Ethical issues

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the University of Warwick, School of Health and Social Studies before fieldwork began. The study was conducted in accordance with the university’s guidelines. Permission to conduct the research was also obtained from the Icelandic Data Protection Authority (see Appendix J) and the research was consistent with the law and guidance for ethical practice of research in Iceland (Icelandic Data Protection Agency).

Ethics are intrinsic to the design of qualitative research; they are not confined to negotiating access but are part of an ongoing process (D’Cruz and Jones, 2004). It is important to acknowledge that formal power and control tends to remain with the researcher and it is hard for participants in the research to challenge the agenda (Burman, 1994). However, power and knowledge do not reside only with the

researcher and an important aim of the approach in this study was to make sure that the research benefited from the influence of consultants and participants on processes and outcomes (D’Cruz and Jones, 2004).

Informed consent and research agreements

With practitioners as participants

A research agreement for potential participants (Appendix H) provided full information on the research aims and process, data access and storage, privacy and confidentiality, and publication intentions. The potential benefits and risks for participants were outlined with assurances that support would be offered, especially during the action plan stage, but that participants were free to withdraw at any stage without detriment. Potential participants were asked to sign and return the research agreement if they were willing to take part. The agreement was produced in English only and explained that all the fieldwork with participants would be conducted in English. All the interviews and group discussions were audio recorded and transcribed; recordings and transcriptions were stored electronically. This was explained to

participants in the research agreement, but consent was verbally renewed for each individual recording.

Six participants attended the initial group meeting where the research aims, process and agreement were discussed. Participants recruited after this had

opportunities for an informal discussion either before and/or at the beginning of the first interview.

With young people as consultants

The ethical protocols for research with the young people drew on existing relevant research (Punch, 2002; Christensen and Prout, 2002; Alderson, 1995; Thomas and O’Kane, 1998b). Children have the same rights as adults with regard to informed consent and have rights to have their voices heard, including the right to participate in research (United Nations, 1989). However, they also have the right to protection from exploitation which means that the issue of consent from responsible adults has to be addressed.

Differences in power and status between adults and children are particularly acute, therefore an important ethical consideration was how best to redress the power imbalances (Morrow and Richards, 1996). Making arrangements to do research with children obviously involves engaging the trust and confidence of adults who act as gatekeepers between researchers and children. These are adults who have

responsibilities for the children and may be concerned about any adverse effects that the research may have. On the other hand, viewing children as social actors means

recognising their right and competence to make their own decisions about whether to participate, so it was important to overcome any barriers to the young people having the opportunity to hear about and become involved in the research (Thomas and O’Kane, 1998b).

Following the principle, expounded by Thomas and O’Kane (1998b), of active consent on the part of the young people and passive consent on the part of adults, written information about the research was sent to parents (Appendix C), and then

arrangements were made to meet with the young people to explain the research. At the meeting, young people were given a consultancy agreement incorporated in an information leaflet (see Appendix K for the agreement in Icelandic and Appendix L for the translation into English).

The young people were encouraged to read the leaflet carefully, discuss it with parents or other trusted adults or friends, and to sign the agreement and return it to the researcher if they decided to become involved. The agreement made it clear that they could withdraw from the consultation group at any point without penalty.

Privacy, confidentiality and child protection

With practitioners as participants

The names of research participants were kept separate from the data in the study and were not used within any documentation (Hart and Bond, 1995). In order to protect the anonymity of participating practitioners, pseudonyms have been used when referring to them in the data analysis chapters (see Appendix M for details of

pseudonyms, role and qualifications). No names were used when practitioners talked about young people during the interviews and group discussions. In the data analysis chapters these young people are referred to by age and gender (altered to protect anonymity where it does not affect the data). This method of ensuring anonymity was chosen in preference to assigning pseudonyms. This may seem impersonal, but because Icelandic society is small and there are relatively few Icelandic names, there was a risk that chosen pseudonyms would match the young person’s real name.

Feedback to organisations has been thematically based and no information about identified individuals’ practice was given at any stage. Confidentiality for research participants and for any clients discussed required special attention because Icelandic

society is small and relationships are close, so research participants were given the opportunity to check documentation and suggest further changes if they thought it was identifiable (Blaxter et al., 2001). As already stated the written agreements explained how the data would be used and how the findings would be reported and disseminated (Alston and Bowles, 1998).

With young people as consultants

The work with consultants was co-led by the author and the Icelandic research consultant to the study. This meant it was necessary to clarify who was responsible for making decisions. All decisions were discussed and agreed; however, I will use the first person where primary responsibility was with the author (as necessitated by the fact that this was part of a doctoral study). Where this distinction is not necessary, I will use the first person plural ‘we’. To reiterate, the young people provided consultancy to this study and not data. Their status as young people using social work services was sufficient to qualify them as experts. Accordingly, I asked for no more information about them than their names. As already stated, I made it clear that they did not have to talk about any of their personal experiences unless they wished to. I was aware, of course, that they might wish to draw on these experiences in order to make their points, so gave guarantees about their privacy and anonymity. However,

confidentiality had to be limited by the child protection protocol in Iceland which stipulates mandatory reporting of abuse (Child Protection Act 2002, Section IV). Assurances were given that no one else would be told about what young people said, unless they said that they or someone else was being or might be seriously hurt. It was explained that this would have to be reported but with their agreement if possible. (There were no cases where concerns had to be reported.)

Doing good and minimising risk of harm

With practitioners as participants

The literature on action research has highlighted both benefits and risks for participants (Löfman et al., 2004; Boser, 2006). When participants become closely involved in research, they may benefit from a sense of empowerment and ‘diffusion’ of learning (Hart and Bond, 1995; Humphreys and Metcalfe, 2002, p.5). On the other hand, participation in change may mean that the research is more intrusive and makes greater demands emotionally and practically (Löfman, et al., 2004; Boser, 2006). To maximise benefits and minimise risks, efforts were made to ensure that the aims and conduct of the research were relevant and practical in the context of participants’ working lives. The design was structured to allow for participants to shift focus or suggest different ways forward. Research relationships were reciprocal; participants were not just providing data, but were engaged in discussions about their work that provided opportunities for reflection and learning. Newsletters provided summaries of their contribution and informal communication via email and telephone stimulated dialogue and provided continuity, information and support.

With young people as consultants

Similar points can be made for the involvement of the young people as

consultants. Previous research with young people indicated that the research aims were likely to be relevant to these young people and to children generally in Iceland (Butler, and Williamson, 1994; Thomas, 2000; Munro, 2001; Bell, 2002; Featherstone and Evans 2004; Kristinsdóttir, 2004). The action research design, with an emphasis on action and change, maximised the potential for influencing practice in the interests of children. The consultation meetings were planned to give young people a choice in the process and activities (Thomas and O’Kane, 1998b). Newsletters summarised what

they had said in the meetings and provided feedback on action with practitioners. This kept young people involved throughout and afforded opportunities to correct any misrepresentations. A detailed testimonial (Appendix N) for each consultant recognised the value of their contribution to the research and added to their personal portfolios.