Embracing the breadth of ethical complexities in early childhood research

Ethics within the field of early childhood education and care (ECEC) is all-encompassing; it is embedded within the very fabric of our profession, as well as needing specific consideration within our research. The strong connection between practice and research within ECEC is long established and, in my view, ethics sits at the nexus of this. EECERA, since its inception 32 years ago, has championed ethical practices within research, pedagogy and policy with young children. As educators of the youngest within society, our work holds the deepest respect for children, their families and wider communities and we seek inclusion and democracy. As a sector, we support social justice and equality. As researchers with the youngest children, we seek to uphold the same ethical standard and more. We ensure that our research is valuable to the wider sector, reflects multiple voices and has been undertaken with integrity. Specifically, EECERJ champions the work of researchers who listen to the youngest children in our society and this journal has been instrumental in guiding my ethical compass as I undertake research. The EECERA ethical code (Bertram et al. 2015) provides invaluable support through eight ethical principles and specific research practice and publication guidance; this code illustrates the breadth of ethical considerations that should impact and influence a research design.

As well as providing support, the EECERA code illustrates the complexity of undertaking research within the ECEC field. Such complexity cannot and should not be underestimated and, where researchers illuminate their ethical decisions and make transparent their research processes, we find that we can all learn from their journey. My understanding of the complexity of ethics continues to grow with every research project and increasingly I find that a flexible and contextual approach is required. This is far removed from my initial view of ethics in my earliest days of post-graduate study. The ethics of research can all too often be reduced to a single form and a checklist of requirements. Whilst I agree that obtaining approval for research to be carried out is an essential element, I believe strongly that an ethical approach stretches far beyond a single statement of intent. An ethical approach to research guides every choice we make from our intent to research to our engagement in dissemination. Ethics permeates the literature we chose to review and our positionality as we research as well as taking its typical place within methodological considerations.

Obtaining approval to undertake research is essential, and through the papers within this issue, you will find authors who note where approval was granted. Whilst undeniably important, this aspect of research often becomes problematic for researchers within ECEC as invariably the system of approval will be generic and may not appreciate the complexity of our sector. Children are often viewed as vulnerable and in need of protection, and their participation is always mediated by adults. Parental consent is a requirement before the voice of the child can be heard and adults act as gatekeepers regarding access to settings. Whilst these safeguards are essential, we need to recognise that they perpetuate the view of the vulnerable child and do little to ensure children are heard within research. Equally, the system of obtaining approval assumes that the researcher is in a position of power and wishes to control each aspect, and method, within the enquiry. There is little scope to allow research participants to dictate the focus and scope of an enquiry as approval is required before any research undertaken. Systems that grant such approval need to be fully versed in the practice-based and complex nature of the sector and they need to acknowledge what Lincoln and Denzin recognised back in 2005, a shift towards democratic research practices that can support culturally and ethically sensitive methods. EECERA advocates such research practices through the praxis book series, established in 2015, which seeks to bring highly reflective research and practice to those working on the front line. Each new book brings a collection of thematically ordered research projects together and supports democratic and participatory processes.

Within this participatory tradition, EECERA trustees will again be working with the sector to revise the ethical code in the coming months in recognition that our complex field has further evolved since the guidance was written in 2015. There is an increasingly sharper focus on sustainability through global progress towards the UN sustainability goals (2015) and this has the potential to contribute to the principles of the ethical code. There is also the development of technologies and artificial intelligence within both research and children's lives that already has significant ethical implications. I am confident that trustees will be considering the impact of technology on all aspects of research from inception to wider dissemination as the EECERA ethical code is revised. It is hoped that, in dialogue with the sector, EECERA can continue to support the shifting landscape of ECEC research whilst remaining deeply embedded in practice.

My research has been guided by praxeological principles and this supports my connection to practice. Praxeology, as a paradigm within ECEC, balances praxis, ethics and power in a participatory approach to research (Formosinho and Oliveira-Formosinho 2012) which values the contribution of real-life experience to the development of knowledge, and recognises that such knowledge sits within children, practitioners, parents and policy makers (Pascal and Bertram 2012). Aligning with a praxeological paradigm supported an ethical stance through my own doctoral research and allowed attached research to take place recognising my professional heritage. It supported me in my critical reflections when I encountered ethical complexities and tensions arose; invariably not all ethical decisions are clear cut. The 2012 EECERJ special issue on praxeology remains my most utilised issue of the journal so far.

Listening to children and involving them in research in a respectful and meaningful way has become central to my research (Lyndon 2019a; 2019b; 2021; Lyndon et al. 2019). During my various research projects, I have struggled with the idea of purposefully sampling children when researching within a wider educational environment. How should I select which children are excluded? How do I manage children for whom there is no parental consent? Harcourt and Einarsdottir’s (2011) guide me with such questions and I am always mindful that selecting some will marginalise others. The solution is not simply to try and include everyone in research but to be transparent about choices and ensure the reader can understand the decisions made.

The reader is equally important when illustrating how all-encompassing ethics are within research and I consider there to be an ethical requirement for the reader to engage with the content that they read, reflect and consider further dissemination. Oliveira-Formosinho and Formosinho (2012) recognise that the reader becomes part of wider dissemination and must take responsibility for engaging with the key messages of the research. As a reader of this latest issue of EECERJ I invite you to read on and consider your role in the further dissemination of the worked shared here.

This volume opens with some interesting ethical challenges as the first three articles illustrate research in areas that typically might be seen as controversial and with the potential for ethical tension. Undertaking research with young children in a graveyard may leave some people flagging ethical concerns but our first authors discuss the ethical sensitivity required when working with young children and this piece particularly illustrates the requirement for ethics to respond to the setting. We learn that the Norwegian play framework supports children to ask existential questions and this research used ethnographic techniques to ensure children's voices were heard within their natural environment. There is a sensitivity that permeates the data analysis as we hear Peter's voice at the grave of his sister. The second article takes another emotive topic and discusses the experiences of young children challenging the authenticity of Santa; embarking upon research within a topic steeped in cultural context should be applauded. Here I find ethics stretch beyond the typical discussion of approval, consent, assent and anonymity; in the discussion, the authors present a narrative that can be viewed through an ethical lens. Children are presented as competent social agents, able to formulate and then interrogate their theories. Thirdly we follow a research project exploring children's feelings around the Covid-19 pandemic. For me, this piece illustrates something my research has touched upon, the benefits of drawing as a method of eliciting children's feelings and opinions. Drawing as a research method provides a safe space and this article recognises the honesty that such an approach can support without overwhelming children. Drawing provides a sensitive method to allow discussion on topics that may otherwise be challenging.

The next three articles within this issue illustrate my initial point about the all-encompassing nature of ethics within ECEC and how embedded ethics are within our profession. The fourth article explores pedagogical leadership within a Chilean context and here we see the ethic of care embedded within professionalism. This discourse of care and caring is presented as a valid form of leadership within this article and some interesting additional ethical problems are raised. Researchers found themselves having to carefully navigate private moments such as informal conversations in drawing together the overall analysis. I find this an interesting dilemma for real-life, practitioner researchers and pertinent within ethnographic techniques. The fifth article, in my view, illustrates an ethical intent at the outset; it sought to explore a teacher rating scale in the assessment of mathematics recognising the contribution of teacher assessment within this phase of education. Both this article and the sixth, exploring adaptive learning support in play-based mathematical learning, recognise that many practitioners within ECEC are currently facing a policy-driven, testing regime that may be at odds with the values and practice of the sector. We should be questioning whether the formal testing of our youngest children is ethical as well as developmentally sound.

In the final four articles within this issue, I see the ethical principle of social contribution as these articles all consider the need for a forward-thinking education system and each seeks utility. The seventh article within this issue, looking at the impact of STEAM education with tales, makes use of a quasi-experimental design, and highlights some important issues around control and experimental groups whilst not withholding potentially beneficial information. The perceptions of the educator are central to the eighth article which explores children's critical thinking from the perception of Norwegian educators. This article directly recognises the value of critical thinking in education for sustainable development and highlights the important role of the educator in fostering children's developing criticality. In the ninth article, we see the importance of cultural context as the authors explore children's discourses on gender during dramatic play. The presentation of the children's dramatic play represents their unequal adult world, but the authors of this article provide hope as they also note ways in which children use the play space to challenge dominant discourse. Just as the penultimate article has provided us with a culturally specific narrative, the final article within this issue reminds us of increasing globalisation and the need to look beyond our borders in the development of intercultural competence for early childhood teachers. This article advocates deeper levels of training and the ability to apply it within their work. It reminds us, as I stated initially, that our field is complex and that an understanding of ‘real life’ is needed within research and policy developments.

Looking at this issue of EECERJ through an ethical lens reminds us of the complexities of our sector and the connected and nuanced approach required when undertaking research. Now it is the turn of the reader to consider their role in the further dissemination of this narrative.