1. Introduction
Research involving minors requires heightened ethical sensitivity due to their limited capacity to provide fully autonomous consent. Clarity in communication is therefore essential to uphold ethical standards such as respect for persons and informed consent (BERA, 2018; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2018). When minors are unable to comprehend research details, the validity of their participation and the integrity of the research itself are jeopardized (Alderson & Morrow, 2020). Thus, ensuring that all parties — children, parents, and institutional gatekeepers — clearly understand what participation entails is both a moral and professional obligation.
2. Conceptualising Clarity in Ethical Research
Clarity refers to the transparency and comprehensibility of all information provided to participants. It involves presenting research aims, methods, data uses, potential risks, and withdrawal rights in accessible language (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). For minors, clarity extends beyond linguistic simplicity — it requires contextualisation, visual aids, and dialogic explanation to match their developmental level (Punch, 2002). Ethically, this practice aligns with the Belmont Report’s (1979) principle of respect for persons, which mandates that participants enter research voluntarily and with adequate comprehension.
3. Informed Consent and Clarity
Informed consent is not merely a formality but an ongoing communicative process (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012). For minors, this process involves dual consent: parental or guardian consent and assent from the child (Morrow & Richards, 1996). The ethical challenge arises when minors agree to participate without fully grasping the research scope due to ambiguous explanations. Therefore, ethical clarity requires that information be presented in ways that children can understand, using age-appropriate language, examples, and possibly interactive tools (Alderson & Morrow, 2020).
Furthermore, the British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2018) emphasises that researchers must avoid technical jargon and ambiguous statements that obscure participants’ understanding. For example, terms like “data confidentiality” or “anonymity” should be rephrased as “your name will not be used” or “no one outside the study will know what you said.” This form of communicative transparency ensures that consent is genuine rather than symbolic.
4. Developmental Considerations and Power Imbalance
The ethical need for clarity is compounded by the inherent power imbalance between adult researchers and child participants (Christensen & Prout, 2002). Children may feel pressured to agree to participate or may not understand that refusal is acceptable. Researchers must therefore make explicit that participation is voluntary and that opting out carries no negative consequences. Clarity, in this sense, acts as a safeguard against coercion or misunderstanding (Tisdall, 2012).
Developmental psychology provides further justification for ensuring clarity. According to Piaget’s stages of cognitive development, children under 12 often interpret information concretely rather than abstractly. Therefore, explanations about research procedures must be tailored accordingly (Donaldson, 1978). Failure to adapt communication may lead to pseudo-consent — where a child signs a consent form without real comprehension (Alderson, 1995).
5. Ethical Frameworks and Regulatory Standards
Most international and national ethical frameworks reinforce the principle of clarity. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) asserts children’s right to receive information in an understandable form (Article 12 and 13). Similarly, the American Educational Research Association (AERA, 2011) states that researchers must ensure “participants have a clear understanding of what participation involves.” The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, 2018) also requires that data-related information be “concise, transparent, intelligible, and easily accessible.”
In educational research ethics review processes, clarity is often assessed through the readability and appropriateness of consent documents (BERA, 2018). Institutional review boards may require pilot testing of consent materials with children to evaluate comprehension levels (Greig, Taylor & MacKay, 2013).
6. Methodological Implications
Lack of clarity can compromise both ethical integrity and data quality. Participants who misunderstand the research purpose may provide unreliable or distorted responses (Gallagher, 2009). Conversely, clear communication fosters trust, rapport, and more authentic engagement — critical to participatory and child-centred research paradigms (Lundy & McEvoy, 2012). Ethically sound research is therefore also methodologically robust.
7. Clarity and Data Transparency in Educational Research
In educational research involving minors, clarity also extends to transparency about data handling practices — including how data will be collected, used, stored, and shared. Researchers have an ethical duty to ensure that participants and their guardians clearly understand the implications of their participation, particularly regarding issues of confidentiality and data protection (BERA, 2018; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2018). This means avoiding vague assurances such as “your information will be kept safe” and instead specifying, in age-appropriate terms, who will have access to the data, how long it will be retained, and whether it may be used for future studies (Alderson & Morrow, 2020).
Transparency of this kind strengthens informed consent, as participants can make decisions based on a full understanding of what their involvement entails (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012). Moreover, under ethical frameworks such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, 2018) and the British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2018), researchers are legally and morally required to communicate data-related information in a “concise, transparent, intelligible, and easily accessible form.” For minors, this involves simplifying technical terms such as “data storage” into more concrete explanations — for instance, “your answers will be kept in a password-protected file that only the research team can see.”
Thus, in educational research, clarity about data use is not merely administrative; it is an ethical safeguard that respects participants’ autonomy and protects their rights to privacy and dignity. When all stakeholders — including children, parents, and schools — fully understand how information will be managed, the research process becomes more trustworthy, participatory, and ethically sound (Christensen & Prout, 2002; Lundy & McEvoy, 2012).
7. Conclusion
Clarity is not merely a procedural requirement but a moral commitment to respecting minors as active agents in the research process. It demands linguistic simplicity, developmental sensitivity, and dialogic communication to ensure participants and their guardians fully comprehend what they are consenting to. By upholding clarity, educational researchers align with international ethical standards and promote justice, transparency, and respect in the study of young learners.
References
-
Alderson, P. (1995). Listening to Children: Children, Ethics and Social Research. London: Barnardo’s.
-
Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2020). The Ethics of Research with Children and Young People: A Practical Handbook (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
-
American Educational Research Association (AERA). (2011). Code of Ethics. Washington, D.C.: AERA.
-
Belmont Report. (1979). Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects.
-
British Educational Research Association (BERA). (2018). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (4th ed.). London: BERA.
-
Christensen, P., & Prout, A. (2002). Working with Ethical Symmetry in Social Research with Children. Childhood, 9(4), 477–497.
-
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). London: Routledge.
-
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
-
Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s Minds. Glasgow: Fontana.
-
Gallagher, M. (2009). Ethics. In E. K. M. Tisdall et al. (Eds.), Researching with Children and Young People (pp. 11–64). London: Sage.
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). (2018). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
-
Greig, A., Taylor, J., & MacKay, T. (2013). Doing Research with Children: A Practical Guide (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
-
Hammersley, M., & Traianou, A. (2012). Ethics in Qualitative Research: Controversies and Contexts. London: Sage.
-
Lundy, L., & McEvoy, L. (2012). Childhood, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Research: What Constitutes a ‘Rights-Based’ Approach? International Journal of Children’s Rights, 20(1), 239–258.
-
Morrow, V., & Richards, M. (1996). The Ethics of Social Research with Children: An Overview. Children & Society, 10(2), 90–105.
-
Punch, S. (2002). Research with Children: The Same or Different from Research with Adults? Childhood, 9(3), 321–341.
-
Tisdall, E. K. M. (2012). The Challenge and Challenging of Childhood Studies? Children & Society, 26(3), 181–191.
