Working with care leavers and young people still in care: ethical issues in the co-development of a participatory recordkeeping app

IF 1.4 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE ARCHIVAL SCIENCE Pub Date : 2023-09-27 DOI:10.1007/s10502-023-09425-7
Peter Williams, Elizabeth Shepherd, Anna Sexton, Elizabeth Lomas
{"title":"Working with care leavers and young people still in care: ethical issues in the co-development of a participatory recordkeeping app","authors":"Peter Williams,&nbsp;Elizabeth Shepherd,&nbsp;Anna Sexton,&nbsp;Elizabeth Lomas","doi":"10.1007/s10502-023-09425-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>An important element of social research is the ethical treatment of research participants. This paper outlines the ethical issues pertaining to a study (MIRRA: Memory-Identity-Rights in Records-Access) that developed a ‘participatory recordkeeping system specification’ for young people in care. The research team worked with members of the cohort themselves (aged 13–17 years) and care-experienced adults. It discusses in general terms the various elements that require ethical consideration, such as informed consent, anonymity, avoiding harm, and needing to benefit the participants and their peers. It goes on to describe how such issues were approached by the team. The particular ethical measures required for the young and ‘cared-for’ participants are explored. These included the need to work through, first, an adult gatekeeper—a representative of each care organisation approached—and then, within the organisation, a social worker or care-giver. This greatly limited recruitment, as these adults often vetoed contact with the young people themselves. A checklist is outlined, derived from the ‘Gillick Test of Competence’ to assess capacity to give ‘informed consent’, for willing gatekeepers/carers to consider. The article then addresses how the Participant Information Sheets were developed for the young cohort, emphasising the need to do this by consulting appropriate professionals, published guidelines and the potential participants themselves. After considering the possible risks and benefits to participants, the paper concludes by suggesting that ethical issues around recruitment and participation of this cohort are complex and require much additional bureaucracy, patience and flexibility—but can be immensely rewarding.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46131,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE","volume":"24 1","pages":"41 - 60"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10502-023-09425-7.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10502-023-09425-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An important element of social research is the ethical treatment of research participants. This paper outlines the ethical issues pertaining to a study (MIRRA: Memory-Identity-Rights in Records-Access) that developed a ‘participatory recordkeeping system specification’ for young people in care. The research team worked with members of the cohort themselves (aged 13–17 years) and care-experienced adults. It discusses in general terms the various elements that require ethical consideration, such as informed consent, anonymity, avoiding harm, and needing to benefit the participants and their peers. It goes on to describe how such issues were approached by the team. The particular ethical measures required for the young and ‘cared-for’ participants are explored. These included the need to work through, first, an adult gatekeeper—a representative of each care organisation approached—and then, within the organisation, a social worker or care-giver. This greatly limited recruitment, as these adults often vetoed contact with the young people themselves. A checklist is outlined, derived from the ‘Gillick Test of Competence’ to assess capacity to give ‘informed consent’, for willing gatekeepers/carers to consider. The article then addresses how the Participant Information Sheets were developed for the young cohort, emphasising the need to do this by consulting appropriate professionals, published guidelines and the potential participants themselves. After considering the possible risks and benefits to participants, the paper concludes by suggesting that ethical issues around recruitment and participation of this cohort are complex and require much additional bureaucracy, patience and flexibility—but can be immensely rewarding.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与脱离照管者和仍在照管中的年轻人合作:共同开发参与式记录应用程序中的伦理问题
社会研究的一个重要因素是研究参与者的伦理待遇。本文概述了一项研究(MIRRA:Memory-Identity-Rights in Records-Access)的伦理问题,该研究为受照料的青少年制定了 "参与式记录保存系统规范"。研究小组与该群体的成员(13-17 岁)和有护理经验的成年人一起工作。报告概括地讨论了需要考虑的各种伦理因素,如知情同意、匿名、避免伤害以及需要使参与者及其同伴受益。报告还介绍了研究小组是如何处理这些问题的。还探讨了针对年轻和 "受照顾 "参与者所需的特殊伦理措施。这些措施包括:首先,需要通过成人把关人--每个护理机构的代表,然后,在机构内部,需要通过社会工作者或护理人员。这极大地限制了招募工作,因为这些成年人往往拒绝与年轻人本人接触。文章概述了从 "吉利克能力测试 "中衍生出来的评估 "知情同意 "能力的清单,供有意愿的守门人/看护人参考。然后,文章论述了如何为青少年群体编制参与者信息表,强调需要通过咨询适当的专业人士、已出版的指南和潜在参与者本人来完成这项工作。在考虑了参与者可能面临的风险和获得的益处后,文章最后指出,与招募和参与该群体有关的伦理问题非常复杂,需要更多的官僚主义、耐心和灵活性,但也会带来巨大的回报。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ARCHIVAL SCIENCE
ARCHIVAL SCIENCE INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
18.20%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Archival Science promotes the development of archival science as an autonomous scientific discipline. The journal covers all aspects of archival science theory, methodology, and practice. Moreover, it investigates different cultural approaches to creation, management and provision of access to archives, records, and data. It also seeks to promote the exchange and comparison of concepts, views and attitudes related to recordkeeping issues around the world.Archival Science''s approach is integrated, interdisciplinary, and intercultural. Its scope encompasses the entire field of recorded process-related information, analyzed in terms of form, structure, and context. To meet its objectives, the journal draws from scientific disciplines that deal with the function of records and the way they are created, preserved, and retrieved; the context in which information is generated, managed, and used; and the social and cultural environment of records creation at different times and places.Covers all aspects of archival science theory, methodology, and practiceInvestigates different cultural approaches to creation, management and provision of access to archives, records, and dataPromotes the exchange and comparison of concepts, views, and attitudes related to recordkeeping issues around the worldAddresses the entire field of recorded process-related information, analyzed in terms of form, structure, and context
期刊最新文献
Dedication and introduction to the provenance special issue Kindred contexts: archives, archaeology, and the concept of provenance The power of provenance in the records continuum Archival context, provenance, and a tool to capture archival context* The archive as home: ruminations on domestic notions of provenance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1