1. Introduction
The ethical principle of considering consequences and harm is central to all educational research, particularly when minors are participants. It stems from the foundational moral imperative to protect participants from harm and ensure that the benefits of research outweigh its potential risks (Belmont Report, 1979; BERA, 2018). In this regard, researchers have a duty to anticipate and mitigate all possible negative outcomes — including those that may not be immediately apparent — while maximizing the educational, social, or developmental benefits of the study.
In research involving children and adolescents, the principle of nonmaleficence (“do no harm”) acquires special importance due to their developmental vulnerability, limited autonomy, and heightened susceptibility to psychological or social risks (Alderson & Morrow, 2020). Consequently, ethical reflection must extend beyond immediate data collection to include the long-term and unforeseen consequences of participation, representation, and dissemination.
2. Minimizing Harm and Maximizing Benefit
At the core of ethical responsibility lies the balance between risk and benefit (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2018). The Belmont Report (1979) explicitly identifies beneficence — the obligation to minimize potential harm and maximize possible benefits — as a guiding principle of ethical research. In educational contexts, potential harms may include psychological distress, social stigma, loss of privacy, or damage to self-esteem arising from sensitive questioning or exposure to evaluative judgments (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012).
Researchers must thus design studies with proactive risk assessment, identifying areas where harm might occur and implementing strategies to mitigate these risks. For minors, such strategies include creating safe spaces for participation, ensuring voluntary engagement, and providing post-research support or debriefing where necessary (Morrow & Richards, 1996). Simultaneously, the research should strive to yield meaningful benefits — such as contributing to educational improvement, policy development, or empowerment of participants and their communities (Lundy & McEvoy, 2012).
3. Anticipating “Unforeseen Consequences” and “Unknown Unknowns”
A critical aspect of ethical foresight is acknowledging that not all risks can be predicted. Educational research, particularly in dynamic school or community settings, may generate unforeseen consequences or “unknown unknowns” — effects that arise unintentionally from data collection, interpretation, or dissemination (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012).
For instance, classroom-based observations may unintentionally influence teacher behaviour (the observer effect) or alter student dynamics in ways that create stress or competition (Christensen & Prout, 2002). Similarly, dissemination of findings may stigmatize certain groups or reinforce stereotypes if handled insensitively (Gallagher, 2009). Ethical researchers must therefore adopt a reflexive and adaptive approach, revisiting risk assessments throughout the study to identify and respond to emerging ethical issues (BERA, 2018).
Such reflexivity aligns with the precautionary principle — the idea that researchers should act to prevent harm even in the face of uncertainty (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). Proactive anticipation of potential harm ensures that ethics is treated as an ongoing process rather than a procedural hurdle.
4. Social, Psychological, and Physical Dimensions of Harm
The possible harms in educational research with minors are multi-dimensional.
-
Psychological harm may occur if sensitive topics (e.g., bullying, exclusion, or academic failure) evoke distress or embarrassment (Punch, 2002).
-
Social harm may result from breaches of confidentiality or from participants’ association with stigmatized findings (Morrow & Richards, 1996).
-
Physical harm, though less common, can arise in intervention studies or observational contexts that inadvertently disrupt safety routines or expose participants to risk (BERA, 2018).
Moreover, collective or community-level harm can occur when findings are reported in ways that portray schools, groups, or regions negatively (Lundy & McEvoy, 2012). Therefore, ethical researchers must extend their moral concern from individual participants to broader social implications — ensuring that no community is unfairly stigmatized or disadvantaged by the research outcomes.
5. Ethical Reflexivity and Responsibility
To responsibly manage consequences and harm, researchers must engage in ethical reflexivity — a process of continual self-examination regarding how their assumptions, decisions, and positionality influence participants (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012). Reflexivity requires acknowledging the asymmetry of power between adult researchers and child participants, ensuring that children’s perspectives are represented respectfully and not misinterpreted (Christensen & Prout, 2002).
This reflective stance should also inform how data are interpreted and disseminated. Researchers must consider whether their findings could be misused by policymakers, educators, or the media in ways that harm participants or misrepresent their voices (Alderson & Morrow, 2020). In this sense, ethical responsibility extends beyond the field into how research knowledge is communicated and applied.
6. Institutional and Legal Safeguards
Institutional frameworks reinforce the duty to assess and minimize harm. Ethics committees and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) require that researchers provide detailed risk–benefit analyses and contingency plans (BERA, 2018; AERA, 2011). The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, 2018) further mandates that any data processing must respect the principles of fairness, necessity, and proportionality — directly addressing the potential for informational harm.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) also underpins this duty by asserting children’s right to protection from all forms of harm or exploitation (Articles 3 and 19). This places an explicit moral and legal burden on educational researchers to ensure that their work — even when well-intentioned — does not compromise the welfare of minors or their communities.
7. Methodological and Practical Implications
Ethical sensitivity to consequences and harm enhances both the credibility and sustainability of educational research. Studies that anticipate and minimize risk are more likely to gain participants’ trust, institutional support, and public legitimacy. Conversely, ethical negligence — such as overlooking potential distress or breaching confidentiality — can damage participants, undermine data validity, and erode public confidence in research (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2018).
Practical strategies for minimizing harm include ongoing informed consent, participant debriefing, anonymization of sensitive data, and careful framing of findings to prevent misrepresentation (Greig, Taylor & MacKay, 2013).
8. Conclusion
The ethical consideration of consequences and harm requires researchers to engage in proactive, reflective, and sustained ethical vigilance. It demands attention not only to immediate risks but also to unforeseen and long-term outcomes that may affect participants and communities. By minimizing harm and maximizing benefit, educational researchers affirm their commitment to the dignity, safety, and flourishing of minors — ensuring that their work contributes positively to both individual development and the broader educational good.
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.
-
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
-
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.
