As participatory methods in research have progressed over recent decades, it is now commonplace to involve children directly in research projects (Christensen and James, 2017; Murray, 2016,  Blaisdell et al., 2014).  Yet, children’s involvement in the ethical consent and assent processes associated with research projects is still somewhat restricted in the ethics codes (e.g. Parsons, Sherwood, and Abbott, 2015.).  Parental proxy consent remains the norm for research with young children, based on the assumption that young children cannot comprehend researchers’ explanations of the project, and therefore are never “truly informed” (Hughes and Helling 1991:228).

Thus, in this paper, we reflect upon three research which directly involved young children under six  years old in informed consent/assent process.  We reflect on three informed consent processes that were based on child-led, child friendly, creative, playful, and pedagogically appropriate approaches, devised to negotiated consent and assent directly with children, demonstrating our belief in young children as ‘reliable, voluntary’ participants in research” (Farrell, 2016: 226). 

1. The first methods of informing children about the project, was an animated video of the project.  Consent was subsequently negotiated by developing a joint ethical agreement with children using removable agree/disagree badges to discuss each element of the project.  This approach was trialled over two different research projects in nursery (children aged 3-5 years).
2. The second method of consent was a narrative illustrated picture book, resembling commercially available children’s story picture books, used in Nursery and Primary 1 (children aged 3-6 years old).  The narrative told the story of the research project and the researcher’s and children’s potential role.  It was illustrated with carefully selected hand-drawn illustrations and digital images which related to the research project.  The children listened to, and discussed, the story in a group in the school, similar to story time. Consent was agreed individually with each child and was ongoing during the research process.
3. The third method of consent and assent is based on research with infants (under the age of 18 months) and it is based on a reflective approach (ethical helix) where ethical praxis “becomes interwoven in the research process and helps to provide factual data and at the same time respecting [participant] actions,  emotions, dignity, autonomy and freedom” (Palaiologou 2016:54)

In the past it has been argued  that children are being marginalised because of their inferior cognate and vulnerable position in relation to adults (Barker & Weller, 2003). However, an alternative perspective is that “children’s lack of power relative to adults in the social world limits the extent to which children’s agency can be exercised” (Uprichard, 2009; 4) particularly for younger  children under the age of three (Coad & Lewis, 2004, Elwick et al, 2014).  This power divide, with a singularly ‘gloomy view’ of adults exercising power over children (Gallagher 2005), remains in the consent processes for research with young children.  By exploring the possibilities for informing children about consent, we seek to represent power in inter-generational relationships as fluid, shifting, and incorporating children’s agency and resistance (e.g. Gallagher, 2008;  Esser et al., 2016; Leonard, 2016; Oswell, 2016).  While we acknowledge that children’s understanding of the research will be different to adults’, we propose that there are ways to negotiate consent/assent with the children, rather than accept their parents’ proxy consent on their behalf.

We argue that in research with children under six the relationships between researcher and participant children are not symmetrical and instead of searching ways to involve children in the consent and assent processes as any other(adult) research participants, we should strive to sustain an ethical relationship based on ethical proximity, permeability, relatability and emotional capital.

This project is a synthesis of a reflection of three research projects. We used critical thematic analysis of our consent and assent processes and practices to analyse how we can negotiate consent and assent with children under the age of six.

Findings from our critical dialogue demonstrate that like everything that is play-based and child-centred, informed consent processes were messy and fraught with challenge, while simultaneously offering a rewarding route for children’s self-expression. It is suggested that researchers must relate to children in a responsive and reflexive manner. In seeking to marry research methods with pedagogically appropriate practice, the creative consent approaches needed to evolve as the projects progressed. One-time consent was not appropriate; rather, iterative on-going consent needed to be negotiated. As we mark the 30th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (United Nations, 1989), this paper offers a discussion of what children’s rights and ethics might look like in practice, especially for young children under the age of six.

Blaisdell, C., Harden, J. and Tisdall, E. K. M. (2014) ‘Introduction to the special issue on involving children and young people in research’, International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 5(4.1), pp. 605–610. doi: 10.18357/ijcyfs.blaisdellc.5412014. Christensen, P. and James, A. (2008) ‘Introduction: researching children and childhood--cultures of communication’, in Christen, P. and James, A. (eds) Research with children: perspectives and practices. 2nd edn. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–9. Christensen, P. and James, A. (2017) Research with children: perspectives and practices. 3rd edn. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Elwick, S., Bradley, B., & Sumsion, J., (2014). Infants as Other: uncertainties, difficulties and (im)possibilities in researching infants’ lives. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27: 2, 196-213. Gallagher, M. (2005) Producing the schooled subject: techniques of power in a primary school. University of Edinburgh. Available at: https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/7260. Gallagher, M. (2008) ‘“Power is not an evil”: rethinking power in participatory methods’, Children’s Geographies, 6(2), pp. 137–150. doi: 10.1080/14733280801963045. Hammersley, M., ( 2015) “Research Ethics and the Concept of Children’s Rights.” Children and Society 29: 569–582. Hughes, T. and Helling, M. K. (1991) ‘A case for obtaining informed consent from young children’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(2), pp. 225–232. doi: 10.1016/0885-2006(91)90009-A. Leonard, M. (2016) The sociology of children, childhood and generation. London: SAGE. Murray, J., (2016) Young Children as researchers: Children aged four to eight years engage in important research behaviour when they base decisions on evidence, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, vol.24 (5), pp. 705-720. Oswell, D. (2016) ‘Re-aligning children’s agency and re-socialising children in Childhood Studies’, in Esser, F. et al. (eds) Reconceptualising agency and childhood: new perspectives in childhood studies. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 32–44. Palaiologou, I., (2016) Ethical issues associated with Educational Research, in I., Palaiologou, D., Needham. and Male T., (Eds) (2016) Doing Research in Education: Theory and Practice (pp: 37-58). London: SAGE. Parsons, S., Abbott, C., McKnight, L., and Davies, C. (2015). High risk yet invisible: conflicting narratives on social research involving children and young people, and the role of Research Ethics Committees. British Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 709-729. DOI: 10.1002/berj.3160 Parsons, S., Sherwood, G., and Abbott, C. (2015). Informed consent with children and young people in social research: is there scope for innovation? Children & Society. DOI: 10.1111/chso.12117 United Nations. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva: United Nations.