Ethical Reflexivity in Research with (Migrant) Children: Dealing with Power Asymmetries to Build up More Participatory Approaches

Abstract

Participatory research with children presents a range of ethical challenges, particularly concerning power dynamics between adults and children in the research process. Factors such as the research setting, parental consent, the role of gatekeepers, interview dynamics, and the methods used can either facilitate or limit children’s participation. For migrant children and their families, specific issues like the language of communication, the materials developed for the study, socio-economic status, and migration-related vulnerabilities, such as sensitive experiences of (forced) migration, are especially important. This paper explores these ethical considerations through the lens of our research in the WoKidS project, which examines the subjective well-being of children (N = 84) aged 8 to 14, both with and without a migration background. The article is grounded in an ethical reflexivity approach, where multiple researchers involved in the study reflect on their experiences and practices while conducting research with (migrant) children.

1. Introduction

With the emergence of the new sociology of childhood [1] and the creation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in the late 1980s and early 1990s, children began to be increasingly consulted about their lives, participating in research aimed at understanding various aspects of their experiences and living conditions. On the one hand, childhood studies challenged the long-held assumption that children are merely a “first draft” of a larger project—unfinished and imperfect beings—emphasising instead their value as active subjects in the present [2]. On the other hand, the UNCRC adopted an international legal framework to ratify the idea that children are individuals with their own rights—and not just objects who belong to their parents—who have the right to express their views on matters that affect them [3].

This new understanding of the child opened up the possibility of studying childhood as a social phenomenon that is important in itself, rather than a subcategory in the sociology of family or education [4]. It also highlighted the importance of examining children’s cultures as the expression of meanings that have been built up by the children in the social contexts in which they grow up [2]. Thus, it moved scholars away from the idea that research is something (only) done to children (on and about them) toward the notion that research is something done with children (with and by them) [5]. This shift did not come alone, bringing with it new responsibilities and ethical dilemmas for researchers [6]. Instead of using research methods that “look down” on childhood, researchers started to develop methods that “look up” at children in a more contextualised way [7], thereby enhancing their opportunities to participate. Instead of only considering children’s vulnerability and the need to be protected from multiple forms of harm, researchers also started to underline children’s competence and their ability to participate in research [8], understanding protection and participation as two sides of the same coin. In this sense, children started to be seen both in their commonalities with adults, i.e., as human beings in their own right, and in their differences, namely as individuals with less power of action in the generational structure of societies [6].

Although these ideas have been at the core of childhood studies since their inception, researchers are repeatedly put in the situation of reflecting on how they can better deal with asymmetrical power relations in research [9]. Viewing children as participants and active social beings influences not only the sampling, the choice of methods, the analysis, and the dissemination of results, but also possible ethical conflicts that can take place in research [10]. The principle of “ethical symmetry” proposed by Christensen and Prout (2002) [6] makes researchers constantly vigilant about their own practices, as they should not only attempt to follow the general ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, justice, and non-maleficence but also be aware that “the rights, feelings and interests of children should be given as much consideration as those of adults” [11] (p. 493). These ethical questions can become even more relevant when including migrant children in research, as language, socio-economic status, and the sensitive experiences of (forced) migration can create new layers of complexity and power relations in research [12].

This article deals with ethical reflexivity in the research field with (migrant)1 children. It is based on field experiences arising from the project WoKidS, which investigates children’s subjective well-being in German-speaking Switzerland. The project’s initial planning involved the development of an ethical framework aimed at enhancing the balance of power and children’s participation in research [13]. Researchers were trained in ethical issues and were asked to record, after each interview, the ethical concerns they had and how they tried to resolve them [10]. In this paper, we work with ethical reflexivity in two dimensions. Following Guillemin and Gillam (2004) [14], we show the “procedural ethics”, or how we prepared the project to respect the ethical principles and to deal with power asymmetry in research with children. Additionally, we show the “ethics in practice”, or how some of these ethical choices arose in the field research with children, bringing new ethical dilemmas.

The paper is organised as follows: first, we contextualise the importance of ethical reflexivity in (participatory) research with children; second, we present the project and the research methods; third, we delve into different situations in which ethical symmetry was planned but was also challenged by the field context with (migrant) children. By discussing the ethical plan and the various courses of action we took, we aim to promote points of reflection for researchers aiming to develop more participatory approaches with (migrant) children.

2. Ethical Reflexivity and Power Relations in (Participatory) Research with (Migrant) Children

In qualitative research, reflexivity refers to a concept and analytic practice in which researchers—especially those coming from constructivist epistemologies—reflect on various components of the research process, including their influence on the investigation and the production of data analysis and results. Thus, the researcher’s subjectivities, documented impressions, observations, and irritations become data in their own right, making up part of the interpretation process [15]. However, reflexivity is not limited to methodological analyses; it is also used to reflect on ethical conducts, the generation of reliable and trustworthy results, and the potential consequences for all parties involved [16], such as the impact of the research on the participants and their communities, the researchers themselves, and the body of knowledge under study [9].

Ethical reflexivity is based first on how researchers anticipate the ethical tensions and dilemmas that might arise during the study. This reflective plan, or “procedural ethics”, is grounded on the four core ethical principles that underpin research with human subjects [14]. The principle of autonomy means that participants must be free to make decisions, free from controlling interference by others and from an inadequate understanding of what is required of them. The principle of non-maleficence means that researchers should undertake a risk assessment to avoid psychological and physical harm. The principle of beneficence means hoping to do good, either for the participants of the study or for the broader society, and the principle of justice represents our moral obligation to participants, i.e., the need to treat all participants fairly and equally [9,10]. Additionally, ethical reflexivity also engages in “ethics in practice”, i.e., the so-called “ethically important moments” [14] (p. 265) that occur within the research.

Researchers have pointed out that working with ethical reflexivity in research with children also encompasses acknowledging power relations since it permeates the relationships between researchers and children, between children and their parents, and among the children themselves [6,9]. Children are embedded in generational orderings, meaning they are part of systems that structure and organise the relationships between children and adults as generational categories, often characterised by power asymmetries and inequalities [17]. While generational relations can be protective, this also means that children depend on their parents’ consent to participate in research, they often receive incomplete or less clear information about the study compared to teachers and parents, and their voices may be overlooked due to overprotection [7].

Furthermore, power imbalances are also linked to the methodologies used and the extent of children’s participation in research. Hart’s (1992) [18] ladder of participation was a pioneering and influential model that illustrated, in eight steps, how children can appear in research but play a non-participatory role (1. manipulation, 2. decoration, or 3. tokenism) or engage at different levels of decision-making power (4. assigned but informed, 5. consulted and informed, 6. adult-initiated, shared decisions with children, 7. child-initiated and directed, and 8. child-initiated, shared decisions with adults)2 [19]. Rosen (2021) [20] argues that participatory research is a “loose term” that refers both to research involving children through creative and engaging research methods and to research that includes children in the research design and analysis. The focus is then on the methodology and co-construction between researchers and participant collaborators—especially those traditionally marginalised from knowledge production, such as children and migrants—decentring the power of the “expert researcher”.

Indeed, power imbalances are often accentuated when research involves migrant children, as their social positionings both as children and as migrants bring together different situational vulnerabilities [21]. Research suggests that building trust can be challenging, as children and their families may mistrust the researchers’ intentions and be defensive about participating [22]. Due to negative discourses on migration and strained relationships with statutory services, parents may resist requests to participate and prevent their children from taking part out of fear of stigma or unforeseen consequences, such as researchers assessing and reporting families’ precarious living conditions [23]. Moreover, migrant families may experience trauma related to forced migration, lack regular documentation, or have low socio-economic status, all of which place them in a vulnerable position [24,25].

Studies with refugees show that they are often unfamiliar with the language and systems of the place where they arrive, must navigate economic restrictions post-displacement, and may perceive researchers as figures of authority, fearing the impact of their (non-)participation in their asylum-seeking process [12]. Language and cultural differences can also complicate communication, blur roles, and weaken the understanding of key concepts in the research process, thereby challenging their meaningful engagement [26]. While the use of visual methods has been widely discussed as a means of enhancing children’s participation in research [9,27,28], migration researchers have also pointed out the importance of working with “non-verbal” methods, particularly when children do not speak the language of the destination country or have experienced trauma related to their escape [29,30].

3. Research Project and Methods

The data presented in this article are drawn from the WoKidS project (Children’s Well-Being in German-speaking Switzerland), which is part of the larger multinational qualitative and comparative network “Children’s Understanding of Well-Being: Global and Local Contexts” (CUWB). The project aims to explore children’s perspectives on well-being in German-speaking Switzerland, focusing on how they define and experience its various dimensions. In two research phases, qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted with children aged 8 to 14 between May 2022 and June 2024. In phase I, two interviews took place to explore places, situations, people, and things that are important for their well-being. In the first interview, the children were invited to make a drawing of what they consider important in their lives and what makes them feel good. In the second interview, they created an egocentric network map in which they placed significant people in their lives in the categories of most important, very important, and important. A total of 56 children participated in this phase. In phase II, 28 newly recruited children participated in the project through focus group discussions [31].

To highlight the diversity of contexts in which children grow up, the project included participants with varying experiences related to socio-economic status, gender, migration background, disabilities, religious beliefs, and place of residence. This conceptual and methodological decision upholds children’s right not to be discriminated against based on their sex, race, religion, or abilities in terms of their participation in research [3]. Children were recruited from a variety of settings, such as youth centres, sports and religious activities, summer camps, and services for children with disabilities, from both urban and rural areas. At the heart of the project is the belief that every child should have the opportunity to express their views on well-being and the things that make them feel good [3,32]. This approach also aligns with the principle of justice, emphasising fairness, equity, and non-discriminatory access to research [9].

The project’s initial phase focused on ethical planning, during which researchers developed appropriate field entry procedures, informed consent forms, and research methods to enhance children’s participation. Reflecting the migrant population in Switzerland, a flyer and informed consent forms were created in 12 languages. We also designed a bilingual, child-friendly booklet in German and English to explain the project to children and their families. Additionally, an informative webpage in German and English was set up. Our multilingual team, consisting of project assistants and several master’s students, conducted the interviews, transcribed3 [33] them, and translated them into English or German when necessary. The project was guided by participatory principles: through the booklet and conversations with the research team, children were fully informed about the project before agreeing to participate. The consent forms included various levels of agreement, allowing children to choose whether they wanted to participate, share their drawings or maps, or have their data featured on the project’s webpage. Children also had some control over where the interview took place, whether they wanted to do it alone or with another peer (a friend, a sibling, a cousin, etc.), whether they wanted to draw or create a map, and which language they preferred from the available options. Additionally, children were informed of their rights to skip questions and withdraw from participation at any time. At the start of the interview, each child was asked to choose a pseudonym for their name, which was then used for anonymisation purposes. Furthermore, the project involved children in data analysis through discussions of selected interview passages and drawings in focus groups. Finally, the project plans to develop a child-friendly report to be sent to all participants and shared with the general public [13,31].

Although a project can be carefully planned, ethical challenges inevitably arise in the field, prompting researchers to maintain ongoing reflexivity regarding their decisions. Therefore, researchers were asked to complete an ethical reflexivity protocol, based on the ethics guidance developed for the project, after each interview. The research team then analysed these reflections alongside the interviews during regular meetings. In the following sections, we analyse selected excerpts from these protocols and interviews, reflecting on our “procedural ethics”, i.e., the ethical principles we initially planned, and the “ethics in practice”, or the ethical dilemmas and decisions we encountered during the field research [14]. We aim to highlight different aspects of conducting more participatory fieldwork with children, addressing both common challenges faced by all children and those specific to children with (forced) migration backgrounds in our sample.

4. Analysis: Ethical Dilemmas in the Field Research with (Migrant) Children

Based on selected examples of our ethical procedures and experiences in the field with children, we analyse six ethical dilemmas that were designed to enhance children’s participation in research: approaching parents through multilingual materials, using the booklet as a tool for informing children, building trust through objects, peer-interview dynamics, allowing children to choose the interview location, and respecting children’s right to withhold answers.

4.1. Addressing Parents by Using Multilingual Materials

Consent is often described as “the central act in ethics” [10] (p. 130), and this is particularly relevant in research involving children, as it entails the consent of both the children and their families. An informed consent is valid only when participants fully understand what they are agreeing to, and it often includes an invisible process of evaluating information. With these aspects in mind, we developed multilingual flyers, consent forms, and a bilingual booklet to ensure that parents could read them in their native languages. While children with migration backgrounds are typically included in school and language programmes, parents often have fewer opportunities to learn German due to work and family commitments. Furthermore, these materials were written in plain language with easy-to-read vocabulary, addressing parents from diverse educational levels and socio-economic backgrounds. These instruments were used by various families, such as the family of Mohamed (11 years old). As his parents are divorced and have different native languages, the researcher needed to approach each parent separately, using different material for each.

Mohamed attends a residential care facility. Given his family situation, the caregiver advised that I seek consent from both parents, as obtaining consent from just one could lead to family conflicts. I sent the consent form in German to the father, but the caregiver suggested providing the mother with the Arabic version, as she speaks only basic German and Arabic is her first language. Both parents filled out the consent before the interview.

(Protocol of Mohamed’s interview)

The potential for misunderstandings due to language barriers and the importance of providing clear, unambiguous information to parents is illustrated by the following case. On the day of the interview, a mother refused to allow her son to participate in a peer interview with his friend Tom (10 years old) because she did not fully understand the nature of the project and was concerned about sharing private information. This migrant woman from Bulgaria spoke beginner-level German with the researchers and Bulgarian with her son. Since neither the consent form nor the project flyer were available in Bulgarian, the researcher gave the mother the consent form in German and verbally explained the project’s purpose.

With each sentence of the consent form, she became increasingly suspicious. […] She also appeared worried. […] Afterwards, she said she hadn’t understood the project properly. She thought the interview was some sort of a student test and did not realise it was part of a larger project. […] She mentioned that she felt uncomfortable with the interview and chose not to give her consent for her son to participate. In the end, Tom did the interview alone, even if her son was willing to take part.

(Protocol of Tom’s interview)

These examples highlight the importance of providing informative materials for parents in different (as well as in plain and accessible) languages. By doing so, researchers address not only the ethical principles of autonomy (ensuring full understanding of what is required) and justice (treating participants fairly and equally) but also the power dynamics between researchers and parents (with researchers possessing control over the German language and written materials), and between parents and children (since children rely on parental consent to participate). Mohamed was able to participate in the project because his parents could make an informed decision in their own language, something that did not occur in the case of Tom’s friend. At the same time, this example underscores the challenge of reaching all minority migrant groups within the research, as the field is unpredictable.

4.2. The Booklet as a Tool for Informing Children

Informational materials, such as leaflets and booklets, are essential to ensure that all people concerned are well informed [10]. The booklet was designed to be self-explanatory, written in simple, accessible language with easy-to-understand vocabulary, and incorporated visual elements to ensure accessibility for children with varying literacy levels. It also featured a neutral silhouette of a child to avoid reinforcing stereotypes related to gender, race, disability4, or ethnicity (Figure 1), thus, targeting children with various backgrounds.

Children received the booklet when invited to participate in the study. Once they and their families had contacted the research team to confirm their participation, the researcher would review the booklet with them again on the interview day to ensure that the children understood the project and their rights. For some children, such as Tim (10 years old) and his brother Peter (8 years old), this was an opportunity to ask additional questions prompted by the booklet.

Tim and Peter also asked me whether we would publish the whole interview, what we would do with it and what we would write about it. After I said the project was taking place in different countries, they also asked in which countries exactly the project would take place.

(Protocol of Tim and Peter’s interview)

Children also felt very confident about the content of the booklet, demonstrating that they had mastered the information it contained without having to ask the researchers directly, as in the case of Lera (9 years old):

It seemed like the girl wanted to start the interview as soon as possible, as she kept saying “Yes, yes, I know it” impatiently when I briefly tried to show her the booklet.

(Protocol of Lera’s interview)

On the one hand, the booklet was crucial in helping children to understand the project; on the other hand, it may have influenced their responses during the interview. Amogus (9 years old), for example, looked through the booklet to search for the drawing of the PlayStation while working on his own drawing.

When I gave him the paper to draw on, he immediately began drawing a PlayStation. He had seen the picture in the booklet and was now copying it.

(Protocol of Amogus’s interview)

Amogus’s example shows that he paid attention to the booklet’s contents. At the same time, it raises the question of whether the PlayStation would have been included in his drawing regardless, whether the booklet influenced him to draw the PlayStation, or whether it simply prompted him to recognise his activity with the PlayStation as important enough to be depicted.

4.3. The Object as a Bridge Between the Child and the Researcher

For the interview, both the researcher and the children were asked to bring an object that was important to them. These objects, which were discussed at the beginning of the interview as a way to get to know each other, played a key role in the process. In line with our ethical considerations regarding power relations between adult researchers and child interviewees, we conceptually planned for researchers to choose an object and use it to say something about themselves. This approach represents a deconstruction of the traditional power dynamic between the researcher, who typically asks questions and listens, and the interviewee, who traditionally shares personal information and, thus, becomes vulnerable [34,35].

Talking about the object helped both the children and the researcher “break the ice”, and it supported the children in deciding whether they wanted to participate in the interview at all. For example, Leo (9 years old) initially declined to participate in the project but changed his mind when the researcher asked him about his object, a wooden car with an electric motor. This sparked Leo’s interest in the researcher:

When I arrived, Leo’s mother said he didn’t want to participate anymore. She told me, however, that Leo agreed with her that he would talk with me for five minutes and see if he likes it (she had already mentioned on the phone that he doesn’t always feel like doing things). As we started talking and discussing his object, Leo quickly became motivated and fully engaged.

(Protocol of Leo’s interview)

The object also allowed children to learn more about the researcher before talking about themselves. During the peer interview with Andrea (9 years old) and her friend Fiore (8 years old), the researcher shared her object—a football shirt—to highlight the importance of friendship and sports for her well-being. This prompted the children to ask various questions about the object:

Interviewer:

That’s my object. Do you want to know anything else?

Andrea:

In which football club do you play?

Interviewer:

FC Seedorf.

Fiore:

Do you think the coach is good?

Interviewer:

Yes, we have had a new one for a year now, and he is super good. Because we have been promoted with him, so he is a good coach.

Andrea:

Did you fly somewhere or something?

Interviewer:

Fly where?

Andrea:

To play football? Or something? For the matches against other countries?

Interviewer:

No. I don’t play that well ((laughing)), we only play like that against Walddorf or.

Fiore:

Ah, do you mean like in Switzerland?

Andrea:

So, clubs and stuff.

Interviewer:

Exactly, not the European Championship or something.

Although using significant objects to create a bridge between the researcher and the children proved to be an effective strategy in our research, asking children to bring objects can also raise ethical dilemmas, particularly when it involves refugee children who may have had to leave most of their personal belongings behind. Moreover, the few important objects they have with them often remind them of what they no longer possess. Aline (14 years old), for example, brought a bracelet to the interview that her mother had given her when she was little.

Aline: As an object... I always have my phone and my bracelet with me. I just don’t take it [the bracelet] off, it’s always with me, gives me memories. […] Now, everything was flashing before my eyes.

Aline’s object serves as a “diasporic object” [36], evoking memories of the time she lived with her family before fleeing as a refugee to Switzerland on her own [36]. Thus, objects may evokeambivalent feelings, especially in contexts of migration, as they “act as reminders of the constant state of uprootedness inherent to migration” [37] (p. 379).

4.4. Peer-Interview Dynamics

To give children more decision-making power during the interview, we planned for them to participate alongside a peer (Figure 2). Many children invited a friend to join, sharing details about the project with them, thereby playing an active role in the sampling process.

This situation shifted the power dynamics in the interview. As the children outnumbered the researcher, they often asked their friends questions on their own, causing the researcher to take a “back seat” in the conversation [28]. In the following example, friends Carina (14 years old), Mia (12), and Alina (12), who participated in the interview together, discuss their professional futures while drawing the things that are important to their well-being:

Carina:

I think I never wanted to be a vet, I wanted to do something with animals, but it’s so difficult. (...) But I also have to operate and so on and somehow cut open animals and so on.

Mia:

I wouldn’t do that.

Carina:

Me neither.

Alina:

I always wanted to do that. I’ve always wanted to do that.

Carina:

But your godmother is um.

Alina:

She’s a veterinary assistant.

Carina:

But that’s not the same.

Alina:

It’s not the same, but I was allowed to go with her once when I was six. Since then

Mia:

I remember, you talked about it all afternoon, how excited you were.

Interviewer:

Really?

Carina:

And what about being an eye doctor, like your grandfather?

Alina:

No, never! Just never.

Mia:

You once had pictures of it in your status, I remember that. On the “Future Day”, when one could go with someone, I went with my mummy, and she went to her granddad.

Alina:

Yes, he operated on cataracts. So I could look at it, that wasn’t the problem. I can see blood.

Mia:

And she showed me pictures and I just huu thank you.

Alina:

No, it’s it’s not that I can’t see blood or something or that I couldn’t operate on it. But you should be precise to the millimetre, so if you’re kind of a millimetre off, then

Carina:

Oh no! Oh, I think

Alina:

Beautiful horse turned out [about the drawing] ((laughing)).

As shown in the lengthy discussion between Alina, Carina, and Mia, the interviewer makes only one intervention, meaning that the children could also guide the course of the interview. However, peer relations are also embedded in intragenerational power dynamics [38], which become evident when interactions occur between more and less articulated children, “able-bodied” children and those with disabilities, and older children and younger ones [39]. In the example that follows, Julia (12 years old) and Sofia (8), two sisters participating in the project, demonstrate how sibling relationships are often influenced by power dynamics rooted in birth order [40]:

Sofia, the younger sibling, often turned to Julia for help when she was unsure, including when it came to her drawing. It seemed that her older sister provided support, but this dynamic also created some challenges. Julie was frequently the first to respond and often spoke for both of them. As a result, Sofia tended to hold back, and I usually had to address her directly. In general, she spoke much less.

(Protocol of Julia and Sofia’s interview)

While interviews conducted in pairs or trios positively influenced the power dynamics between the adult researcher and the children, they also highlighted power relations among peers, revealing additional layers of power dynamics.

4.5. Choosing the Place of the Interview

When conducting research with children, it is crucial to choose locations for the interviews where the children feel at ease [6,41]. Acknowledging that children know best where they feel good, we invited them to suggest locations for the interview, before asking for their parents’ agreement (Figure 3). In a few instances, the researchers proposed a location. Interviews were conducted in various settings, including children’s homes, rooms in institutions where children regularly participated in activities, and public spaces such as parks, areas near forests, summer camps, swimming pools, and playgrounds.

Children, for example, Elena (9 years old), often chose places where they felt good:

Interviewer:

Why did you choose exactly this place [forest] for us to come here?

Elena:

It’s cosy here. Fresh air. Beautiful.

Interviewer:

Great. Very nice. Thank you for the location.

Elena:

I really like it here as well ((laughing)).

However, places can also create ambivalent associations. While Elena initially describes nature as a place where she feels good, during the second interview, conducted in the same forest, she becomes uncomfortable when she hears a plane flying overhead, as it reminds her of her experiences during the war.

((loud aircraft noise)) Elena stops talking and looks up at the sky.

Interviewer:

Is there an airport nearby?

Elena:

Yes, we’re used to aeroplanes. But when the fireworks started, it was scary.

Interviewer:

And did you go to [Lemon City] then? Did you watch [the fireworks]?

Elena:

Yes. It was beautiful but also scary when they shot. In our homeland, we were under the bombs. That’s why it’s scary when one shoots.

One of the reasons why Elena chose to have the interview in the forest was the lack of space at home. As a refugee child living with her mother, Elena faces the common challenge of limited privacy and space, a situation shared by many refugee children who live in temporary, overcrowded housing with other families [37]. Amogus (9 years old), on the other hand, chose to participate in the interview at home, in the bedroom he shared with his family.

Interviewer:

Tell me about this room. You told me you share it, right?

Amogus:

Yes, with my mother and my brother. My brother and my mother sleep there, and I sleep here. In the other room sleeps another [refugee] woman.

Interviewer:

You sleep here on the sofa, right?

Amogus:

Yes.

Conducting interviews in home environments, particularly in spaces with limited privacy, raises concerns about the ethical principle of confidentiality in research. According to Graham et al. (2013) [9], it is essential that the setting allows children to share information privately without being overheard. However, similar ethical concerns about privacy also emerged in interviews with children living in more advantaged contexts, such as Maxy (12 years old):

The kitchen was chosen as the interview location, though I’m not sure if it was the child’s or the mother’s decision. (…) I was simply told to conduct the interview there. The mother then went to work in an adjoining room but, from my perspective, she intentionally left the kitchen door wide open. Thus, I didn’t feel comfortable closing it. It’s possible that she overheard parts of the interview.

(Protocol of Maxy’s interview)

Maxy’s case illustrates how parents have the dual role of protecting and controlling children. While the mother may have left the door open to safeguard her son from potential risks posed by an unfamiliar researcher, it is also possible that she did so out of curiosity, aiming to gather information about her child’s subjective well-being or to monitor any private family details he might share during the interview. Additionally, when parents or grandparents are present during interviews, they may exert influence over the information children disclose or the language they choose to speak. In the example below, Karin (8 years old) decided to participate in the interview in German. However, her grandmother, who was present in the living room where the interview took place, interrupted her to ask her to speak Swiss German.

Karin:

I don’t go to swimming lessons. Like this.

Interviewer:

Ahaa, just.

Karin:

I go free [to] swimming if I want to. (...) Right, yes.

Grandmother:

Talk in Zurich German, please.

Karin:

My goodness, doesn’t matter now, oh man.

Interviewer:

Do you prefer to speak classic German?

Karin:

Yes, it’s better for me, but...

In the German-speaking part of Switzerland, standard German is used for official verbal and written communication. However, Swiss German is the predominant language for everyday informal interactions, with various regional dialects such as Zurich German, Bern German, Basel German, and so on. Karin’s grandmother not only underscores the distinction between Swiss German and standard German but also emphasises the separation of Zurich German from other forms of Swiss German. By doing so, she highlights the linguistic differences that define smaller regional identities within the country. We also encountered similar situations with a few children from families with a migration background. Thus, although our project planned that children could decide on the language they felt most comfortable with (Figure 4), we encountered resistance from some parents and grandparents when children opted to speak a language other than the one they had expected.

However, the presence of a caring and reassuring adult can also be crucial for some children, symbolising a source of emotional security. Mohamed (11 years old), who spent part of his daily life in a residential care facility when the interview took place, expressed a desire to have his caregiver present.

I had the feeling that Mohamed would like to have his caregiver with him in the room. When I asked if he wanted his caregiver there, he confirmed that he did. The caregiver agreed, though he mentioned he might need to step out during the interview. The caregiver didn’t intervene much, only offering occasional comments, mostly adding brief remarks.

(Protocol of Mohamed’s interview)

The presence of a trusted person helped Mohamed speak more openly about his life. At times, the caregiver made brief comments that encouraged Mohamed to elaborate and introduce new topics of conversation. It is possible that Mohamed felt vulnerable in an unfamiliar setting or with an unknown researcher, which made the caregiver’s support especially important. This example suggests that Mohamed not only understood what was important for his well-being during the interview but also that when—in some specific contexts—adults are involved in the interview process without overshadowing the child’s voice, their presence can be empowering and help children feel more comfortable participating.

4.6. The Right to Withhold Answers

Following the ethical principles of autonomy and non-maleficence [9,10], children were informed about their right not to answer or to withdraw from the interview and the project at any point (Figure 5).

This means that researchers must also navigate the more powerful position of children, who, through a more participatory approach, stand for the things that are important to them. However, as researchers are also embedded in generational orderings, they may still expect children to respond to their questions, feeling frustrated when this expectation is not met. In the following example, Karin (8 years old), aware of her rights as a participant, decides to withdraw from the interview to engage in another activity that she finds more appealing at that moment, putting the researcher in an uncomfortable position by reversing the generational order on power relations.

It made me feel very insecure when Karin told me she wanted to finish the interview to do something else. She said: “Two or three questions and I want to stop the interview.” I wasn’t ready with my questions yet, and I realised I would not be able to ask the things I would have liked to ask.

(Protocol of Karin’s interview)

While some children, such as Karin, can verbally and clearly express how they feel and what they want, others might not verbalise it due to generational and cultural factors related to power relations between adults and children [23]. Therefore, to ensure children’s participation rights and that the principles of autonomy and non-maleficence are adhered to, researchers must also apply an “ethical radar” to recognise signs of dissent or withdrawal from children during the interview [42]. In the example below, Max (11 years old), a refugee child participating in a focus group with his friends Danylo (11), Kera 7 (10), Sonya (10), Nika (10), and Hanabi (10), most of whom are also refugee children, reacted with tears when asked whether he missed his pets who had stayed behind in his home country:

Interviewer I:

Max, what do you like the most in your family?

Max:

Well, my cat and the hamster.

Danylo:

And why are they important for you?

Kera 7:

((Whispering)) He doesn’t have them.

Danylo:

Do you have that?

Max:

Yes, I have.

Interviewer I:

And did they stay behind, or did they come with you?

Max:

((Whispering)) Left behind.

Interviewer II:

Do you miss them much?

 

[Max starts crying]

 

[Focus group paused here]

In this situation, a sensitive topic is being addressed: the loss of a beloved pet and family member. While Kera 7 recognises that this is a sensitive issue for Max and even whispers it during the interview, the researchers do not seem to acknowledge the sensitivity, even when Max quietly says “left behind”, likely indicating that he did not want to talk about it. As a result, follow-up questions about the pets are asked—“And did they stay behind or did they come with you?” and “Do you miss them much?”—creating a power asymmetry between the researchers (who ask sensitive questions) and the child (who answers and becomes sad). Due to his positionality as a child and as a participant in a focus group—likely influenced by his migratory background, as in some cultures children are socialised to respond to adults’ requests without questioning or negotiating [23], thus conforming with the generational ordering [43]—it becomes difficult for Max to exercise his right not to answer and avoid discussing this sensitive issue related to his forced migration. His reaction is to cry, which leads to the focus group being interrupted. This example illustrates that, despite researchers being trained in ethics, power relations, and sensitive topics in research, situations can arise where researchers struggle to interpret children’s reactions in real time, thus creating an imbalance of power and vulnerability in children [35].

5. Discussion

Ethical reflexivity in research with children involves researchers critically reflecting on their roles and the power dynamics that take place throughout the research process. It encourages them to consider how their assumptions, actions, and decisions shape both the research itself and children’s participation. Given the generational orderings [17] in which children and adults are embedded, and their unequal power relations, we adopted an “ethical symmetry” approach to enhance children’s participation [6]. While this study did not involve children in all stages of the research, we incorporated various participatory elements throughout the project by actively and meaningfully engaging them [44]. However, even when researchers adhere to “procedural ethics” based on ethical principles and more participatory approaches that challenge power relations between adults and children, the “ethics in practice” often present new ethical dilemmas [14].

Drawing on examples from our field research with children, we discussed various ethical situations where power relations and children’s participation were crucial. The use of materials in plain language, translated into multiple languages, proved to be a key ethical element in engaging parents. This approach helped reduce the intragenerational power dynamics between parents and researchers, as researchers are often in the position of knowing and mastering the local language. When parents do not understand the project and are unsure of what they are consenting to, researchers are not only violating the principles of autonomy and justice but also contributing to strengthening power imbalances between parents and children [14]. Given that children rely on their parents’ consent to participate, it is essential that researchers strive to minimise the silencing of children in research by providing appropriate materials for parents. Sime et al. (2017) [23] also highlight similar methodological considerations, noting that materials presented in a simple, visual, and user-friendly manner—and ideally translated into the families’ native languages—are effective in engaging both parents and children in research.

The importance of providing clear and accessible information in research was also addressed through the booklet. Although researchers always explained the booklet to the children before the interviews to assure them of their rights, many children mentioned that they already knew the research design and procedures because they had read it themselves. The booklet, written in simple language with accessible vocabulary and visual illustrations, helped mitigate power imbalances between children and researchers as it allowed children to make an independent initial decision about participating in the project, thereby reducing their reliance on adults [10]. Therefore, the booklet represents a valuable tool for researchers pursuing more participatory approaches, benefiting not only children but also parents and other gatekeepers, who might be unfamiliar with the “concept of research” [23]. However, researchers must bear in mind that informational materials can also influence children’s responses during the research, both by guiding them and serving as a source of recognition. Moreover, both financial and time planning are essential. In our project, we dedicated the first months to developing ethical guidelines and creating the booklet, which involved conceptualising both the textual content and the images. These materials also require careful budget management, as they involve not only researchers but also several translators and a graphic designer/children’s book illustrator who worked closely with the research team [13].

Methodologically, we made a conceptual decision to involve children in key aspects of the interview process, including choosing the language spoken during the interview, selecting the interview location, and deciding whether to conduct the interview alone or with a peer. Although children actively participated in these decisions and researchers made every effort to honour their choices, new ethical dilemmas emerged in the field. Conducting interviews at home has advantages in terms of empowering children, as it can be seen as a personal and familiar space where the researcher is viewed as a guest [23]; however, this sometimes meant that the bedroom door would remain open or that a parent or grandparent would be present in the kitchen or living room, which presented challenges in terms of maintaining confidentiality. Some children also chose to conduct interviews in public spaces, such as parks and forests, selecting places where they felt good. Research shows that conducting interviews with children in public spaces may allow greater privacy and offer alternative and comfortable settings for conversations compared to family homes [45]. However, these locations can also trigger emotional distress, such as when a child associated the sound of an aircraft with bombings she experienced in her home country. Thus, places are ambiguous, requiring researchers to engage in ongoing reflexivity.

The dynamic of interviews conducted with peers led to a less active role for the researcher and increased children’s participation, as they often guided and had more control over the conversation [28]. While this strategy created a more symmetrical dynamic between researchers and children, it also highlighted the fact that peer relationships, too, are embedded in power dynamics [40]. Researchers must, therefore, remain attentive to power imbalances between older and younger children, or between more talkative and quieter children, in order to foster their participation [39]. Additionally, the presence of adults in the interview setting may signify control over children—such as when (grand)parents interfered with the language chosen by the children—but it can also provide reassurance, with some children preferring emotional security over confidentiality. Furthermore, we showed that even when researchers are trained and sensitised to ethics and more participatory approaches to research, they can still feel uncomfortable when children reverse the generational ordering and decide to withdraw from the interview. Researchers may also overlook signs of dissent from children—for example, when Max felt uncomfortable talking about his pets that remained in his home country—, thereby creating power asymmetries in the research process. These challenges emphasise the need for ongoing reflexivity regarding the researcher’s positionality, as they must consider how their own power dynamics shape what is heard, understood, and acted upon in the research.