Reframing payment practices for co-research for children and young people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children and young people are increasingly involved in social science research as co-researchers. In such roles they can take on a range of responsibilities from developing research questions and methods, to undertaking fieldwork and analysis, to knowledge exchange. As co-research with children and young people becomes more common, significant ethical concerns have arisen about how to pay them fairly for their involvement. Yet, there is no consensus about what constitutes ethical practice. The limited literature primarily originates from a health context, concentrates on the ‘Global North’ rather than the ‘Global South’, and focuses on children and young people as research participants rather than as co-researchers. Based on our experience from the International and Canadian Child Rights Partnership, which involves research teams of children, young people and adults from both the ‘Global South’ and ‘Global North’, this article critically assesses the rationales for different types of payment, following the well-rehearsed typology of reimbursement, compensation, appreciation, and incentives. Our critical assessment surfaces questions about the intergenerational positioning of children and young people, the commodification of their involvement in co-research, and the balancing of individual and collective social norms in different contexts. The article proposes a framework of reciprocity for respectfully acknowledging children and young people’s involvement. It removes the categories of compensation and appreciation and creates two new categories of recognition and resource exchange. Furthermore, it narrows the category of incentives to equity incentives. Reimbursement is expected but, as such payments are not based on principles of reciprocity, it is not included in the framework itself. Unlike existing typologies, this newly developed framework is specifically intended for co-research in the social sciences with children and young people, and is aligned with the social justice aspirations of co-research.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.169 | 0.194 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".