Pub Date : 2019-09-05DOI: 10.1108/JCS-01-2019-0005
Vicki Jackson-Hollis
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore some of the ethical and practical challenges of working with primary school-aged children to conduct qualitative service evaluations regarding sensitive safeguarding topics. Design/methodology/approach The paper centres on the author’s learnings from conducting school-based, task-assisted focus groups with 5–11 year olds. The reflections are drawn from notes made during fieldwork, debrief discussions with evaluation colleagues and wider team debates. This was a consultative participatory evaluation and the findings are situated within the wider literature around rights-based approaches to research. Findings Using multi-method and creative approaches can facilitate young children to assent and dissent from service evaluation in a school setting. However, the challenges of helping children understand confidentiality are highlighted, as is the challenge for researchers in recognising and responding in situ to disclosures. Using suitable and creative activities, this evaluation demonstrates that primary school children can contribute meaningful data to assist with service development. However, the approach to collecting these data from the youngest children needs careful consideration. Practical implications Researchers may need to adopt full participatory methods to better help children understand the confidentiality bounds of research and to form views on the subject matter. More discussion is needed in the wider safeguarding research literature to show how researchers have navigated the challenges of handling disclosures. Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature by providing examples of how to overcome issues of children’s participation, consent and protection in service evaluation focussed on a sensitive topic.
{"title":"Qualitative research with primary school-aged children: ethical and practical considerations of evaluating a safeguarding programme in schools","authors":"Vicki Jackson-Hollis","doi":"10.1108/JCS-01-2019-0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-01-2019-0005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000The purpose of this paper is to explore some of the ethical and practical challenges of working with primary school-aged children to conduct qualitative service evaluations regarding sensitive safeguarding topics.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000The paper centres on the author’s learnings from conducting school-based, task-assisted focus groups with 5–11 year olds. The reflections are drawn from notes made during fieldwork, debrief discussions with evaluation colleagues and wider team debates. This was a consultative participatory evaluation and the findings are situated within the wider literature around rights-based approaches to research.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000Using multi-method and creative approaches can facilitate young children to assent and dissent from service evaluation in a school setting. However, the challenges of helping children understand confidentiality are highlighted, as is the challenge for researchers in recognising and responding in situ to disclosures. Using suitable and creative activities, this evaluation demonstrates that primary school children can contribute meaningful data to assist with service development. However, the approach to collecting these data from the youngest children needs careful consideration.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000Researchers may need to adopt full participatory methods to better help children understand the confidentiality bounds of research and to form views on the subject matter. More discussion is needed in the wider safeguarding research literature to show how researchers have navigated the challenges of handling disclosures.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000This paper contributes to the literature by providing examples of how to overcome issues of children’s participation, consent and protection in service evaluation focussed on a sensitive topic.\u0000","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JCS-01-2019-0005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49334642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-05DOI: 10.1108/jcs-07-2019-0037
C. J. Hamilton, Abbie Rodgers, Keeley Howard, Camille Warrington
Purpose This contribution is co-authored by three members of the Young Researchers’ Advisory Panel (YRAP) at the International Centre: Researching child sexual exploitation, violence and trafficking (IC) at the University of Bedfordshire, and supported by an academic researcher (Camille). The purpose of this paper is to reflect the group’s discussions about the relationship between children’s participation and protection, considered within the context of the group’s role and work. Design/methodology/approach A collaborative reflection piece co-produced through discussions between young research advisors and academic colleagues. Findings This paper shows the young researchers’ perspectives on the relationship between and interdependencies of child protection and child participation. Originality/value A unique contribution capturing children and young people’s perspectives on the journal’s theme and other contributions to it.
{"title":"From the ground up: young research advisors’ perspectives on relationships between participation and protection","authors":"C. J. Hamilton, Abbie Rodgers, Keeley Howard, Camille Warrington","doi":"10.1108/jcs-07-2019-0037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcs-07-2019-0037","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000This contribution is co-authored by three members of the Young Researchers’ Advisory Panel (YRAP) at the International Centre: Researching child sexual exploitation, violence and trafficking (IC) at the University of Bedfordshire, and supported by an academic researcher (Camille). The purpose of this paper is to reflect the group’s discussions about the relationship between children’s participation and protection, considered within the context of the group’s role and work.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000A collaborative reflection piece co-produced through discussions between young research advisors and academic colleagues.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000This paper shows the young researchers’ perspectives on the relationship between and interdependencies of child protection and child participation.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000A unique contribution capturing children and young people’s perspectives on the journal’s theme and other contributions to it.\u0000","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/jcs-07-2019-0037","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44382434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-05DOI: 10.1108/JCS-07-2019-0038
D. Dan, David David, Evie Evie, O. Ollie, Donna M Thomas, C. Larkins
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore young researchers perspectives on children and young people’s research, participation and protection. Design/methodology/approach The paper is co-authored by young people and academics involved in a young researcher group. This paper provides a brief introduction from the young researchers and some academic context to their work, then the young researcher group’s contribution. Their contribution is followed by a brief discussion of the issues they raise in the light of current academic debate. Findings This paper contains our critical reflection on participation and protection. Originality/value The paper presents a unique contribution capturing children and young people’s perspectives on the journal’s theme and other contributions to it.
{"title":"Next steps in children and young people’s research, participation and protection from the perspective of young researchers","authors":"D. Dan, David David, Evie Evie, O. Ollie, Donna M Thomas, C. Larkins","doi":"10.1108/JCS-07-2019-0038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-07-2019-0038","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000The purpose of this paper is to explore young researchers perspectives on children and young people’s research, participation and protection.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000The paper is co-authored by young people and academics involved in a young researcher group. This paper provides a brief introduction from the young researchers and some academic context to their work, then the young researcher group’s contribution. Their contribution is followed by a brief discussion of the issues they raise in the light of current academic debate.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000This paper contains our critical reflection on participation and protection.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000The paper presents a unique contribution capturing children and young people’s perspectives on the journal’s theme and other contributions to it.\u0000","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48588478","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-05DOI: 10.1108/JCS-03-2019-0016
Geraldine Brady, A. Franklin
Purpose In the UK, the Children and Families Act aims to create one assessment process for children with special educational needs or disability, through Education, Health and Care Plans. It also aims for greater participation from children and young people in decisions about their own lives. Current evidence suggests that children’s needs and desires across education, health and social care are not being fully met, partly because adult agendas drive policy, practice and standards of care. Furthermore, little attention is paid to the way in which disabled children and young people are included either within decisions about their own support or within research processes. The purpose of this paper is to present a research process designed to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach Six disabled young people co-led this participatory research project; for the first time, disabled young people had the opportunity to define a research agenda which spoke to what “quality” might look like in planning for their own future and that of other disabled children and young people. Findings This paper presents findings from this process, addressing important ethical issues relevant for policy, practice and research, identified through this rights based, collaborative way of working in partnership. Three key issues were identified and are explored here. They include first, tensions between young people becoming leaders and dominant ideas about safeguarding and child protection; second, being empowered through engagement within the project yet restricted in other areas of personal life and, finally, the emotional impact on new researchers of gathering evidence of a continuing lack of autonomy for disabled children and young people. We argue that challenging dominant notions concerning the participation and protection of disabled children is required in order to ensure that they access their right to be decision-makers in their own lives, and to being empowered within research processes. Originality/value This is the first disabled young people-led study to investigate quality and rights for disabled children and young people using this rights-based methodology.
{"title":"Challenging dominant notions of participation and protection through a co-led disabled young researcher study","authors":"Geraldine Brady, A. Franklin","doi":"10.1108/JCS-03-2019-0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-03-2019-0016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000In the UK, the Children and Families Act aims to create one assessment process for children with special educational needs or disability, through Education, Health and Care Plans. It also aims for greater participation from children and young people in decisions about their own lives. Current evidence suggests that children’s needs and desires across education, health and social care are not being fully met, partly because adult agendas drive policy, practice and standards of care. Furthermore, little attention is paid to the way in which disabled children and young people are included either within decisions about their own support or within research processes. The purpose of this paper is to present a research process designed to address these issues.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000Six disabled young people co-led this participatory research project; for the first time, disabled young people had the opportunity to define a research agenda which spoke to what “quality” might look like in planning for their own future and that of other disabled children and young people.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000This paper presents findings from this process, addressing important ethical issues relevant for policy, practice and research, identified through this rights based, collaborative way of working in partnership. Three key issues were identified and are explored here. They include first, tensions between young people becoming leaders and dominant ideas about safeguarding and child protection; second, being empowered through engagement within the project yet restricted in other areas of personal life and, finally, the emotional impact on new researchers of gathering evidence of a continuing lack of autonomy for disabled children and young people. We argue that challenging dominant notions concerning the participation and protection of disabled children is required in order to ensure that they access their right to be decision-makers in their own lives, and to being empowered within research processes.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000This is the first disabled young people-led study to investigate quality and rights for disabled children and young people using this rights-based methodology.\u0000","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JCS-03-2019-0016","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48778398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-05DOI: 10.1108/JCS-01-2019-0001
Fiona Factor, Elizabeth Ackerley
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a youth work model of participatory research practice which utilises a range of methods within non-traditional research settings, highlighting the importance of trust, risk-taking and the creation of mutually respectful and non-hierarchical relationships. The paper suggests that such methods enable the development of new insights into previously intractable challenges when working with adolescents needing a safeguarding response from professionals. Design/methodology/approach The paper reflects on the challenges and successes of a project which brought police officers and young people together to develop solutions to improving safeguarding responses to young people affected by sexual violence and related forms of harm in adolescence. In particular, this paper focuses on a residential held in October 2016 in the Lake District involving 7 officers and 15 young people. Findings Despite a number of ethical challenges throughout the project, this paper makes the case that potentially high-risk participatory research projects can be supported and managed by university research centres. However, for these to be successful, staff need to work in trauma-informed ways, and possess high-level expertise in group work facilitation. Transparency, honesty, constancy and a range of different and creative activities, including mental and physical challenges, all contributed to the success of the project. Originality/value By detailing the empirical steps taken to develop, support and realise this project, this paper advances a youth work model of participatory research practice, filling an important gap within the methodological literature on participatory work with young people affected by sexual violence.
{"title":"Young people and police making “Marginal Gains”: climbing fells, building relationships and changing police safeguarding practice","authors":"Fiona Factor, Elizabeth Ackerley","doi":"10.1108/JCS-01-2019-0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-01-2019-0001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000The purpose of this paper is to describe a youth work model of participatory research practice which utilises a range of methods within non-traditional research settings, highlighting the importance of trust, risk-taking and the creation of mutually respectful and non-hierarchical relationships. The paper suggests that such methods enable the development of new insights into previously intractable challenges when working with adolescents needing a safeguarding response from professionals.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000The paper reflects on the challenges and successes of a project which brought police officers and young people together to develop solutions to improving safeguarding responses to young people affected by sexual violence and related forms of harm in adolescence. In particular, this paper focuses on a residential held in October 2016 in the Lake District involving 7 officers and 15 young people.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000Despite a number of ethical challenges throughout the project, this paper makes the case that potentially high-risk participatory research projects can be supported and managed by university research centres. However, for these to be successful, staff need to work in trauma-informed ways, and possess high-level expertise in group work facilitation. Transparency, honesty, constancy and a range of different and creative activities, including mental and physical challenges, all contributed to the success of the project.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000By detailing the empirical steps taken to develop, support and realise this project, this paper advances a youth work model of participatory research practice, filling an important gap within the methodological literature on participatory work with young people affected by sexual violence.\u0000","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JCS-01-2019-0001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49478627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-05DOI: 10.1108/JCS-01-2019-0003
Clive Diaz, Hayley Pert, N. Thomas
Purpose The research reported here forms part of a study of children’s participation in children in care reviews and decision making in one local authority in England. The purpose of this paper is to outline the views of 11 social workers and 8 Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) and explores their perceptions of children’s participation in reviews. The paper considers the barriers to young people participating meaningfully in decision making and how practice could be improved in this vital area so that children’s voices are more clearly heard and when possible acted upon by professionals. Design/methodology/approach The data reported here derive from a qualitative cross-sectional study in one English local authority. The entire study involved interviewing children in care, IROs, social workers and senior managers about young people’s participation in their reviews. Findings from the interviews with young people and senior managers have been reported elsewhere (Diaz and Aylward, 2018; Diaz et al., 2018); this paper focusses on the interviews with social workers and IROs. Specifically, the authors were interested in gaining insight into their views about the following research questions: To what degree do children and young people meaningfully participate in reviews? What are the barriers to participation? What can be done to improve children and young people’s participation in reviews? Findings During this process seven themes were identified, five of which concerned barriers to effective participation and two which concerned factors that appeared to support effective participation. These are summarised below and explained further in the following sections. Barriers to effective participation: social workers and IROs’ high caseloads and ensuing time pressures; high turnover of social workers and inexperienced staff; lack of understanding and training of professionals in participation; children and young people’s negative experiences of reviews and consequent reticence in taking part; and structure and process of the review not being child-centred. Factors which assist participation: quality of the relationship between the child and professionals; and the child or young person chairing their own review meeting. Research limitations/implications Although these findings reflect practice in one local authority, their consistency with other research in this area suggests that they are applicable more widely. Practical implications The practice of children chairing their own reviews was pioneered by The Children’s Society in North West England in the 1990s (Welsby, 1996), and has more recently been implemented with some success by IROs in Gloucestershire (see Thomas, 2015, p. 47). A key recommendation from this study would be for research to explore how this practice could be developed and embedded more widely. Previous research has noted the tension between the review being viewed as an administrative process and as a vehicle of participati
{"title":"Independent Reviewing Officers’ and social workers’ perceptions of children’s participation in Children in Care Reviews","authors":"Clive Diaz, Hayley Pert, N. Thomas","doi":"10.1108/JCS-01-2019-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-01-2019-0003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000The research reported here forms part of a study of children’s participation in children in care reviews and decision making in one local authority in England. The purpose of this paper is to outline the views of 11 social workers and 8 Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) and explores their perceptions of children’s participation in reviews. The paper considers the barriers to young people participating meaningfully in decision making and how practice could be improved in this vital area so that children’s voices are more clearly heard and when possible acted upon by professionals.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000The data reported here derive from a qualitative cross-sectional study in one English local authority. The entire study involved interviewing children in care, IROs, social workers and senior managers about young people’s participation in their reviews. Findings from the interviews with young people and senior managers have been reported elsewhere (Diaz and Aylward, 2018; Diaz et al., 2018); this paper focusses on the interviews with social workers and IROs. Specifically, the authors were interested in gaining insight into their views about the following research questions: To what degree do children and young people meaningfully participate in reviews? What are the barriers to participation? What can be done to improve children and young people’s participation in reviews?\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000During this process seven themes were identified, five of which concerned barriers to effective participation and two which concerned factors that appeared to support effective participation. These are summarised below and explained further in the following sections. Barriers to effective participation: social workers and IROs’ high caseloads and ensuing time pressures; high turnover of social workers and inexperienced staff; lack of understanding and training of professionals in participation; children and young people’s negative experiences of reviews and consequent reticence in taking part; and structure and process of the review not being child-centred. Factors which assist participation: quality of the relationship between the child and professionals; and the child or young person chairing their own review meeting.\u0000\u0000\u0000Research limitations/implications\u0000Although these findings reflect practice in one local authority, their consistency with other research in this area suggests that they are applicable more widely.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000The practice of children chairing their own reviews was pioneered by The Children’s Society in North West England in the 1990s (Welsby, 1996), and has more recently been implemented with some success by IROs in Gloucestershire (see Thomas, 2015, p. 47). A key recommendation from this study would be for research to explore how this practice could be developed and embedded more widely. Previous research has noted the tension between the review being viewed as an administrative process and as a vehicle of participati","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JCS-01-2019-0003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43536298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Setting the scene: the principle of indivisible rights In total, 30 years on from the adoption of the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989), the indivisible and mutually reinforcing relationship between children’s rights to both “protection” and participation is long-standing. Yet despite its longevity, the practical realisation of this relationship remains significantly under-explored. Child participation is variously understood as having a say, being involved in decision making and achieving influence (through words and actions): within personal lives, communities, practice, research and policy. Children’s rights to participation, enshrined in the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), tend to be associated with children’s right to have their views taken into account in matters that affect them (Article 12), the rights to freedom of expression (Article 13), freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 14), the right to associate with others (Article 15), the right to privacy (Article 16) and the right to access information (Article 17). Crucially Article 12 as one of the general principles of the UNCRC, should be considered in the interpretation and implementation of all other rights. Meanwhile children’s rights to protection are more often related to rights explicitly focused on children’s physical and psychological safety. They are noted to draw attention to the special status of children due to their relative immaturity and associated dependency, vulnerability and potential defencelessness (Archard, 2004). Centrally this includes the three remaining general principles: children’s rights to protection from discrimination (Article 2), upholding their best interests in decision making (Article 3) and their right to survival and development (Article 6). Further rights address more specific forms of maltreatment and neglect, including physical and mental violence (Article 19), harmful work (Article 32); sexual abuse (Article 34) and cruel or harmful punishment (Article 37). Despite these perceived distinctions the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child helpfully draws attention to the interdependency of all children’s rights. Crucially for this journal, they provide guidance on the implementation of Article 12 (General Comment Number 12) which includes the statement that: Much of the violence perpetrated against children goes unchallenged both because certain forms of abusive behaviour are understood by children as accepted practices, and due to the lack of child-friendly reporting mechanisms […] Thus, effective inclusion of children in protective measures requires that children be informed about their right to be heard and to grow up free from all forms of physical and psychological violence. (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009, Paragraph 120) Furthermore General Comment 12 states that there can be no assessment of best interests without giving
{"title":"Children at the centre of safety: challenging the false juxtaposition of protection and participation","authors":"Camille Warrington, C. Larkins","doi":"10.1108/jcs-09-2019-055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcs-09-2019-055","url":null,"abstract":"Setting the scene: the principle of indivisible rights \u0000In total, 30 years on from the adoption of the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989), the indivisible and mutually reinforcing relationship between children’s rights to both “protection” and participation is long-standing. Yet despite its longevity, the practical realisation of this relationship remains significantly under-explored. \u0000Child participation is variously understood as having a say, being involved in decision making and achieving influence (through words and actions): within personal lives, communities, practice, research and policy. Children’s rights to participation, enshrined in the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), tend to be associated with children’s right to have their views taken into account in matters that affect them (Article 12), the rights to freedom of expression (Article 13), freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 14), the right to associate with others (Article 15), the right to privacy (Article 16) and the right to access information (Article 17). Crucially Article 12 as one of the general principles of the UNCRC, should be considered in the interpretation and implementation of all other rights. \u0000Meanwhile children’s rights to protection are more often related to rights explicitly focused on children’s physical and psychological safety. They are noted to draw attention to the special status of children due to their relative immaturity and associated dependency, vulnerability and potential defencelessness (Archard, 2004). Centrally this includes the three remaining general principles: children’s rights to protection from discrimination (Article 2), upholding their best interests in decision making (Article 3) and their right to survival and development (Article 6). Further rights address more specific forms of maltreatment and neglect, including physical and mental violence (Article 19), harmful work (Article 32); sexual abuse (Article 34) and cruel or harmful punishment (Article 37). \u0000Despite these perceived distinctions the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child helpfully draws attention to the interdependency of all children’s rights. Crucially for this journal, they provide guidance on the implementation of Article 12 (General Comment Number 12) which includes the statement that: \u0000Much of the violence perpetrated against children goes unchallenged both because certain forms of abusive behaviour are understood by children as accepted practices, and due to the lack of child-friendly reporting mechanisms […] Thus, effective inclusion of children in protective measures requires that children be informed about their right to be heard and to grow up free from all forms of physical and psychological violence. (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009, Paragraph 120) \u0000Furthermore General Comment 12 states that there can be no assessment of best interests without giving","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/jcs-09-2019-055","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49143559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-05DOI: 10.1108/JCS-02-2019-0007
Elsie Whittington
Purpose Research within the fields of youth sexuality and safeguarding, and ethical governance more broadly, has traditionally prioritised risk aversion over the rights of young people to participate in and shape research. This excludes younger people from setting agendas and directly communicating their lived experience to those in power. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach This paper describes and draws upon findings from an innovative two year participatory action research study exploring sexual consent with young people through embedded and participatory research across seven sites. The project was designed with young people and practised non-traditional approaches to research consent. As well as co-producing research data, the findings highlight how methods of co-enquiry and being explicit about the research consent process enabled young people to develop competence that can be applied in other contexts. Findings The paper addresses ethical tensions between young people’s rights to participation and protection. It argues that alongside robust safeguarding procedures, there is equal need to develop robust participation and engagement strategies with an explicit focus on young people’s competence, agency and rights to participate regardless of the perceived sensitivity of the topic. Originality/value The paper concludes with proposals for future youth-centred research practice. These relate to research design, ethical governance processes around risk and sensitive topics, emphasis on working collaboratively with young people and practitioners, a greater focus on children and young people’s rights – including Gillick competence and fluid models of consent. In doing so, it presents an essential point of reference for those seeking to co-produce research with young people in the UK and beyond.
{"title":"Co-producing and navigating consent in participatory research with young people","authors":"Elsie Whittington","doi":"10.1108/JCS-02-2019-0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-02-2019-0007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000Research within the fields of youth sexuality and safeguarding, and ethical governance more broadly, has traditionally prioritised risk aversion over the rights of young people to participate in and shape research. This excludes younger people from setting agendas and directly communicating their lived experience to those in power. The paper aims to discuss these issues.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000This paper describes and draws upon findings from an innovative two year participatory action research study exploring sexual consent with young people through embedded and participatory research across seven sites. The project was designed with young people and practised non-traditional approaches to research consent. As well as co-producing research data, the findings highlight how methods of co-enquiry and being explicit about the research consent process enabled young people to develop competence that can be applied in other contexts.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000The paper addresses ethical tensions between young people’s rights to participation and protection. It argues that alongside robust safeguarding procedures, there is equal need to develop robust participation and engagement strategies with an explicit focus on young people’s competence, agency and rights to participate regardless of the perceived sensitivity of the topic.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000The paper concludes with proposals for future youth-centred research practice. These relate to research design, ethical governance processes around risk and sensitive topics, emphasis on working collaboratively with young people and practitioners, a greater focus on children and young people’s rights – including Gillick competence and fluid models of consent. In doing so, it presents an essential point of reference for those seeking to co-produce research with young people in the UK and beyond.\u0000","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JCS-02-2019-0007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42283154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-08-05DOI: 10.1108/jcs-02-2019-0009
Johanna Kiili, Johanna Moilanen
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore how children have been involved in research activities in recent international child protection research and what kinds of ethical and methodological decisions are made by researchers regarding children’s participation. Design/methodology/approach In the paper, the complexity of children’s participation in research activities is analysed through an integrative literature review. Findings Children’s right to self-determination and the right to make informed decisions were the most challenging ethical principles to implement in practice. The study shows that researchers usually decide on the research design, and child welfare professionals and parents assess the eligibility of the children as research subjects. Originality/value More ethical reflection and critical discussion on the rights that adults, both parents and professionals, have in deciding the involvement of children in research activities is required.
{"title":"Participation as a methodological and ethical issue in child protection research","authors":"Johanna Kiili, Johanna Moilanen","doi":"10.1108/jcs-02-2019-0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcs-02-2019-0009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000The purpose of this paper is to explore how children have been involved in research activities in recent international child protection research and what kinds of ethical and methodological decisions are made by researchers regarding children’s participation.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000In the paper, the complexity of children’s participation in research activities is analysed through an integrative literature review.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000Children’s right to self-determination and the right to make informed decisions were the most challenging ethical principles to implement in practice. The study shows that researchers usually decide on the research design, and child welfare professionals and parents assess the eligibility of the children as research subjects.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000More ethical reflection and critical discussion on the rights that adults, both parents and professionals, have in deciding the involvement of children in research activities is required.\u0000","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/jcs-02-2019-0009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47133469","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-06DOI: 10.1108/JCS-12-2018-0029
A. Debowska, D. Boduszek, D. Willmott, Adele D Jones
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate the None in Three Victim Responsiveness Assessment (Ni3: VRA) examining affective and cognitive responsiveness toward victims of intimate partner violence. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected at two time points in a sample of 359 young people from Barbados and Grenada (56.27 percent female; M age=12.73 years). Findings Confirmatory factor analysis results indicated that the Ni3: VRA scores are best captured by a two-factor solution, including affective and cognitive dimensions. A test-retest correlation confirmed the reliability of the Ni3: VRA over time. Affective responsiveness formed a significant positive association with caring/cooperative behavior. Originality/value The Ni3: VRA can be used for the evaluation of preventive strategies aimed at reducing the rates of IPV.
{"title":"The None in Three Victim Responsiveness Assessment (Ni3: VRA): a new outcome measure for intimate partner violence (IPV) prevention programs","authors":"A. Debowska, D. Boduszek, D. Willmott, Adele D Jones","doi":"10.1108/JCS-12-2018-0029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-12-2018-0029","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate the None in Three Victim Responsiveness Assessment (Ni3: VRA) examining affective and cognitive responsiveness toward victims of intimate partner violence.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000Data were collected at two time points in a sample of 359 young people from Barbados and Grenada (56.27 percent female; M age=12.73 years).\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000Confirmatory factor analysis results indicated that the Ni3: VRA scores are best captured by a two-factor solution, including affective and cognitive dimensions. A test-retest correlation confirmed the reliability of the Ni3: VRA over time. Affective responsiveness formed a significant positive association with caring/cooperative behavior.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000The Ni3: VRA can be used for the evaluation of preventive strategies aimed at reducing the rates of IPV.\u0000","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JCS-12-2018-0029","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43706636","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：