Ethical Considerations in Digital Research with Young Children: Balancing Faces and Anonymity in Cellphilming

• In Event: Digital spaces for human rights, activism, and civic engagement

Proposal

Researcher reflexivity in studying ethics and agency in participatory research with children is gaining recognition as a critical area of inquiry. Despite growing appreciation for children’s voices, agency, and participation rights, our understanding of how these rights are upheld and enhanced, especially in the ethical use of digital tools and fostering digital dialogue in research with young children, remains underexplored. Cellphilming, as an arts-based participatory research method, shows promise in valuing children’s perspectives, agency, voice and well-being.
This study investigates how iPads, as digital tools, can be used by researchers to ethically engage children in research through creating cellphilms and fostering digital dialogue in a space that respects children’s well-being, dignity, and cultural backgrounds. The focus, in particular, is on children’s voices in matters concerning them, as outlined in Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989, Article 12), with a more specific focus on children from refugee backgrounds.
This inquiry was conducted in collaboration with the Wellbeing project at a temporary shelter for marginalized migrants, ‘Global Haven,’ in Montreal, Quebec, working with children and their families. In the project, we used cellphilming both as a method for engaging children, and as a medium to communicate children’s concerns and foster digital dialogue. Flowing from a rich tradition of participatory visual methods (Author et al, 2024), cellphilming provided a platform for children who are often “silenced and marginalized” (Lodge, 2009) to express something that was particularly important for those with language barriers. The children were encouraged to use iPads to film anything they wanted, guided by the prompt What message would you share to make the world a better place?. This was the same prompt being used by the McGill International Cellphilm Festival, lifting our hopes that possible participation in the festival would also serve as a motivation for their creativity. They filmed freely without concern about anonymity.
As researchers, we employed reflexive tools such as jotting notes, field notes, and diary entries to document the various ethical challenges that arose in the fieldwork (See Burkholder & Thompson, 2021). In the paper, we highlight the ways that this approach contributed to thinking through the various challenges. By way of illustration, one key ethical issue that arose was to do with what is often regarded as the ‘no faces’ approach. As Lussier et al. (2024) and others have noted, balancing anonymity with children’s right to show their faces in cellphilm is a complex challenge. In this spirit, the critical question facing us was how we could effectively engage children in visual research and leverage their perspectives if a significant portion of the data—specifically, images of their faces—is excluded. One particularly poignant case concerns Sara, a 5-year-old from Afghanistan, who created a cellphilm expressing her desire to reunite with her family. Sara’s joy was evident in the footage, but an ethical dilemma arose when considering whether to submit her cellphilm at the International Cellphilm Festival or not. Sara’s face was clearly visible in the cellphilm, raising concerns about the potential risks of public exposure. The ethical question was to balance the powerful narrative and the child’s right to be seen and heard with the ethical obligation to protect her privacy.
To navigate these ethical dilemmas, the first author created reflexive notes to document the challenges of balancing children’s right to participate and express themselves on matters of concern with the need for anonymity in public forums such as a Cellphilm festival. Within this context, based on her observations and reflecting upon available literature on the ethics of facial representation, she came to the conclusion that while the no-face code of ethics prioritizes anonymity and privacy, it also raises concerns about the potential infringement upon the participants’ rights, children or adults, to express themselves freely. This concern falls in line with Lodge’s (2009) apt note that anonymity can serve as much to protect as to silence. This is especially relevant in the context of digital research, where such issues as informed consent, identification, image abuse, identity, publication and ownership, children’s image and online visibility are evolving (Lodge, 2009). The pressing question remains: does anonymity still hold the same significance in this rapidly evolving technological landscape, where online platforms have redefined the concept of image anonymity, differently from what it was several decades ago? In the 21st century, visual methodology is widely recognized for its immense potential to involve children as active research participants and academic co-researchers. As Burnard (2002) highlights, children possess a wealth of knowledge beyond their conscious awareness. They undoubtedly possess insights into their own understanding that often surpass those of the researchers. Much of this knowledge remains implicit unless there is a vehicle for exression. Participatory visual methods such as cellphilming offers a means of gaining their perspectives on matters that concern them deeply. Visual methodologies enable children to represent what they know, feel, and think about their understanding and articulate it (Burnard, 2002). What is paramount is striking an ethical balance between excluding children’s images to safeguard their privacy while respecting their rights. Reflexivity plays a pivotal role in navigating these ethical challenges within research. The conclusion we reached was that while the 'no-face' code of ethics prioritizes anonymity and privacy, it also risks silencing children. Although Sara had a chance to create her cellphilm, and it could still have been shared in other ways, the fact that it was excluded from the cellphilm festival submissions was the issue. Two insights are explored in the paper: first, fieldnotes can be raw material for analysis. Learning to create detailed notes and applying an interpretative lens to them was a valuable methodological achievement. Second, reflexivity is a critical ethical tool (Richards & Coombs, 2023) in research with children, underscoring the importance of understanding positionality. We concluded that there should be a greater emphasis on fieldnote creation in graduate training, along with the development of comprehensive guidelines on using fieldnotes in qualitative research with vulnerable populations.

Authors

• Azam Dashti Khavidaki, McGill University

• Claudia Mitchell, McGill University