1. Introduction
Educational research involving minors from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds raises complex ethical challenges. These challenges are amplified when participants are children with low academic abilities and come from families with limited literacy. Such populations are often among the most vulnerable in educational systems, facing structural inequities, limited access to information, and reduced capacity to advocate for their rights (Alderson & Morrow, 2020; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2018). Ethical research in such contexts requires more than procedural compliance — it demands heightened moral sensitivity, cultural awareness, and a participatory approach that respects the dignity, agency, and contextual realities of both minors and their families (BERA, 2018; Creswell & Creswell, 2023). Researchers must actively ensure that their methods do not reinforce marginalization but instead contribute to empowerment and educational justice.
2. Respect for Vulnerable Populations
Children with low academic ability from illiterate households are doubly vulnerable — first, by virtue of their age and cognitive development, and second, by their socio-economic and educational disadvantage. According to the Belmont Report (1979) and BERA Ethical Guidelines (2018), research involving vulnerable populations must uphold the principle of respect for persons by recognizing their reduced autonomy and providing additional protections.
Alderson and Morrow (2020) emphasize that vulnerability should not be viewed as a reason to exclude such children from research, but rather as a call to adapt ethical procedures to safeguard their interests. This entails simplified consent processes, culturally relevant explanations, and active listening to the child’s perspective. The ethical goal is to include without exploiting, to protect without silencing, and to empower without imposing (Christensen & Prout, 2002).
3. Informed Consent and Parental Literacy Barriers
Obtaining informed consent becomes ethically and practically complex when parents or guardians are illiterate. The conventional written consent form may be inaccessible or intimidating to families with low literacy, thereby undermining genuine informed participation (Morrow & Richards, 1996).
In such cases, ethical best practice, as outlined by Creswell (2018) and the American Educational Research Association (AERA, 2011), is to provide oral consent procedures using clear, non-technical, and culturally appropriate language. Consent information should be communicated verbally, with interpreters or local facilitators if necessary, and participants should have opportunities to ask questions before agreeing.
Furthermore, consent should not be a one-time event; rather, ongoing assent from minors must be sought throughout the research process, ensuring that participation remains voluntary (Greig, Taylor & MacKay, 2013). When power hierarchies — such as the authority of teachers or researchers — may induce compliance, the researcher must reinforce that non-participation carries no penalty.
Ethical literacy, therefore, means adapting communication to the participant’s context, ensuring understanding rather than merely collecting signatures (Cohen et al., 2018).
4. Power Dynamics and the Ethics of Representation
Research with low-ability minors from marginalized regions often involves pronounced power asymmetries. The adult researcher typically holds educational, social, and linguistic authority that can shape how children perceive participation (Christensen & Prout, 2002). Moreover, when children’s voices are mediated through translation or teacher interpretation, there is a risk that their authentic perspectives are filtered through adult frameworks.
To mitigate such ethical distortions, researchers should adopt a child-centered and participatory approach that values the child’s lived experience as a legitimate form of knowledge (Lundy & McEvoy, 2012). This approach aligns with Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which affirms that children have the right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them.
Ethical representation also entails avoiding deficit narratives that portray participants as “weak,” “backward,” or “lacking.” As Punch (2002) and Gallagher (2009) argue, such framings risk reinforcing social inequality rather than challenging it. Researchers must use empowering language, emphasizing resilience and contextual factors rather than inherent incapacity.
5. Confidentiality and Anonymity in Small or Rural Contexts
Ensuring confidentiality in disadvantaged regions — particularly small rural communities — presents distinct challenges. Even when names are omitted, participants may be identifiable through contextual cues (such as school, region, or demographic traits). Creswell (2018) warns that such inadvertent disclosures can lead to social stigma or reputational harm, especially if findings highlight underachievement or negative educational outcomes.
To uphold ethical standards, researchers should:
-
Use composite descriptions to mask identifiable details;
-
Avoid naming schools or regions in publications; and
-
Engage community stakeholders in reviewing representations of findings before dissemination (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012).
Moreover, researchers must ensure that digital data are securely stored and comply with data protection regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, 2018). Ethical confidentiality is not only a legal duty but a relational one — essential for building and maintaining trust in communities that may already distrust formal institutions (BERA, 2018).
6. Avoiding Psychological and Social Harm
Minors of low academic ability are particularly susceptible to psychological harm when research highlights their learning struggles or compares them unfavourably to peers. According to Creswell and Creswell (2023), researchers must carefully design instruments and questions that do not shame or stigmatize participants. Instead, data collection should be framed around learning processes, strengths, and contextual barriers rather than deficiencies.
Debriefing sessions, reassurance, and the presence of supportive adults (e.g., teachers or counselors) can mitigate emotional risks. Furthermore, researchers must anticipate social harm — for instance, how findings may affect community perceptions or educational placement decisions (Morrow & Richards, 1996). Ethical dissemination therefore involves context-sensitive interpretation and the avoidance of deficit framings that could reinforce stereotypes about disadvantaged regions.
7. Cultural Sensitivity and Contextual Ethics
Research in disadvantaged regions requires cultural humility — an awareness that Western research norms may not fully align with local values, languages, or power structures (Holliday, 2016). Ethical procedures must be locally negotiated, respecting indigenous forms of knowledge, parental authority, and communal decision-making processes (Greig et al., 2013).
Creswell (2018) and Hammersley & Traianou (2012) advocate a situated ethics approach: rather than applying universal rules mechanically, researchers should adapt ethical practice to the social and cultural realities of the research setting. This includes using local facilitators, translating consent materials into accessible dialects, and engaging community leaders in ethical oversight.
Cultural respect also involves acknowledging that illiteracy does not imply lack of intelligence or moral agency — parents, though unable to read, often possess deep cultural wisdom about their children’s learning contexts. Recognizing and valuing this knowledge is a form of ethical justice.
8. Justice, Equity, and Benefit Sharing
The ethical principle of justice requires that the benefits of research be shared equitably with those who contribute to it (Belmont Report, 1979). In contexts of disadvantage, this means ensuring that the research produces tangible social value, such as improving educational access, teacher training, or community empowerment.
As Cohen et al. (2018) and Lundy & McEvoy (2012) note, ethical research should not “extract data” from poor communities but give back in the form of knowledge transfer, feedback sessions, or local policy recommendations. Such reciprocity enhances trust, ensures community benefit, and aligns with participatory ethical frameworks.
9. Reflexivity and Researcher Responsibility
Ethical sensitivity in such contexts ultimately depends on the researcher’s reflexivity — the ongoing self-awareness of one’s positionality, privilege, and potential bias (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012). Researchers must continually question how their presence, language, and interpretations influence participants’ responses and how findings might be used by others (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
A reflexive stance transforms ethics from a procedural checklist into a moral practice grounded in empathy and justice. The ethically responsible researcher becomes not merely a collector of data but a custodian of dignity for those whose stories are too often unheard.
10. Conclusion
Ethical research involving minors of low ability from illiterate families in disadvantaged regions demands contextual empathy, cultural awareness, and reflexive integrity. It requires protecting participants from harm, ensuring informed and meaningful consent, maintaining confidentiality, and avoiding exploitative or deficit-based interpretations.
Following the guidance of scholars such as Creswell, Alderson, and Morrow, ethical research in such contexts becomes an act of social responsibility — one that not only respects participants’ rights but also seeks to transform the inequities that shape their educational experiences.
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 of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.
-
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. (2018). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
-
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
-
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
-
Gallagher, M. (2009). Ethics. In E. K. M. Tisdall, J. M. Davis, & M. Gallagher (Eds.), Researching with Children and Young People: Research Design, Methods and Analysis (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.
-
Holliday, A. (2016). Doing and Writing Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). 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.
