1. Introduction
Participant control and transparency form the ethical backbone of responsible educational research, particularly when the study involves minors. These principles affirm that participants — and, in the case of children, their parents or guardians — have the right to understand, access, and influence how their personal information and data are used (BERA, 2018; Alderson & Morrow, 2020). Upholding these principles not only ensures compliance with legal frameworks such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, 2018) but also reflects a deeper moral commitment to autonomy, respect, and accountability in research practice.
2. Participant Control over Data
Participant control refers to individuals’ ongoing capacity to exercise agency over their personal information collected during research. In the context of minors, this involves providing participants and their guardians with clear opportunities to access, modify, or request deletion of data, whenever feasible and appropriate (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2018). The ethical obligation extends beyond the initial act of consent to include continuous awareness and empowerment throughout the research process (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012).
From an ethical perspective, allowing participants control over their data acknowledges their right to privacy and reinforces the principle of respect for persons articulated in the Belmont Report (1979). For minors, this process also serves an educational purpose: it helps them understand their rights and promotes active citizenship within the research relationship (Lundy & McEvoy, 2012). Where deletion or alteration of data is not feasible — such as when data have been anonymised — researchers must explain these limits transparently, ensuring participants retain a sense of control and trust (Alderson & Morrow, 2020).
3. Transparency in Research Processes and Data Handling
Transparency complements participant control by ensuring that all stages of research — from data collection to reporting — are conducted in an open and understandable manner (BERA, 2018). It requires researchers to disclose the purposes, procedures, risks, benefits, and limitations of the study in accessible terms. Transparency also extends to how data will be stored, who will have access to it, and how long it will be kept (GDPR, 2018).
In educational research with minors, transparency helps mitigate power imbalances by reducing the sense of mystery or authority that may surround research activities (Christensen & Prout, 2002). When participants and their guardians understand what is happening and why, they can make informed choices about continued participation. This openness transforms research into a more collaborative and participatory process, consistent with child-centred and rights-based research ethics (Lundy & McEvoy, 2012; Morrow & Richards, 1996).
4. Accountability and Ethical Responsibility
Transparency not only benefits participants but also strengthens public accountability. When researchers clearly communicate their ethical practices, data management methods, and decision-making processes, they invite scrutiny and build public trust (Gallagher, 2009). Ethical accountability in educational research thus relies on visibility — making both intentions and actions open to evaluation by peers, participants, and oversight bodies (AERA, 2011).
This dimension of transparency aligns with the British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2018) guideline that researchers must provide sufficient information to enable participants and the wider community to understand and assess the conduct and outcomes of the research. By being open about methods and data handling, researchers help ensure that ethical standards are consistently observed and verifiable, protecting both participants and the integrity of the research field (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012).
5. Legal and Institutional Frameworks
Participant control and transparency are reinforced by several key legal and institutional frameworks. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, 2018) establishes participants’ rights to access, rectify, restrict, and erase their personal data. It also obliges researchers to communicate these rights “in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form.” The AERA Code of Ethics (2011) and BERA Guidelines (2018) further stipulate that educational researchers must ensure openness and accountability throughout their work.
Moreover, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) articulates children’s right “to seek, receive, and impart information” (Article 13), underscoring the moral imperative of involving minors in transparent and understandable communication about their participation.
6. Methodological Implications
Ethical transparency and participant control enhance not only moral legitimacy but also methodological credibility. When participants trust that their information is managed responsibly and that they retain agency over its use, they are more likely to provide authentic and thoughtful responses (Greig, Taylor & MacKay, 2013). Conversely, secrecy or unclear data practices can generate anxiety, distrust, and withdrawal from participation (Punch, 2002). Hence, ethical transparency supports methodological rigour by cultivating open, trusting relationships between researchers and participants.
7. Conclusion
Participant control and transparency are interdependent ethical commitments that uphold respect, trust, and accountability in educational research with minors. Allowing participants to access, modify, or delete their data — and clearly explaining how this process operates — reinforces their autonomy and protection. Transparent communication about data handling and research procedures, meanwhile, enables both participants and the public to hold researchers accountable. Together, these principles ensure that educational research remains not only ethically compliant but also morally responsible and socially trustworthy.
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.
-
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.
-
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations.
