A Narrative Review of Ethical Issues in Participatory Research with Young People
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth participatory action research (YPAR) is a methodology to engage youth in the research process and is focused on emancipation and empowerment. Although benefits have been outlined, ethical issues have also arisen. This article provides a narrative review of peer-reviewed literature regarding these ethical issues. After applying standardized search criteria and inclusion/exclusion criteria, 26 articles remained. Examination of the literature revealed seven categories of ethical issues: level of participation, power, consent, risk/benefit ratio, confidentiality and anonymity, remuneration and empowerment. To mitigate these issues, recommendations are provided, including: being explicit about, and inclusive of, youths’ participation; critically reflect upon the researcher as ‘expert’; consent as an ongoing process and based on capacity rather than biological age; balancing the need to protect youth with the benefits of participation; challenge blanket anonymity policies to maximize participation and empowerment; remuneration beyond monetary compensation; and incorporate concepts of empowerment into research design and process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it