In 2023, as research assistants, we were involved in a project led by Dr Zhu Yan entitled ‘Tackling Ethical Challenges in Research with Children: Contextualizing Children’s Rights in China’. The project gathered 30 diverse participants – including researchers, NGO staff and postgraduate students – to discuss ethical issues encountered by researchers working with children in China. This blog post briefly outlines these concerns, emphasising the roles of different stakeholders in research and calling for a culturally sensitive approach that acknowledges the distinctive cultural dynamics of the Global South.

Current research extensively acknowledges the influence of gatekeepers on research, as they bear the responsibility of safeguarding children (see for example Kay, 2019). However, our study reveals how the hierarchy embedded in Confucian culture complicates this influence. Many participants highlighted experiences where school headmasters wielded decision-making authority over children’s participation. This phenomenon stems from the hierarchical structure within Confucian culture, where headmasters often adopt a paternalistic approach and make decisions autonomously, bypassing input from teachers and students. For instance, some headmasters, fearing negative repercussions, restrict researchers’ access to schools or students’ participation, effectively silencing the voices of children. Others may pre-select student participants without their consent, inadvertently disregarding children’s right to informed consent.

Even so, the paternalistic role of gatekeepers cannot be simply understood as coercive; they also serve as protectors. In Confucian culture, those in higher ranks enjoy not only authority but also the responsibility to protect those lower in the hierarchy (Katyal & King, 2014). For instance, a participant in our study recounted how a school headmaster arranged more extroverted children for research participation because he believed introverted children might find it difficult to decline. By doing so, he aimed to shield less confident children from potential discomfort. However, in the Chinese school environment, both researchers and referred children find it challenging to refuse the headmaster’s authority, which thereby threatens their autonomy.

‘In the Chinese school environment, both researchers and referred children find it challenging to refuse the headmaster’s authority, which thereby threatens their autonomy.’

Moreover, power inequalities commonly exist between researchers and participants, often limiting children’s ability to dissent or independently participate in decisions affecting them (Christensen & James, 2008). To reduce such power inequalities, we call for culturally sensitive approaches rather than directly applying Western ethical norms. An illustrative case was shared by a researcher who, while conducting fieldwork, encouraged children to call her by her first name to reduce power imbalances. Nevertheless, children who adopted this informal address were reprimanded by their grandparents, who perceived it as being disrespectful to a teacher. This scenario shows the tensions between Western ethical practices aimed at lessening authority-driven power disparities and the hierarchical values prevalent in Chinese culture. Such conflicts highlight the complexities and potential ethical pitfalls of applying Western-oriented ethical guidelines uncritically in a Confucian context.

Confucianism has also deeply influenced Chinese researchers’ ontological views of children. For instance, in our study, a teacher at a Chinese university acknowledged the importance of informed consent. However, she admitted that she had previously only sought consent from gatekeepers such as teachers or parents, not from the children. She reflected on her past perspective, recognising that she had viewed children merely as extensions of their parents, rather than as independent decision-makers. This aligns with the Confucian norm that views children as incapable of making wise decisions, with only parents holding decision-making authority. Despite increasing exposure to Western ethical norms and understanding the importance of informed consent, such practices remain common among Chinese researchers, who may still prioritise adult consent over incorporating children’s perspectives.

‘The hierarchical framework of Confucian culture continues to significantly impact ethical research practices in China, particularly influencing the roles and voices of children.’

In conclusion, the hierarchical framework of Confucian culture continues to significantly impact ethical research practices in China, particularly influencing the roles and voices of children. Consequently, researchers frequently encounter dilemmas in informed consent practices. These dilemmas underscore that research ethical guidelines primarily reflect the norms of the Global North, often leading to conflicts for researchers in the Global South when these standards clash with local ethics.

Resolving these conflicts is challenging, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. However, we offer two basic recommendations for researchers navigating these challenges. First, we urge researchers to adopt a culturally sensitive approach to practice research ethics. This includes showing greater respect for, and consulting with, local cultural norms in the Global South, rather than merely adopting ethical guidelines from the Global North. Second, we encourage researchers to engage in ongoing reflection throughout the research process. As Gallacher and Gallagher (2008, p. 513) emphasise, ‘what matters is not so much the methods used, but the ways and the spirit in which they are used.’

References

Christensen, P., & James, A. (Eds.). (2008). Research with children: Perspectives and practices (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Gallacher, L., & Gallagher, M. (2008). Methodological immaturity in childhood research?: Thinking through ‘participatory methods’. Childhood, 15(4), 499–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568208091672

Katyal, K. R., & King, M.E., 2014. Non-Chinese researchers conducting research in Chinese cultures: Critical reflections. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 37(1), 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2012.736484

Kay, L. (2019). Guardians of research: Negotiating the strata of gatekeepers in research with vulnerable participants. PRACTICE, 1(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/25783858.2019.1589988