 |
Confidentiality. Examples of survey research. Survey example 1: children and victimization
|
|
|
|
Confidentiality
While ensuring confidentiality with participants is imperative in any research, reas- surance of water-tight confidentiality is arguably the make or break of sensitive research. For respondents, the thought of disclosing personally sensitive information in an interview or on a questionnaire can be daunting and assurances of confidential- ity may be essential for their participation. It is imperative that respondents enter into the research process with the knowledge that the data gathered will be collected, handled and stored without fear of leakage or loss. One way to reassure respondents of confidentiality is, where possible, to spend time in the research environment before and after the data collection.
A range of methods can be used to ensure data collected remains confidential. Collecting anonymized data is the most secure method but is obviously a problem if a follow-up interview is required in a longitudinal study. Alternatively, data could be anonymized at a variety of stages during the fieldwork or analysis phases, using separately stored codes to identify respondents for follow-up.
EXAMPLES OF SURVEY RESEARCH
We now discuss our own experiences of survey research on sensitive topics with hard-to-reach groups. The following section presents two examples of surveys that we have been involved with. Both focus on sensitive topics and involve vul- nerable or hard-to-reach groups, and each presents specific methodological problems.
Survey example 1: Children and victimization
The Children and Young People’s Safety Survey (CYPSS) (Gallagher et al., 1998) is an ESRC-sponsored survey that was conducted between 1996 and 1998. The survey was carried out in 26 primary and secondary schools in the north-west of England by a sizeable multi-disciplinary group and the data produced has provided various analyses of children’s fears and experiences of victimization (Deakin, 2006; Gallagher et al., 1998, 2008). We were able to explore these sensitive issues through question- naires and follow-up interviews, generating quantitative data about the prevalence of victimization and providing a forum for discussion on how victimization and fear are recognized, defined and dealt with by children. We administered questionnaires to 2, 420 children and young people between the ages of 9 and 16 from four types of area: the inner city, peripheral council estates, suburban and rural locations. Questionnaires were completed during class-time, and follow-up interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of 52 victims and 52 non-victims in their homes. Our method highlights the importance of the children’s subjective experiences by allow- ing them to define victimization and fear, and it provided support and advice to children and their parents about the issue of abuse (Deakin, 2006).
Questions around the confidentiality of data or disclosure of children’s experiences
either to parents or to child protection agencies were perhaps our greatest concern during the fieldwork. The National Children’s Bureau argues that complete confiden- tiality can never be guaranteed to children because the researcher has a duty to pass on relevant information to professional agencies as appropriate (Mahon et al., 1996). The children involved in the study were informed that their answers would, for the most part, be confidential, but that, in certain circumstances, they might be encouraged to disclose information to an appropriate professional (Gallagher et al., 2008).
|
|
|
Design
The questionnaire was designed to provide children with a forum to describe their feelings and experiences. It included straightforward language, graphics and colour to appeal to children and feel informal. The number of questions was kept to a minimum whilst as much information as possible was gathered about victimization, safety and fears using closed-response options as much as possible and avoiding loaded ques- tions. The more sensitive questions exploring victimization were carefully worded to reflect the range of experiences, to avoid causing distress, and to be acceptable to schools and parents. Sensitive parts of the questionnaire were introduced after less sensitive questions and followed by a discussion about safety measures intended to leave the child in a positive frame of mind (Gallagher et al., 2002).
Access and piloting
Schools were selected as the most representative of each area and letters were sent to each school explaining the nature of the study, the proposed uses of the research
and requesting participation. Most of the schools contacted agreed to take part in the study after a period of consultation with parents, and none of these research sites would typically be considered hard to reach. However, children as a respondent group, and in particular younger children, are often protected from research by a series of gatekeepers (including parents, teachers, youth workers) and so could be considered hard to reach. For the follow-up interviews, consent was sought from both children and parents. Piloting of the questionnaire and the interview schedule were extensive due to the sensitive nature of the study, and, as a result, a number of changes were made including order and wording of questions. For example, a ques- tion designed to reveal experiences of unwanted sexual touching was changed from ‘Has anyone touched you in a way you didn’t like? ’ to ‘Has anyone touched you on a private part of your body in a way you didn’t like? ’ after some children misunder- stood the question.
Implementation
Before handing out the questionnaires, the children were briefed on its content and purposes in an age-appropriate manner. We gave the children examples of the types of questions and explained the structure of the questionnaire. We also explained to the children that everything they wrote down was confidential and would be anonymized, and told them they could ask for help, or stop answering the questions at any time. After the questionnaire had been completed, the children were offered the opportunity to talk to the researcher privately and given information about fur- ther sources of help and advice (Gallagher et al., 2002).
From our questionnaires, we were able to gather detailed, robust and subtle data in relation to children’s fears and experiences of victimization. This study demonstrated that questionnaires can tackle sensitive topics with a vulnerable population. They can use questions that leave definitions open to the respondent and they can be administered ethically, providing advice and support where needed.
|
|
|
