Recruiting parents and children into a research project: a qualitative exploration of families' decision‐making processes

Abstract

While approaches to the analysis of multiple perspectives have been explored, the earlier stage of arranging fieldwork with multiple family members has received relatively little reflection within the literature. Drawing on data from a qualitative study exploring family communication about sex and sexuality, this paper examines parents' and children's accounts of how their families became involved in the research. A key finding notes how dynamics of parent–child communication about sex were played out through families' interactions concerning research participation. Particular focus is paid to the ways in which information about the study was mediated between parents and children and also individuals' differential agendas for participation. Evidence of the persuasive practices of some parents to engage their families in research underlines the importance of accessing all potential participants directly. The paper concludes by highlighting the importance of sensitisation to interactions between family members themselves when engaging families in research.

Keywords:

• recruitment
• informed consent
• sensitive research
• parents and children

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, thanks to the families who gave up their time to talk to me about very personal topics. Thanks also to Kathryn Backett‐Milburn, Katie Buston and Michael Rosie, who commented on previous drafts of the paper and the four anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions. Finally, I am grateful to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Medical Research Council (MRC) for the studentship which funded this research (PTA 037‐2004‐00020).

Notes

1. A further nine families indicated they would like to take part (six from the GP's surgery, two from adverts and one snowball), but were not interviewed, either because they changed their mind or they responded after the target sample size had been met.

2. Although monetary payment for research participation is debated among social researchers (see Bushin, 2007, for further discussion), I felt it was appropriate to offer participants a voucher in acknowledgement of their time. In a couple of families there seemed to be some conflict over the division of the voucher, and it may have been better to acknowledge each participating individual's time with a smaller amount, rather than £20 for a family.

3. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing how families who did not respond to the letter from the GP or the advert came to the decision. Was information passed on before deciding against participation or did parents withhold information about the study from their children? This raises important questions about tensions between parental boundaries and young people's rights to participate in public life (see also Alderson, 2005).

4. Approximately half the parents who assumed the role of family mediator chose to communicate with me via email. Two parents reported showing their child/ren these emails by sitting with them in front of the computer.

5. It should be noted that this was only revealed at the end of the mother's interview which took place after her son's. If I had been aware of this beforehand, then I would have felt uncomfortable proceeding with either interview.