Researching Migrant Street Children in Delhi: Ethical Considerations in Practice

ABSTRACT

This article is based on qualitative research conducted in Delhi between May 2019 and October 2019 with children from the Salaam Baalak Trust (SBT) as part of a PhD. Data were collected from 30 children in focus group discussions using participatory methods, followed by semi-structured interviews. As the research was conducted among a vulnerable population (migrant street children), every effort was made to conduct the study ethically, including obtaining informed consent and upholding confidentially and anonymity. Careful consideration was given as to how to tackle sensitive issues should they arise during data collection. The children agreed that the interim findings of the research would be shared with them through SBT. In addition, the researcher considered her position in the research and applied a reflexive approach to address ethical issues as they emerged. This article sets out the ethical principles applied in this research and the process followed to uphold each principle during data collection, taking into account the vulnerability of the group being studied and the context of the study (India).

KEYWORDS:

• Migration
• ethical principles
• fieldwork ethics
• Delhi streets
• street children
• ethics process

Introduction

This article is based on research with migrant street children in Delhi, conducted between May 2019 and October 2019, as part of a PhD. Research with children presents universal and common ethical challenges (Alderson & Morrow, 2011; Morrow, 2008), and migrant street children constitute a particularly vulnerable group. The methods employed to study them can introduce specific ethical issues, some of which are known, such as the need for informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity, and some that may only become apparent during the research process, such as how to handle sensitive information. For example, traditional interview and questionnaire methods raise concerns about the power relationship between adult researchers and children, which can influence the information that a child shares (Gibson, 2012). In addition, as observed during the present study, although participatory methods (such as mapping, storytelling and role plays) may produce more shared control of the research, these can raise ethical issues (Pavarini et al., 2021; Thomas & O’Kane, 1998). Although a deeper level of involvement by migrant street children in the research process may generate greater detail, it may also elicit sensitive information.

Taking these factors into consideration, a qualitative research study was designed to be conducted among 30 migrant street children (19 girls; 11 boys) aged between 10 and 18 years living in a residential home of Salaam Baalak Trust (SBT) in Delhi. This article presents the principles of ethical research taken into account in designing this research and how these principles were applied (and adjusted) in practice. Before presenting the findings concerning these principles and processes, the next section sets out the methods used to collect the data.

Methods for data collection

This research used qualitative methods for data collection, as it is concerned with the development of explanations of social phenomena and focuses on helping us deepen or broaden our comprehension of the world we live in and why things are the way they are (Kang & Hwang, 2021, 6). As DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree (2006) insist, qualitative research seeks to respond to questions like how and why people behave differently, how attitudes and opinions are formed, how events affect people, how different cultures have evolved, and why are there differences among social groups. Furthermore, it focuses on sensitive information and personal data, which are often presented by the victims of different events (Heath et al., 2018). Hence, qualitative research was considered to be suitable for collecting data on the lived experiences of migrant street children in Delhi.

Among the various qualitative research methods available, two were selected as most suitable: focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews. Focus group discussions are the most common method used with children, because children feel comfortable, which encourages them to talk freely (Gibson, 2012; Stewart, 2007; Tisdall, Davis & Gallagher, 2009). This method was initially used in this study with groups of seven children to build rapport, develop confidence, and collect basic information about the child’s home community, family, and activities. However, involving migrant street children in focus group discussions was not feasible in this research (Mauthner & Doucet, 2003), as, due to harmful past experiences, more than half of the participants did not feel like publicly sharing personal information. Hence, it was decided to use semi-structured interviews (Gibson, 2012; Tisdall et al., 2009).

Semi-structured interviews are suitable for research with vulnerable children for two reasons. Firstly, this method offers some structure, but is less rigid, and, secondly, semi-structured interviews can be conducted more in the style of an everyday conversation. This casual style is especially important for children, who may be shy and feel awkward discussing personal issues (Burgess, 2000; Mason, 2018). In conducting these interviews, the researcher began with easy, direct questions, which acted as prompts, and used movement and play to put the child at ease and reduce distraction. Each interview took 45 minutes to 1 hour. Some interviews had to be scheduled for the next day, as sometimes the child was not ready to share his/her experiences or life stories. Therefore, interviews were a process that took time.

In conducting both focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews, the researcher adhered to the following ethical standards: upholding informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity; handling sensitive issues; and providing feedback and dissemination. In addition, the researcher considered her own positionality and applied a reflexive approach. The next section of this article presents each of these ethical principles and how they were implemented by the researcher in practice while working with migrant street children, who can be considered a particularly vulnerable group. It also shows how these methods were adapted to the context of India, where it is not yet mandatory for research to be approved by a review board (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Children involved in a participatory method during data collection.

Ethical research with migrant street children

Sieber (1993, 14) defines ethics as the ‘application of a system of moral principles to prevent harming or wronging others, to promote the good, to be respectful and to be fair’ (see also Morrow, 2008). As researchers, we have an ethical responsibility towards our subjects and must ensure that we approach subjects with sensitivity and dignity throughout the research process (Morrow, 2008; Morrow & Richards, 1996). Therefore, due to the context of this study, it was necessary to become a ‘street researcher’ and to be guided by the children in the ways of the street and cultural interpretation; it was also important to ensure that the research activities were child sensitive (Bemak, 1996).

Ethical issues are present in any kind of research. As Lincoln, Guba and Pilotta (1985, 2010) state:

[W]hat will be learned in the field is always dependent on the interaction between the investigator and the context – which are both unpredictable until mutual shapings are witnessed. With this indeterminacy, the design must be ‘played by ear,’ it must unfold, cascade, roll and emerge.

In this particular study, I reported on the research conducted with the children weekly to SBT and monthly to PhD supervisors. Efforts were made to outline the ethical considerations in the study from the very beginning, to demonstrate its fit with the university’s ethics guidelines. The research passed through Stage 3 (highest in the order) of the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Edinburgh’s School of Social and Political Science.

Considering the above, the researcher included the following criteria as ethical principles to guide the design and application of the study: informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity, tackling sensitive issues, and feedback and dissemination, as well as positionality and reflexivity, which are discussed one by one in the following sub-sections (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Ethical principles applied to fieldwork.

Upholding informed consent

Principle

The importance of obtaining informed consent from participants is widely recognised (Hobbs, 2012; Manti & Licari, 2018). For consent to be informed, the researcher must ensure that the participants are well-informed of the purpose of the study, that their participation is voluntary (that they are not coerced in any way) and can be terminated at any point (Manti & Licari, 2018). This study made protecting the participants’ rights, well-being, and safety a priority at all times (Morrow & Richards, 1996), for which obtaining informed consent is the first step.

Application in practice

Informed consent was operationalised in this study in several ways. Firstly, an information and consent sheet was prepared for use in the field, explaining the purpose of the study and clearly emphasising that participation was voluntary, not obligatory, and could be terminated at any point, without needing to give a reason. The potential participants were also advised that the findings of the research would be shared on different platforms (PhD thesis, conferences, seminars and with organisations working in the fields). The potential participants were informed that they had some time to consider whether or not to participate. Meanwhile, if they had any questions or doubts about the study, they were free to contact the researcher directly, in person or using the contact details provided, to discuss. This sheet was used during the orientation phase of the fieldwork when the researcher was familiarising herself with the setting and the potential participants before starting group discussions.

The most challenging part of incorporating this ethical principle into the study design was determining what constitutes the ‘informed consent’ of migrant street children. In India, the minimum legal age for a child to give valid consent is unclear. There are a few sections of the Indian Penal Code that describe this, including Section 87, which says that a person above 18 years of age can give valid consent, and Section 89, which says that a child under 12 years of age cannot give valid consent. According to the Indian Majority Act (Section 3 [1]), a person attains the age of majority upon completing the age of 18 years (Mathiharan, 2014). It is unclear as to whether or not a child aged between 12 and 18 years can give valid consent. Thus, the ideal situation would be for the researcher to gain the consent of a parent or guardian.

As the participants in this study were migrant street children, they, presumably, had no parents or guardians available to give consent to their participation. Hence, following practices in other studies (Gibson, 2012), the University’s Research Ethics Committee and the researcher decided to look to the key worker at SBT to act as guardians and provide initial consent at the outset. As the children who took part in the study were all under the age of 18, first, the researcher had to obtain agreement from SBT for the children to be involved in the study and then from a key SBT worker for each child to participate. In this way, ‘informed consent’ was given by the key worker who acted as a substitute for the consent of the parent/guardian, and the children were made aware of this. However, this way of obtaining consent from children’s gatekeepers is sometimes criticised as ‘proxy consent’ and there is much written on this issue (Tisdall et al., 2009). Therefore, once the key worker’s consent was given, the researcher took oral consent and thumb impressions from those interested in participating in the study. In this way, informed consent was taken from both the legal guardian (SBT) and the child participant.

Researchers need to present the request for informed consent in the format that is most convenient, either verbal or written, and that can be understood by the participant (Arifin, 2018). Knowing that many of the migrant street children were illiterate or spoke languages other than Hindi as their mother tongue, the next step involved the researcher translating the consent and information forms into local languages. This made the process of taking oral consent and thumb impressions easier.

In addition, regular efforts were made by the researcher with the help of the key worker to verbally explain the study’s purpose to the children and give them a chance to ask questions. Out of an extra abundance of caution, and to be sure that the children had absorbed the information properly, questions about the research study were asked in a fun way before asking for their consent (Robson & McCartan, 2017). This process was found to be beneficial and allowed the fieldwork to begin with a lot of enthusiasm and giggles from the children, and without any pressure. Some children did not feel comfortable participating and ‘declined’. In such cases, efforts were made to build rapport and trust by playing card games and getting to know the child, so that they saw the researcher as someone who could be trusted. However, during this practice, no force was applied.

Furthermore, taking into consideration the instability of such children, who are living in one place at one point in time, oral consent was obtained each time they were involved in discussions and interviews and it was regularly reiterated that the child could choose to withdraw from the study at any time. Similarly, to allow the children to express their ongoing consent, after a few weeks of fieldwork, in every group discussion, a chart was hung in the room to gather participant feedback. Beside the chart were three colour sticky notes to be stuck in the chart: orange (dislike), yellow (like) and green (not sure), to determine whether or not the children were interested and enjoying the discussions. This procedure was explained at the start of the discussions and interviews and the children were reminded of it during the discussions and interviews. For those who opted out of the discussions (especially boys) who felt uncomfortable around a female researcher at first but gradually building on the trust, the researcher tried to meet them again and ask why they chose not to participate. However, this particular aspect was not part of the recordings or field notes (Tisdall et al., 2009).

In addition to all of the above, efforts to make the migrant children aware from the beginning that no payment (cash or gifts) would be given to participants. However, provisions such as juice and healthy snacks were shared throughout the fieldwork, as a caring gesture towards the children.

Upholding confidentiality and anonymity

Principle

In qualitative research, upholding the participant's confidentiality while collecting comprehensive, rich, and exhaustive accounts of their life poses distinct challenges (Petrova, Dewing & Camilleri, 2016). Confidentiality is the treatment of information as private and the commitment not to share data without the participant’s permission (Tisdall et al., 2009, 223). However, there are limits to this rule, particularly in relation to concerns about child protection, safety, and wellbeing (Tisdall et al., 2009). The literature explicitly states that it is the responsibility of the researcher to uphold the privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity of participants throughout the research (Kaiser, 2020; 2009). Anonymity refers to the ‘practice of ensuring that participants cannot be identified in research outputs’ (Tisdall et al., 2009, 223). Certain steps were taken to maintain confidentiality and anonymity in this study.

Application in practice

To protect confidentiality when using participatory research methods, such as groups, the researcher can set certain ground rules, such as not discussing the study with anyone outside the group. Such rules were set in the current study and children were told why it was important for them not to share what was said by others in the group. However, protecting confidentiality in a group setting is difficult.

There is also a risk of personal information being disclosed during data analysis and reporting (Taquette & Borges da Matta Souza, 2022). To mitigate this risk, the names and personal details of the children who participated in this study were concealed and pseudonyms used throughout; the participants were informed of this measure (Coffelt, 2017; Morrow, 2008).

As mentioned in the previous section, one of the few exceptions to the confidentiality principle is the duty of the researcher to disclose any abuse revealed during interviews and discussions. This dilemma of being unable to be fully confidential and anonymise data was real in this study (Dougherty, 2021; Hill, 1997). When considering whether or not to reveal such information, the researcher must ask if it is in the best interests of the child to break their confidence to report such harm or if producing general statements through research is a better way of protecting the children involved. In the current research, in consultation with the PhD supervisors, it was decided that if such a situation arose, the researcher would stop the discussion and ask the participant if they wished to continue, thus giving the child space. Additionally, as discussed, it would be reported to the relevant authorities, after discussion with the PhD supervisors.

Although no child disclosed any experiences of harm or abuse in this study, there were a few instances in which the researcher had to pass on information to the coordinator or key worker at SBT. For example, when children shared ongoing harm in their current environment or abuse that had happened when they lived at home that might affect their mental wellbeing. These situations revealed that the children could be at risk and may require some form of psychosocial support. When such information was revealed in the focus group discussions or individual interviews, the contact details of relevant people such as police, hospitals, social workers were shared with the children. Participants were informed of how such situations would be dealt with during the information and consent process. A protocol with action guidelines to inform pertinent institutions of any harm or potential situation of harm was also established.

Similarly, efforts to safely store research data in a way that protected their privacy and ensured confidentiality and anonymity. Audio recordings and transcripts of the sessions and hard copies of data were stored in a locked area, and electronic data were stored on a secure system in a location to which only the researcher had access. To protect the information, only the researcher had access to the audio recordings, transcripts, and visual data and they were used only for the study. In addition, for data management and dissemination, labels of different colours and pseudonyms in the field notes, transcripts, and analytic notes were also used. Data were shared with the PhD supervisors only after they were analysed. Following data analysis, the physical material produced by the children during participatory methods was destroyed using a paper shredder.

Handling sensitive issues

Principle

The deep involvement of street children in the research process may generate a high level of detail or sensitive information. Often after developing relationships with researchers, children disclose sensitive issues, and researchers must respond appropriately in such cases (Punch, 2012; Sanjari et al., 2014). As stated above, no child disclosed any experience of harm or abuse during the research, yet sensitive topics were still sometimes talked about during discussions and interviews. Therefore, careful consideration was given as to how to handle sensitive issues.

Application in practice

What counts as sensitive is very much down to subjective perception. This study relied on a general understanding of what is a sensitive topic, as well as how the children reacted or responded to information when revealed, to determine if something was sensitive. Some of the sensitive topics that come up during the fieldwork were issues around family relationships (e.g. separation and migration and parental neglect). For example, Sita (14 years old) shared the following:

I lived with my brother and mother. I took care of the house and my little brother when my mother worked. My mother never cared about how I felt and she always liked to command me. I felt lonely at home all the time. I wanted to become something and be independent.

It is clear from Sita’s example that parental neglect led to her migration, and she carried strong feelings about her experience. In such situations, the researcher made sure to respond by giving comfort and attentively listening to the child involved, aiming to reduce any sense of intrusion, distress, or discomfort. Such care was taken especially when children shared information about their home or street environment. If more serious topics were disclosed, the researcher determined to what extent she would participate in the lives of the participants and whether or not or when to intervene in a situation (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002; Gupta, 2013)

Providing feedback and dissemination of results

Principle

When researchers collect data from participants, they have an ethical responsibility to provide the results to those who took part in the study as well as feedback on other issues that may arise.

Application in practice

The participants were asked whether or not they wished to have access to the findings once the study was complete. Most expressed an interest in receiving the results, as did the staff and management at SBT. Accordingly, an email with a brief description of the findings was sent to SBT after data collection. It was mentioned in the information and consent forms that SBT could pass the findings on to the child participants if they wished to receive them. The dissemination of results was also mentioned during the interviews and group discussions. Although the intention to share the findings of the research with the children was present, many of the children who took part in the research had moved on by the time the findings were shared and the research was published.

To overcome this situation, many informal conversations about the research were held with the SBT staff, as well as the children, in relation to the findings. Regarding feedback to SBT about the work they were doing, many informal conversations were held with staff about the research, as well as the children who participated in the study. Research has the potential to bring to light many issues, the sharing of which can sometimes impact positively on the centre’s workings and the relationship of staff with the children in the form of feedback. Therefore, feedback from the children was passed on by the researcher to the SBT staff. The children shared that they found the teaching in the centre to be monotonous and boring. In addition, the children reported that lessons were irregular, especially in the girls’ centre. This feedback was passed on to the key person who looked after the SBT home centres in Delhi.

Positionality and reflexivity

The ethical challenges discussed in the previous sub-sections shaped the decisions made by the researcher, both during and after fieldwork. As the literature highlights, reflexivity is vital to address such dilemmas (Graham & Yeoh, 2013). In this research, the researcher continuously reflected on all aspects of the research, the ethical issues that emerged and her own positionality, using the information to improve the data collection and analysis at all stages.

Conducting qualitative research in an area in which the researcher works or is already known, such as in this study, raises issues and poses ethical challenges. As a researcher who had always lived in Delhi, it was likely that certain prejudices and expectations may be present. Therefore, it was necessary to make a conscious effort to identify my own prejudices and preconceptions in order to remain open and understand the issues from the perspective of the children. Towards this, I asked the participants about the meaning of the words and expressions they used during fieldwork, and also continuously noted reactions to certain information and tried to recognise preconceptions and biases.

Researching the experiences of migrant street children can present the researcher with unique and difficult ethical and moral problems. Due to the seriousness of the study topic, the researcher sometimes fell into the trap of overthinking things, which was dealt with by pausing, taking time out to reflect, and speaking to the PhD supervisors. Furthermore, as the researcher’s proximity with the organisations that participated in the study and with some of the staff of these organisations increased, it was important for the researcher to maintain a balance between personal and professional relationships. Therefore, the researcher made a conscious effort to be aware of these relationships and carefully considered them at every step during the fieldwork.

It is also important to recognise the researcher’s position in the research and the fact that the whole process may be affected by misinterpretations arising from the researcher's bias (Han, 2020; Lee, 2021). Therefore, despite being from India, the researcher made a sincere effort to be aware of certain cultural sensitivities and linguistic norms to avoid any bias. The researcher made an extra effort to respect the social environment of the children, such as where they lived and had come from, and their culture and way of living. Moreover, the population needs and characteristics, as well as the study area, were studied in detail before conducting the fieldwork to avoid making any assumptions.

Gender was found to significantly impact on the lived experiences of migrant street children during the fieldwork and, as a female researcher, it is important to acknowledge the implications of gender on data collection. For instance, there were times during the study when girls would talk openly about their issues, whereas boys appeared to feel shy and more restrained. This indicated that girls may have felt more comfortable talking to someone of the same gender. To minimise this impact, the researcher remained alert, without judgement and without reinforcing stereotypes, thereby maintaining a reflective approach at every step. Gaining the trust of the group and their willingness to support the researcher’s role is a step in the right direction, but it is the recognition of the relevance of ethical principles that must guide any research study (Orb, Eisenhauer & Wynaden, 2001, 95). Regarding the researcher’s safety, if at any point, the researcher felt unsafe during the fieldwork, the supervisors were consulted. For immediate safety concerns, contact with family and friends was rigorously maintained at every step.

Conclusions

This article examined some of the common ethical concerns that researchers studying children confront. It looked at how certain ethical principles were applied in research with migrant street children, which are a particularly vulnerable group. It also discussed how they were adapted in an Indian context.

The first principle discussed was upholding informed consent, which requires the participants to be fully informed of the purpose of the research and how the information gathered is going to be stored and used, before giving voluntary consent. As the participants were all under 18 years of age, written consent was obtained from the SBT key worker as guardian, as well as oral consent from the particular child. From this study, it became clear that true and informed consent is a mutable concept when conducting research with children and cannot be assumed from just one interaction. A child may agree to an interview initially, but feel like stopping at a later stage. Hence, it was important to continuously reiterate that the child could stop the interview and/or withdraw from the study at any time. Although informed consent was obtained at the start of the study, it was repeatedly obtained at the start of, and during, each interaction. In addition, different methods were used to determine whether or not the child wished to continue – including a chart on which the child could indicate how they felt about the interactions – in case the power imbalance between the research (an adult in a position of authority) and the child meant that they felt that they could not withdraw their consent directly.

The next principle applied in this research was confidentiality and anonymity (Orb et al., 2001, 95). This was ensured by using pseudonyms throughout the research process and storing the data safely. Efforts were made to ensure that anything revealed by the children during the fieldwork was kept private, and all physical material produced by the children during participatory methods was destroyed after analysis. In addition, the children were told why it was important for them not to share what was said by others in the group. However, protecting confidentiality in a group setting is difficult, which is one of the reasons why semi-structured interviews may be a better way of gathering information from vulnerable children.

The research design incorporated processes for feedback and the dissemination of the information gained during the research. This was applied by conducting many informal conversations about the research with the staff and the children, as well as an email to SBT with the findings that could be shared with children who had agreed to receive the findings. Similarly, feedback from the children about the centre was passed on by the researcher to the SBT staff, so that it could be used to make improvements. However, as the research progressed, it became clear that many of the children who participated would have moved on by the time the research was published. Hence, it is necessary to develop other ways to disseminate results, either through more regular updates to the children while in the home, or by finding a way to stay in touch with them after they leave the home.

At every step of the research, I took time to reflect on my positionality and any preconceived ideas and biases that I might hold about the city and its people. Being raised in Delhi and being of Indian descent, I had to unpack my subconscious biases and beliefs about caste, culture, social norms and values, and even the agency of children. In addition, despite being familiar with the study location (Delhi), and having worked with migrant street children previously, I realised that I was largely unaware of their lived experiences on the streets, including their risks and vulnerabilities, as well as their motivations for remaining and leaving the streets. I was interested in learning about their perspective and gaining insight into how to support them and enhance their wellbeing. The importance of this research lies in its potential to inform policy, legislation and programmes for migrant street children. The findings reveal a need for more ethnographic, multi-sited, multi-perspective, and longitudinal research. Such data would allow decision makes to design policies and programmes that more effectively target and address the needs of migrant street children.

Learning from this research, in subsequent research with street children, I would start with semi-structured interviews and informal conversations, instead of focus group discussions, which could be held later. Semi-structured interviews and informal conversations allow the interviewer to adapt the questions, language, location and length of each interaction to suit the particular child at that particular time and location. Hence, these methods are better suited to gathering data from vulnerable children.

Although these principles do not ensure ethical research, they contribute to an understanding that ethical responsibility in qualitative research is an ongoing process. In qualitative research, especially with children, ethical dilemmas are common. Hence, researchers must always maintain ethical standards and be guided by ethical principles, as the protection of the rights of participants is important for both participants and researchers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Yukti Lamba

Dr Yukti Lamba holds a PhD in Social Work from the University of Edinburgh. She is currently working as a Caseworker at Access to Industry under the EdinMe project, which helps young people aged 16–21 with emerging and entrenched mental health issues that are affecting their progress towards sustained employment and/or education.