An analysis of child protection ‘standard operating procedures for research’ in higher education institutions in the United Kingdom

BMC Medical Ethics

Julie Taylor²  Anna Anderson¹  Kristin Childers-Buschle¹  Duncan Randall³ 

[1] University of Edinburgh/NSPCC Child Protection Research Centre, Edinburgh, UK;School of Health and Population Science, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK;University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

关键词: Standard operating procedures;    Child protection;    Child maltreatment;    Research ethics;   

Others  :  1229739
DOI  :  10.1186/s12910-015-0058-0

 received in 2015-04-07, accepted in 2015-09-21,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Interest in children’s agency within the research process has led to a renewed consideration of the relationships between researchers and children. Child protection concerns are sometimes not recognised by researchers, and sometimes ignored. Yet much research on children’s lives, especially in health, has the potential to uncover child abuse. University research guidance should be in place to safeguard both researchers and the populations under scrutiny. The aim of this study was to examine university guidance on protecting children in research contexts.

Methods

Child protection Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) were requested from institutions with Research Assessment Exercise (2008) profiles in the top two quartiles according to published league tables. Procedures were included if they applied across the institution and if they were more extensive than stating the university’s general application of the UK Disclosure and Barring Service process. A typology for scoring the SOPs was designed for this study based on the authors’ previous work. The typology and the raw data scoring were reviewed independently by each of the team members and collectively agreed. The raw scores were charted and analysed using descriptive statistics.

Results

SOPs for research conduct amongst vulnerable groups were sought from 83 institutions. Forty HEIs provided policies which met the inclusion criteria. The majority did not mention children, young people or vulnerable adults as a whole, although children in nurseries and young people in universities were addressed. Only three institutions scored over 50 out of a possible 100. The mean score was 17.4. More than half the HEIs made no reference to vetting/barring schemes in research, only eight universities set out a training programme on child protection. Research was often not mentioned in the SOPs and only six mention children in research, with only two fully recognising the extent of child protection in research.

Discussion

There is potential for researchers to recognise and respond to maltreatment of children who participate in research. However, the majority of HEIs do not have an overt culture of safeguarding. There is confusion over what are the roles and responsibilities of HEIs in relation to research that involves children.

Conclusions

The policies that are meant to support and guide research practice, so that children are protected, are in the most part non-existent or poorly developed.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Randall et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Jütte S, Bentley H, Miller P, Jetha N. How safe are our children?. NSPCC, London; 2014.
• [2]A League table of child maltreatment deaths in rich countries. United Nations Children Fund Innocenti Research Centre, Florence; 2003.
• [3]Gray D, Watt P. Giving victims a voice. Joint report into sexual abuse allegations made against Jimmy Savile. NSPCC and MPS, London; 2013.
• [4]Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularies. “Mistakes were made” HMIC’s review into allegations and intelligence material concerning Jimmy Savile between 1964 and 2012. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularies 2013 http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/media/review-into-allegations-and-intelligence-material-concerning-jimmy-savile.pdf Accessed 1st April 2015.
• [5]Associated Press. Catholic Church will hand over sex abuse documents on Chicago priests. The Guardian. Wednesday January 15th 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/catholic-church-hand-over-sex-abuse-documents-chicago-priests Accessed 1st April 2015.
• [6]Associated Australian Press. Salvation Army in disbelief over abuse complaints, inquiry hears. The Australian. February 4th 2014. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/salvation-army-in-disbelief-over-abuse-complaints-inquiry-hears/story-fngburq5-1226817784271 Accessed 1st April 2015.
• [7]Christensen P, Prout A. Working with ethical symmetry in social research with children. Childhood. 2002; 9(4):477-497.
• [8]Cater A, Overlien C. Children exposed to domestic violence: a discussion about research ethics and researchers’ responsibilities. Nordic Social Work Research 2013. doi:10.1080/2156857X.2013.801878.
• [9]Randall D. Revisiting Mandell’s “least adult” role and engaging with children’s voices in research. Nurse Res. 2012; 19(3):39-43.
• [10]Brandon M, Bailey S, Belderson P. Building on the learning from serious case reviews: A two-year analysis of child protection database notifications 2007–2009. Department of Education, London; 2010.
• [11]Cleaver H, Unell I, Aldgate J. Children’s needs- parenting capacity. Child abuse: parental mental illness, learning disability, substance abuse, and domestic violence. 2nd ed. The Stationary Office, London; 2011.
• [12]Randall D, Anderson A, Taylor J. Is research safe for children? A scoping review of safeguarding children in the research process [early online] Journal of Child Health Care doi:10.1177/1367493515587060.
• [13]Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Killen J, Grady C. What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. Journal of Infectious Disease. 2004; 189(5):930-937.
• [14]Research governance framework for health and social care. 2nd ed. Department of Health, London; 2005.
• [15]Nations U. Convention on the rights of the child. Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, Geneva; 1989.
• [16]Shaw C, Brady L, Davey C. Guidelines for research with children and young people. National Children’s Bureau, London; 2011.
• [17]Her Majesty’s Government. Working together to safeguard children: a guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. London: The Stationery Office; 2010. https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eorderingdownload/00305-2010dom-en-v3.pdf Accessed 1st April 2015.
• [18]Writing organisational child protection policies and procedures. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, London; 2013. https://www. nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/information-service/factsheet-writing-organisational-child-protection-policies-procedures.pdf Accessed 1st April 2015
• [19]Safeguarding children: Guidance for English Higher Education Institutes. Crown Office, London; 2007.
• [20]Mayfield University Consultants. The Complete University Guide. Mayfield University Consultants; 2013. http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/ Accessed 1st April 2015.
• [21]Times Higher Education () THE World University Rankings 2013–4. The Times Higher Education; 2013 http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking Accessed 1st April 2015
• [22]Her Majesty’s Government (UK) Safeguarding Vulnerable groups Act 2006. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/47/pdfs/ukpga_20060047_en.pdf Accessed 1st April 2015.
• [23]British Broadcasting Corporation. BBC Child Protection Policy. London: British Broadcasting Corporation. September 2013. http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/policiesandguidelines/childprotection/pdf/bbc_child_protection_policy.pdf Accessed 1st April 2015.
• [24]Ethical principles, dilemmas and risks in collecting data on violence against children: A review of available literature, statistics and monitoring section/Division of policy and strategy. UNICEF, New York; 2012.
• [25]Goodenough T, Williamson E, Kent J, Ashcroft R. Ethical protection in research: including children in the debate. In: Researchers and their subjects: Ethics, power, knowledge and consent. Smyth M, Bond C, editors. The Policy Press, Bristol; 2004: p.55-72.
• [26]Dillinger, L. (2013). ‘Several schools review policies after Sandusky scandal’. Onward State online magazine. September 2013. http://onwardstate.com/2013/09/05/several-schools-review-policies-after-sandusky-scandal/ Accessed 1st April 2015.