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, Elizabeth Shepherd, Anna Sexton, 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.
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