Abstract
It has been widely acknowledged in recent years that contemporary ideas about children and childhoods are framed by perceptions and definitions that are both Western/minority world and adult-centred. This paper argues that this is not only the case for theoretical concepts but is also found in research practice, and, in particular, in the commonly accepted ethical frameworks for conducting research with children and young people. Drawing from multi-sited fieldwork and a combined ethnographic methodology of participant observation and semi-structured interviews, this paper discusses the realities of conducting research with itinerant street vending children and young people in busy Nigerian streets and marketplaces in Enugu urban, who had never taken part in a research project. It explores five key ethical issues that arose from the study and reflects on the dilemmas involved with researching and relating with such a highly mobile group within a chaotic, yet organised market environment. The paper concludes that doing ethical research with children and young people in the developing world is fraught with issues and dilemmas that can best be resolved not by adopting textbook, ‘Western’ ethical research frameworks and constructions that do not reflect the lived realities of non-western children, but by constantly negotiating and renegotiating boundaries of inequalities, moral values, cultural beliefs and practices and specific contexts within which majority world children live and grow.
Keywords
Introduction
This paper focuses on five key ethical issues: recruitment and participation, access and consent, compensation, confidentiality and safety and protection, arising out of a recent PhD study. It is based on my fieldwork experience of doing multi-sited qualitative ethnographic research with 6- to 18-year-old child street vendors in Enugu urban, Nigeria. The aim of the study was to investigate the meanings of children’s work and child labour from the perspectives and experiences of children and young people involved in itinerant sale of wares along busy streets, traffic light junctions and sprawling open market spaces, motor parks, bus and taxi stations and petrol stations (herein referred to as marketplaces, markets and vending hubs).
As discussed later, itinerant street vending is popular amongst children growing up in Nigeria. Large numbers of children (and adults) are seen everywhere in Nigerian cities retailing assorted wares from food and drinks to household goods, toys, electrical equipment and play-stations, second-hand clothing, mobile telephones and accessories. They move around balancing their wares on their heads, or transporting them in wheel barrows or wooden carts, darting around in different directions chasing after people in moving vehicles and bargaining at the top of their voices to convince customers to buy their wares. Their presence, posture and modus operandi continue to evoke public debates, criticisms and concerns regarding children’s safety and protection.
I will begin this paper by considering children and childhoods, the study/research context and my chosen methodology (participant observation and semi-structured interviews). This is followed by a brief reflection on my status as an ‘insider/outsider’ researcher and issues about power. The substantive discussion focuses on the five ethical frameworks, my reflections on the barriers and limitations to compliance, the ways that I responded to these, and my conclusion.
The terms ‘western and non-western’, ‘minority and majority world’, ‘global north and global south’ are used interchangeably throughout the paper to refer to developed and developing countries, respectively, and the terms ‘children’ and ‘child’ refer to the children and young people who participated in this study. Ethical approval was obtained from the university’s Research Ethics Committee before I travelled for data collection. The children in this research attended school and lived with their parents and relatives who provided care and supervision at home and in the markets, as most of them were traders within the same or nearby markets.
Researching children and childhoods
Until recently, social science studies paid little attention to the lived experiences of children and their everyday lives (Leonard, 2005). The emergence of a new sociology of childhood has transformed discourses on the nature of childhood and society, and increased efforts to study children and their social worlds (James and Prout, 1990; Myers and Boyden, 1998; Twum-Danso, 2009). Nevertheless, it has been argued that much of the sociology of childhood literature has assumed a white, western, developed world view of what it is to be a ‘child’, and has, at the same time, paid little attention to the lived experiences of ‘black children’ (Graham, 2007; Graham and Bruce, 2006) and, more specifically, to those children who live in the ‘majority world’ (Cree, 2010). Researchers, including Woodhead (1999, 2003) and Punch (2002a, 2002b, 2003) have sought to redress this gap by studying children in diverse settings in different parts of the world, thus challenging the Eurocentric and ethnocentric nature of the literature to date. My study should be seen as another contribution to the growing research on, and knowledge about, the experiences of children in non-western contexts. This not only challenges what we think about children and childhood but also puts into sharp relief some of the difficulties in conducting research in a developing world.
The study
To gain a first-hand knowledge of street vending, the experiences of child vendors and an in-depth understanding of their lived, situated, practices (Rapley, 2004), participant observation and interviews (individual and group) were carried out in various marketplaces between July 2004 and January 2005. I followed children daily around their usual vending hubs which spanned the entire length and breadth of the city. Child vendors, oftentimes, move together with their peers and sometimes with adult vendors, in small groups of two and three, brandishing their wares, running after people, beckoning and soliciting for customers, in order to make sales and earn a living wage to support themselves and their families (Okoli, 2009). They operate in all types of weather: on weekdays and weekends, during school and after school and from morning till late hours of the night. They compete among themselves and with adult traders and operate in similar circumstances and conditions that can be said to ‘violate their human dignity and endanger their personal development’ (Liebel, 2004: 226).
They are often heard making noises and shouting out loudly the names of their wares, saying things like ‘buy orange’, ‘pure water’, ‘groundnuts’, ‘ice water this way’ as they move along scavenging for buyers. As soon as a prospective buyer indicates interest by approaching or calling out loudly what he/she wants, vendors will quickly rush toward the caller. They often fight and swear, joke, entertain, push, fall and run into people, spill their wares and those of others as they scurry around to make sales. The dynamism and vibrancy exuded by itinerant vendors provide exciting views and make the marketplace lively and amusing. These marketplaces are organised, though noisy, and give the appearance of chaos and lawlessness. They play a central role in the social and economic structure of the city, and children are present at all times during the day and night time market operations.
I will now outline the methodology (participant observation and interviews with children) in more detail and discuss my ‘insider/outsider’ status and power, before turning to the five key ethical issues raised by this study.
Participant observation
About ethnography, Darlington and Scott (2002) remarked that it is important to see people in their natural settings and observe things as they happen. Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) also suggested that it is not possible to study the social world without being part of it. Therefore, observing market operations, especially the children, in their ‘real world’ (Gray, 2014), and communicating directly with them in their own language, provided the much needed opportunity to gain a deeper insight into the verbal and non-verbal, observable and non-observable events, while making them feel at ease and confident to relay their experiences and understandings of their daily lives. Participant observation placed me in a strong position to construct the children’s social situation based on their various accounts and through their eyes rather than on an external, imaginary or artificial situation (Burgess, 1991: 79). Aware that my presence and direct dealings could impact on the quality and quantity of information sought, I set out on this ethnographic path to meet with, negotiate and build relationships required to conduct ethical research with itinerant street vending children in various marketplaces.
Observations took place during school holidays and during term times and were not restricted to the children alone. As a participant observer, I ‘hung out’ in the streets and marketplaces to observe traders and market operations from 06:00 when trading began, and often stayed beyond the official closing hours (18:00) when markets were locked up, sometimes till 22.00 on weekdays and weekends. I wanted to know what street vendors did, what time they started and finished, who they moved with, what wares they sold and how, and what happened at the end of each vending day. Unlike other customers who were there just to purchase goods and services, I not only bought their wares, but took time to build trusting relationships by organising meetings and discussing my research in detail. Records of events were taken and kept in field notes, and on cassette and video tapes, when permitted.
It was evident that children started vending in the early hours of the day before they went to school and were often accompanied by their parents or adult guardians as they brought wares into the markets. They then went to school at 08.00 and resumed vending straightaway from 14.00, when schools closed. Some went home at 18.00 while others continued selling well into the night in the bourgeoning evening and night time marketplaces.
Data from observation yielded first-hand information on the workings of the markets and the children’s place within them. Observing them directly as they scrambled to sell their wares with assertiveness and flexibility in such a highly competitive environment was, for me, the best method of learning what they did, what they thought and how they felt about their experiences. It also showed that street vending children had developed ample negotiation and communication capacities and could navigate their way and engage with a wide range of patrons.
Interviews with children
Individual and group interviews were conducted with 40 children in various settings. My approach to interviewing in this context is best described as semi-structured (Gray, 2014). I developed an open-ended interview schedule (Shaw and Gould, 2001) that would allow me to explore the various questions I had about the children and their lives, but I did not attempt to ask all the questions of everyone, or to follow a specific order of questioning. Instead, I tried to be flexible – to ‘go with the flow’ – and be responsive to what else was going on at the time. Of the 40 interviewees, 24 answered a considerable number of the questions in the schedule. Using an open-ended, semi-structured and flexible interview guide helped to achieve consistency, and suited the hectic context of the markets and the itinerant nature of the children. It also helped to ensure that major topics were covered, and afforded us the freedom to talk about other issues that were important (Brewerton and Millward, 2001), depending on how much time each child gave to the interview. The guide was equally helpful in the analysis and writing-up stages, as a reminder of the major topics that were discussed.
Interviews were conducted in three major languages 1 spoken and understood by the children, depending on a child’s preference (Okoli, 2009). I started every interview session with a self-introduction and explanation of the purpose of my research, emphasising that I was from a nearby town – a ‘daughter of the soil’ 2 (meaning local). This ‘daughter-of-the soil’ sentiment was a deliberate ploy that facilitated acceptance, calmed their suspicions, won their confidence and allayed their fears of me being a child kidnapper or someone working for a secret agency or the government, as many believed.
Some children happily and freely spoke to me on their own while others preferred to talk in a group together with a friend or a sibling. Some interviews lasted as little as 3 minutes, while others went on for an hour or more. The interviews demonstrated that, contrary to widespread assumptions about street working children, children enjoyed vending. They lived with and sold wares for their parents and guardians and were happy to contribute toward their family sustenance, schooling and other daily essentials. However, they were also clear that vending was unpleasant and risky, as it exposed them to road traffic accidents, drugs, sex, violence, abuse and hostility from their peers, as well as adults.
‘Insider’/‘outsider’ research
I am Nigerian of Igbo descent, and was setting out to study my own ethnic community. This ‘insider’ status gave me the advantage of having an intimate knowledge of the research sites, local practices and contexts, the culture and the micro political underpinnings of the various peoples and subcultures within the study area (Kanuha, 2000). While my home advantage or native identity (‘insider’) assured me of relative security and made me understand the overt and covert cues from the participants, I was also, in many ways, an ‘outsider’ researcher (Al-Makhamreh and Lewando-Hundt, 2008). Participants inevitably had different opinions and misgivings about me. Some saw me as a knowledgeable young woman from a privileged background and often referred to me as ‘a well-dressed and well-fed woman in jeans and hat’, according to one adult trader. I was also called ‘Aunty London’ by some children and ‘the London woman’ by various traders. Such perceptions may have made children (and adults) wary of what they said to me (Aptekar and Heinonen, 2003). However, knowing that I was studying abroad also reinforced their curiosity and I became a person of interest as they wanted to know me and understand the research better. These varied perceptions created opportunities as well as barriers: opportunities to engage with and participate in research, and barriers as their perception of me heightened their expectations and suspicions.
Power
Reflecting on the inevitable power differential between researchers and the researched, it is worth noting that no matter how interactive, child-friendly or participant-driven we try to make the research process, a researcher cannot avoid being in control of his or her research agenda (Alderson and Morrow, 2004). Admittedly, ‘children … are experts in their own lives and know a great deal about their life and experiences … ’ (Cree et al., 2002: 52) but they always look up to the researcher to facilitate the process of making this interaction work. Mayall (2000) and Punch (2002a) equally affirm that adults have power and influence over children and are often believed to have superior knowledge and wisdom to decide what is best for children. This is even more pronounced in countries, like Nigeria, where children rely completely on adults and ‘dependency, compliance and total deference to parents (adult guardians) are acceptable and associated with the ideal child and childhood’ (Aptekar and Heinonen, 2003:9; Twum-Danso, 2009). The consequence is that even asking children for their opinions is unusual, but my greatest challenge was how to ‘maximise children’s ability to express themselves … ; [and] enhance their willingness to communicate’ their views and feelings (Hill, 1997: 180) in a free, sincere and non-threatening manner. Being able to speak their language, buy their wares, share food and jokes, relate freely, spend time and maintain a good rapport with them all helped to mitigate this power imbalance and dispel their suspicions.
Ethical issues
This study was fraught with ethical issues, not least because the various codes of practice and good advice for conducting research with children (e.g. ASA, 2011; Kirk, 2007; National Children's Bureau (NCB's Guidelines for Research with Children and Young People (2011)) offered little in the way of guidance to doing research with children in such a challenging context. They were very useful reference materials for the design of the study and in the field, but were difficult to apply in the research, because of practical considerations, cultural practices and traditional belief systems (Sultana, 2007; Holtzhausen, 2011; Powell et al., 2012). To undertake a study of this nature, I needed to keep an open mind and seek to understand the children’s stories in their own terms, and not impose any external (artificial) construct on their experiences. As research suggests, the lives and childhoods of other societies’ children will be better understood when viewed from their cultural values and local contexts rather than from super-imposed western notions (Invernizzi, 2003; Woodhead, 1999) and solutions to their needs will be met in more practical ways that will make a difference and add value to their lives and societies (Baker and Hinton, 2001).
Recruitment and participation
Preliminary meetings were arranged with relevant gatekeepers (personnel from local government authorities (LGAs), various market associations and traders’ unions) and they carried out their own checks before permission to proceed was granted. I was regularly and thoroughly scrutinised by various groups and individuals to ascertain my origins and credibility, and to understand my research agenda and what I would do with the information gathered. In one of the marketplaces, for instance, officials invited two male drivers and a female trader from my town to confirm my identity as an indigene of that community.
Participation was not based on any particular sampling methods but was left open to children’s volition, willingness and availability (Brewerton and Millward, 2001). Although participants were approached and interviewed on an ad hoc basis, care was taken to involve both male and female children from various ethnic groups and geo-political zones of Nigeria (Okoli and Cree, 2012) to ensure inclusion, representativeness and equal opportunity in terms of gender and national spread. Participants were opportunistically recruited and observed through a ‘random time sampling’ process (Aptekar and Heinonen, 2003: 13). Further contacts and more people were introduced through a ‘snowball’ method (Atkinson and Flint, 2001) via word-of-mouth. This method, though positive in increasing participation, was challenging because people talked about me to one another and I discovered that some passed on inaccurate messages and impressions about their understanding of my research, even before they had met me. This was evidenced in their comments and interrogations about the genuineness of my intentions, what I would do with my findings and why I chose to do an academic study in such a ‘non-academic’ environment instead of schools which many believed were the ideal place for research. One woman warned that ‘everybody is aware of your presence and what you are doing here’. Another cautioned, ‘we don’t understand what you say you are doing here but our mind is on it … everybody’s eyes are on every step of yours around this market’. Many were concerned that I was a secret agent of the government, United Nations Children’s Fund or a non-governmental organisation sent to ‘arrest and lock us up because our children are helping us’ (a male trader). Their concerns were adequately managed at every stage through a deeper engagement, good rapport and open dialogue at meetings. I offered explanations and reassurances in Igbo (my local language) and Pigin English, 3 while approval from the local authorities and stakeholders enhanced credibility and facilitated the relationship.
Access and consent
Access and consent were repeatedly sought and negotiated with identified gatekeepers and stakeholders in each marketplace, including the children. Due to the high levels of insecurity and volatility of the vending environment and, more importantly, to ensure protection and safety for me and the children, access to the markets was first negotiated with the chief executives of the two LGAs who had direct jurisdiction over all the markets within their locality; second, with the representatives of various traders and transport associations who were directly responsible for the daily administration of those marketplaces and third, with small groups and individual shop owners. Access to the children was also negotiated with their guardians/parents. Many consented on condition that children were safe, willing and not disturbed from their daily routine. Meetings were held, detailed explanations given and the LGA officials issued me with an identity card for access. At every meeting, traditional kola nuts, drinks and snacks were presented to each group, as is customary.
Consent was both verbal and written. Depending on children’s preferences and in keeping with tradition and cultural norms, a one-paged consent form for parental/guardian’s permission was prepared and made available. This was received with mixed feelings and hesitation. While some consented verbally, others refused to take the form for fear that they might be reprimanded or withdrawn from vending. Many felt that signing an official document had far-reaching implications which they were not comfortable with and not prepared to risk. While some had their form signed, others returned theirs unsigned claiming that their guardians were not literate enough. In what could be interpreted as an apparent show of autonomy and independence, some said that their parents had little control over what they did as long as they sold all their wares and rendered accurate accounts on each given day. They either signed the form or gave verbal consent straightaway. However, three children who claimed that their parents had signed the forms asked how I could verify that that was so. They later informed me that they themselves had signed the forms and not their parents, thus demonstrating that children may employ several tactics to exercise their agency in several ways, even in research relationships (Aptekar and Heinonen, 2003). Permission was generally given but often withdrawn without warning and I experienced verbal threats, at times, from adult gatekeepers for no apparent reason.
Compensation
Appreciation and reciprocity are good ethical research practices that encourage researchers to add positive value to participants and never to leave them in a poorer or more vulnerable situation because of the research (Bell, 1999). In spite of my limited finances, I still felt that it was right to compensate the children for their time in a mutually beneficial, relevant and acceptable manner. The choice of how this was to be done was left open to the children themselves (Abebe, 2009; Gallagher, 2009). Some requested specific amounts while others asked me to decide. Thus, different measures were given to different participants, which created anxiety but opened up options for negotiations over what and how much was adequate and reasonable for each child. After due consultations and negotiations, and having considered children’s average earnings per day and what they sold, I paid out N500 4 (equivalent to £2 British Pounds) to those that wanted money. For some, I bought up their wares, some of which I kept for myself and distributed the remainder to people who were milling around me, and to others, I paid for the entire cost of their wares and handed the wares back to resell and double their earnings. Some refused money, even participation, for fear that they might be charmed or kidnapped.
These compensatory arrangements not only signalled appreciation for participation and cooperation but added much value to their lives and that of their families. It enhanced their daily sales and turnover, enriched their purses and facilitated my purpose. While refusal to pay may have negative consequences, making payments also has implications, and may have affected participation and the quality and quantity of information obtained (Aptekar and Heinonen, 2003). Nevertheless, I felt, on balance, that participants received what was proper and justifiable for their time and services (ASA, 2011: 6), and for any discomfort or inconvenience my research may have caused them. Appreciation was even more compelling because these children lived in a state of absolute poverty and in conditions of ‘severe deprivation of basic human needs’ (United Nations, 1995: 57). They worked long hours and toiled daily along with their guardians and peers, sacrificing their time and safety. They had daily targets to meet, failure of which posed severe consequences for them and their families. To some, the consequences could mean missing their evening meal and going to bed without food, and to others it meant not attending school the following day or expulsion from school activities. It could also lead to physical punishment and deprivations by parents and guardians or bullying by their peers who might make them feel inadequate and incompetent of contributing to their families, and all of these might affect a child’s emotional well-being and family integration.
Confidentiality
This was a major issue for both children and adults. Many were happy to participate and be recorded on audio-tapes and videos, but remained anxious that I might play the tapes or discuss them with people who might identify them or laugh at their responses. Their apprehensions were legitimate and they were constantly reassured that the study would be used strictly for academic purposes and would not be reported, discussed or shared with people or in places where they could be identified. Confidentiality was further guaranteed by the use of pseudonyms in presentations, written reports and the thesis, and children were also encouraged to use aliases during contact. Their fears could be cultural as people in Nigeria do not generally discuss personal matters concerning families, their lives and relationships with ‘strangers’, and when they do, it is always about something positive or on issues related to material success and wealth. I was local but my research was viewed as an intrusion. Besides, they were novice participants and needed reassurances that it was in their best interests.
Safety and protection
Good research ethics emphasize the importance of safety for both the researcher and the researched. I knew from observation and experience that the marketplace was like a ‘war zone’ where survival-of-the-fittest was the prevalent culture. The hostility and volatility of these marketplaces, the fights and disputes between children, adult traders, touts and various market users were everyday occurrences that raised concerns for safety and protection. There were widespread media stories of child abduction and human trafficking, and myths about the sale and use of human parts for money-making charms and witchcrafts. Suspicion was rife and a ban was placed on rallies and group meetings. Enugu, being the traditional nerve centre and the ‘the spiritual home of all Igbo-speaking people’ of Nigeria (Jones, 1984), was in the spotlight. Unpredictable political tensions at the time also curtailed movements within and beyond neighbouring states, and all of these raised critical safety and child protection issues, and impacted on my ability to move and relate freely to the children.
Security in the marketplaces was weak and often directed primarily at guarding shops against vandalism. Going out in the early hours of the day and staying out late for observations was potentially risky. I had to make my own arrangements for protection by hiring two non-uniformed unarmed men who accompanied me to all the vending spots as both personal guards and market guides. They operated in disguise and watched from a distance, having been warned not to disclose their mission for fear of sending wrong signals that might scare people and create further suspicion that could hamper the research.
Discussion
Street vending is always a hurried and exciting but risky business as vendors scrambled briskly to seek customers, sell their wares and earn a living. The itinerant nature of street vending made children wander about freely, in rain or shine, traversing many streets and the entire city, walking long distances on foot and often risking their lives and safety in search of customers and favourable vending spots. Observing children in their natural settings and communicating directly in their local language(s) provided the much needed opportunity and confidence for them to participate and speak about their experiences and understandings of their daily lives.
Christensen and James (2000) suggest that interviews are well suited for gathering information from children and young people. Some interviews were brief, sporadic and often inconclusive, but they were not mere conversations. They were planned to create avenues for children to talk about, explore and ‘reflect over their … actions, experiences, feelings and thoughts’ (Rapley, 2004: 16), thus enabling their ‘silenced voices and unknown stories to be told and heard’ (Rapley, 2004: 25). Interviewing children on several occasions and locations may have implications for time and money, but it also helped to test and cross-validate their responses, while the open-ended interview guide helped to ensure that major topics were covered. Again, taking such a flexible approach suited the context and their lifestyles.
Undoubtedly, the nature of the markets and the lack of a proper venue for interviews also have implications for privacy, confidentiality, participation and quality of data collected. Admittedly, it is ideal to hold interviews in quieter places for reasons of deeper engagement and privacy, but it was neither safe nor conducive to do so in such rowdy surroundings and during peak trading hours. Moreover, incessant interjections and interruptions by curious passers-by added to the duration and completeness and demanded greater flexibility and creativity in changing plans and re-negotiating boundaries with clear implications for time, costs and participation. Besides, interviewing in private was viewed with great suspicion and participants’ wishes had to be respected. I was also aware that the marketplace was an adult dominated space of which children had no control (Punch, 2002a) and that power cannot be negotiated or explained only through the lens of social position or adult power over children but in varied ways (Christensen, 2004).
Getting children to participate or decline gave them voice and choice, and being first-time research participants also provided the opportunity for their vending stories and growing up experiences to be told and heard directly. It encouraged them to express their personal feelings and understandings, and these were matters very close to their hearts and in their best interests. For most of the children, this research experience was full of mixed feelings: excitement for doing something novel and apprehension and uncertainty as to how far their responses would go and its repercussions.
Hill (2006) argues that there is no consensus on children’s preferences for research methods, level of participation or venue for interview. As children are different, so are their views and likes: some consented to be recorded, others declined; some wanted money, others did not; some were excited to participate while others refused to be listened to, quizzed or drawn into discussing personal matters. Hill’s ideas about preferences support the principle of researcher’s openness and willingness to allow children to have their say rather than feeling controlled and manipulated into doing what the researcher wants. Punch (2002b) also noted that personal face-to-face interviews afforded children the opportunity for privacy and confidentiality without fear of being overheard, quoted or reported, even though many still appeared sceptical or indifferent about participation. They were more concerned that their participation and responses would be made known to their guardians and so declined, thus exercising ‘choice or agency’ (Hill, 2006: 84).
Researching novice participants in a not-so-well researched marketplace, and interacting with such a highly mobile group, in a very changing and challenging environment, is not only complicated and at times overwhelming but has possible repercussions for the researcher and researched community (Morrow, 2013). The field was volatile and unsafe and made some of the ethically approved research methods impracticable. All of this leaves the researcher with new ethical and methodological dilemmas, calling for flexibility, clarity, openness and deeper engagement. In order to proceed through such complexities, local approvals from identified relevant gatekeepers were sought and obtained at every stage, and greater caution and consideration for ethical implications, cultural expectations and respect for local practices and norms constantly kept in focus (Powell et al., 2012) as well as children’s choices and preferences.
Superstition and suspicion are a part of everyday living in Nigeria, especially in cities, where increasing ‘individualisation’ (Graham, 2011) is gradually eroding strongly held traditional African communal values and lifestyles. Children were allowed to wander about freely with their goods but sternly warned not to deal with strangers and I was seen as one. Given this intense atmosphere of stranger-danger and the realisation that gaining participants’ trust was most important for a successful study (Aptekar and Heinonen, 2003), particularly with novice participants, issues of confidentiality, compensation and safety and protection were constantly kept in focus as we mixed and mingled, and further ethical considerations (Alderson and Morrow, 2011; BSA, 2002; Hill, 2005) were negotiated and constantly kept in mind at all times.
Conclusion
Despite the many challenges and changes in plan, the experience and rich data gleaned from studying itinerant child vendors in open marketplaces in Nigeria who were new to research, were exciting and worthwhile. They provided a first-hand opportunity to test some of the methodological, theoretical and ethical guidelines developed and used in the minority world, and see how they could be applied in a majority world context where children occupy more chaotic and connected spaces, and where cultural taboos, superstitions and traditional beliefs and practices abound.
Generally, children participated actively with enthusiasm and took the research seriously. Many saw it as another positive and exciting learning outcome from vending which they would share with their non-vending friends at school. These experiences, though empowering, have raised issues that would challenge some ‘western’ assumptions and understandings about researching children and children’s participation in research. However, although this study may have provided insights into the childhoods of itinerant child vendors and given voice to vulnerable people in ways that might bring positive changes to research, they cannot be generalised because they do not represent the experiences and views of most vending children in Nigeria.
To undertake ethical research with children in the global south, researchers are constantly faced with complexities and conflicting dilemmas as they try to make sense of the world and events around them. As the conduct of fieldwork is generally believed to be contextual and highly politicized, researchers are constantly challenged to be open and flexible in negotiating boundaries, access, consent, who gets what and how much, where and how to conduct research, particularly with vulnerable children in societies without formal social welfare provisions – where children and childhoods are perceived and defined differently. Adopting these developed ethical frameworks alone cannot, and do not, offer sufficient insights into researching itinerant child vendors, who were not only active and novice participants in this research, but major contributors to their families and local economies.
Like the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, these ethical frameworks are commonly accepted and invaluable in guiding the development of sound practices in different contexts but cannot be applied universally (Ncube, 1998). They are minority world constructs which cannot be applied prescriptively and can easily be misconstrued and misunderstood in majority world contexts as they do not take cognisance of other cultures’ meanings, understandings and experiences of children.
However, the flexibility and adaptability and the empowerment (choice and voice) advocated for children through this approach are needed especially in places where children’s participation in research has been minimal or even non-existent and where children occupy more chaotic and connected spaces which are more common in the majority world though not unknown in the minority world. Greater flexibility, respect, care and caution for cultural issues should be paramount as researchers pry, engage with and interrogate children in an ‘ethically correct’ and acceptable manner. Ultimately, it is essential for researchers to communicate clearly and relate respectfully with participants in order to develop genuine, trusting and long term relationships that will leave positive memories and doors open for subsequent research engagement.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
With deep gratitude to Professor Viv Cree for her continuing support and encouragement; the late Dr Charles Jedrej, social anthropologist at Edinburgh University, for his inspiration, to Drs. Andressa Gadda and Jennifer Speirs for their insightful and constructive critiques and proofreading, and the three anonymous reviewers for their profound and helpful comments. A very big thanks also to the children and young people, their parents and guardians as well as the staff and executive members of the various market organisations and local authorities in Nigeria, who participated in this research.