1. Introduction
Consistency constitutes a cornerstone of ethical integrity in educational research, ensuring that principles, actions, and decisions remain aligned throughout the entire research process. It signifies not only adherence to established ethical guidelines but also the sustained and equitable application of ethical standards across all stages of the study — from participant recruitment to dissemination of findings (BERA, 2018; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2018). In research involving minors, consistency gains particular ethical weight, as it directly impacts participants’ trust, safety, and willingness to engage.
2. Conceptualising Consistency
Consistency in ethical research implies reliability, predictability, and fairness in how researchers conduct themselves and manage their responsibilities (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012). It means that ethical commitments articulated at the outset — such as confidentiality, voluntary participation, and respect for autonomy — are maintained faithfully throughout the research cycle. This principle reflects the idea that ethics is not a one-time procedural approval but a continuous practice (BERA, 2018).
For research with minors, consistency involves maintaining a stable ethical stance across interactions with children, guardians, and educational institutions. It also includes consistent communication and behaviour so that children can rely on the researcher’s promises and perceive the process as safe, respectful, and transparent (Alderson & Morrow, 2020).
3. Building and Maintaining Trust through Consistency
Trust is both a precondition and a product of ethical research (Christensen & Prout, 2002). When researchers act consistently — honouring agreements, maintaining confidentiality, and following through on stated procedures — participants and their communities develop confidence in the integrity of the study. Conversely, inconsistency, such as changing consent procedures or deviating from agreed-upon data uses, can erode trust and jeopardize the research relationship (Morrow & Richards, 1996).
In educational contexts, minors are particularly sensitive to inconsistency. They may perceive changes in behaviour, tone, or data use as breaches of honesty (Punch, 2002). Therefore, ethical consistency serves a relational function: it nurtures a dependable environment in which children can share experiences without fear of manipulation or betrayal. This continuity reinforces the principle of beneficence, as participants’ well-being and trust are safeguarded throughout the research (Belmont Report, 1979).
4. Consistency and the Equitable Application of Ethical Standards
Ethical consistency also entails the equitable treatment of all participants, ensuring that ethical protections are applied uniformly regardless of age, gender, ability, or background (AERA, 2011). The British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2018) emphasizes that researchers must avoid selective application of ethical rules, such as offering clearer consent forms to one group while neglecting another, or varying levels of confidentiality based on context.
In studies involving minors from diverse backgrounds — including those in low-ability schools or marginalised communities — consistency prevents the reinforcement of social inequities (Lundy & McEvoy, 2012). It guarantees that ethical standards do not fluctuate according to convenience, institutional pressure, or the perceived vulnerability of participants. This equitable approach aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which calls for non-discrimination and fairness in all practices involving children.
5. Procedural and Reflexive Dimensions of Consistency
Consistency operates at two levels: procedural and reflexive (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012). Procedurally, it requires strict adherence to approved research protocols, ensuring that methods of data collection, storage, and dissemination remain stable and transparent. Reflexively, it demands continuous ethical reflection and self-evaluation — ensuring that actions remain consistent with moral intentions and participant expectations.
For example, researchers must consistently re-affirm children’s assent at different stages, recognising that minors’ understanding and willingness may evolve (Alderson & Morrow, 2020). Similarly, the ethical standards governing data use and anonymity should remain consistent between the fieldwork phase and publication. Reflexive consistency thus bridges procedural rigor with moral accountability.
6. Institutional and Legal Frameworks Supporting Consistency
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and ethical committees play a pivotal role in ensuring consistency by requiring that all educational research involving minors follows established protocols (Greig, Taylor & MacKay, 2013). Ethical frameworks such as the AERA Code of Ethics (2011) and GDPR (2018) also reinforce the necessity of consistent data protection and participant communication. These frameworks stipulate that participants’ information must be handled uniformly and securely, and that researchers’ ethical obligations do not end once data collection is complete.
7. Methodological Implications
Consistency enhances the credibility and validity of educational research. Ethical inconsistencies — such as fluctuating consent procedures or shifting confidentiality boundaries — can undermine data reliability and damage participant engagement (Gallagher, 2009). By contrast, a consistent ethical approach fosters stable relationships, reliable participation, and authentic insights, all of which contribute to richer and more ethically sound data (Christensen & Prout, 2002).
8. Conclusion
Consistency is more than compliance with ethical rules; it embodies the researcher’s commitment to moral continuity, fairness, and accountability. By maintaining consistent ethical behaviour and communication, educational researchers not only respect the dignity and rights of minors but also reinforce trust with participants, guardians, and the broader community. Consistency thus ensures that ethical research remains both principled and sustainable — a process guided by integrity from beginning to end.
References
-
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.
-
Gallagher, M. (2009). Ethics. In E. K. M. Tisdall et al. (Eds.), Researching with Children and Young People (pp. 11–64). London: Sage.
-
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.
-
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations.
