive payment for their contributions to the station. Further, the prospect of a reward may make participants feel obliged to complete the study and affect their right to withdraw at any point (Sime, 2008). In continuing the voluntary ethic of participation at KCC Live, I did not provide volunteers with remuneration. However, I did emphasise to young people the skills they would gain as co- researchers. I also usefully made myself available for any projects they required my assistance in; for instance, I was interviewed as part of young people’s college and university projects (also with no remuneration). Further, I never requested volunteers to come to the station to participate in research-related activities, rather I made use of the time they were readily available.

5.9.3 Confidentiality

All young people within this study have been referred to by a pseudonym for the interviews, focus groups, and observational data. I have not, however, anonymised KCC Live itself. The research is believed to be beneficial for helping the station apply for future funding; if anonymised in academic output, any data KCC Live wishes to use to support funding bids would lead to the disclosure of identity. I provided volunteers and listeners with the option to be anonymised and all said yes, as they believed this would enhance their honest contributions to the project, without fear of reprisal. All station management and college management wished to use their genuine names; I therefore permitted them to review their interview transcripts and gave them the opportunity to request the deletion of content. All interviewees approved transcripts with no changes.

104

I allowed volunteers and listeners to choose their own pseudonyms. Whilst the listeners chose usual names, many KCC Live volunteers chose pseudonyms after pop stars, DJs, and presenters. After a group discussion prompted one volunteer to suggest this option, other volunteers were enthused by this idea and proceeded to select aliases from their celebrity idols. Interestingly, many young people questioned “are we allowed?” and “would I be allowed to call myself that?” (Author’s field diary, 23/07/13), perhaps illustrative of their views of academic output as serious and mundane. Within Moorefield-Lang’s (2010) research with middle school students, a number of participants chose to name themselves after cartoon characters. Akin to Moorefield-Lang (2010), I welcomed the approach of allowing young people to choose their pseudonyms as I believe that it enhanced the participatory nature of the study, also affording the young people greater agency. It is important to note, however, that within the audio documentary and three-part radio series, the genuine names of participants have been used. The reason being that, when paired with their distinctly recognisable voices, using their pseudonyms within audio content would disclose their identity for the wider data collected.