Studying adolescent information behavior in the context of making everyday life decisions: Methodological issues,concerns,and possible solutions

3.1 The research approach and design

The study was carried out among high school students in the city of Rijeka, Croatia. The city of Rijeka was chosen because the researcher had had contacts among members of the school administrations whose consent and cooperation were needed to carry out the study. High schools were chosen as the study site because schools are places where the recruitment of participants can be relatively easily organized. The sample was purposive, and the participants were chosen because of the belief that they would be able to provide the data on adolescent information behavior needed to reach the study’s goals. Only students willing to participate and contribute to the study were involved. Moreover, the study was conducted in three types of schools in the Croatian school system: grammar school, vocational school, and art school, to encompass a wider variety of young people’s perspectives, thoughts and ideas. The gatekeepers – school librarians, psychologists, and teachers were helping in recruiting by asking for volunteers who were willing to voluntarily participate in the research. The participants were aged 17–19, because they were considered mature enough to participate in quality discussions as age influences competencies for making decisions (Mann, 1989, 265–278; Kolarić, 2020) and abilities to verbally report on their information behavior related to making decisions. The focus groups from grammar school group and art school group consisted of eight members each, while vocational school group consisted of six members, following Morgan’s advice that group size should be six to ten participants (Morgan, 1997, 43). An effort was put into forming groups in which both genders would be equally represented and therefore 12 girls and 10 boys participated in the discussions. The survey sample included 116 grammar school students, 135 vocational school students, and 19 art school students, which altogether made 270 high school students, 202 girls, and 68 boys. Eighteen participants took part in the interviews, six from each type of high school, eleven girls and seven boys. The sample consisted of those who expressed willingness to participate in the interviews at the end of the survey, where the option for such an answer was given. The number of participants was determined by the point of saturation when no additional information was gained from the following interviews. The entire research included 317 students from six high schools (Kolarić, 2020, 80–81, 87–88, 94).

The first question that occurred when planning the study was the one about the suitable research approach and design. The researchers decided to take the social phenomenological approach of Alfred Schutz, intending to explore the information needs arising from adolescent everyday life decisions and accompanying information behavior, as subjectively experienced by the participants (Kolarić, 2020, 67–73). This was done following the authorities in the information behavior field, Wilson and Savolainen, who argue that Schutz’s social phenomenology provides a useful framework and guidance for research on human information behavior and the choice of appropriate methods (Wilson, 2002; Savolainen, 2008). The same approach was earlier taken by Kisilowskad and Mierzecka (2019).

Moreover, although dominantly qualitative and interpretative, the presented study employs a mixed-method research approach considering it best suited to the research purpose (Kolarić, 2020, 74–77). This was done taking into consideration ideas of authors who argue that the contemporary pluralist methodology allows mixing and combining quantitative and qualitative approaches and methods when it serves best the set research goals (Tkalac Verčić et al., 2010, 4; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, 14–15; Sekol & Maurović, 2017, 7–32). Such a solution was supported by the experience of Agosto and Hughes-Hassell who had recommend using multiple forms of data collection because it allows capturing more complete qualitative data. Their research experience suggests that the use of different data collection forms increases the chances for individual participants to fully participate in the data collection process and offers opportunities for providing the data by the preferred data collection method form (Agosto and Hughes-Hassell, 2006, 1425). The original study presented in this paper (Kolarić, 2020) employed the sequential strategy by combining qualitative and quantitative methods. The research process started with the qualitative type of data collection method to approach the under-examined phenomena. The employed sequential strategy and reasons for exploring under-examined phenomena by qualitative methods have been described in the handbook by Creswell (2003, 15–17). Moreover, the pilot study which preceded the presented research indicated that the participants should be allowed to discuss, explain, and elaborate on their answers (Kolarić & Stričević, 2016, 306), which supported the choice of a qualitative data collection method at the beginning of the research process.

The investigation of adolescent information needs and information behavior started by asking the adolescent participants about the decisions that the participants report making in everyday life (Kolarić, 2020, 73–74, 87). Other scholars who had investigated information needs and information behavior argued that the phenomena only exist and can be examined within the broader tasks or problem situations in which they emerge (Vakkari, 1997, as cited by Shenton & Dixon, 2003, 7), such as decision situations. They argue that information needs do not exist per se but are rather embedded in life situations, routines, and problems and can be captured by methods such as individual interviews and focus groups (Nicholas, 1997, 343–349). Furthermore, in the study on adolescents we used personal discloser technique and life centered line of questioning in conversations in the focus group discussions (the first research phase) and in individual interviews (the third research phase) to collect data directly from adolescents by inviting them to talk about decisions they make in everyday life (Kolarić, 2020, 76–77, 81–82, 93). These effective techniques have been previously described by Shenton and Dixon (2004, 302–307). Moreover, to investigate the participants’ interaction with information, they were asked about interaction with any form of information, such as advice and opinion, that might help them with making their decisions (Kolarić, 2020, 82–32). This selection of wording is supported by Dervin’s remark that informal ways of informing such as advice, opinion or guidance have informative value (Dervin, 1976, 326). Earlier youth studies also conceptualized information as help (Julien, 1999, 39; Todd & Kuhlthau, 2005, 66). Other youth researchers also noted that the word information may seem too scholarly to adolescents who may not relate the word with the forms in which information may appear (e.g., advice, opinion, guidance) and therefore was not considered suitable for the research instruments (Shenton & Dixon, 2004, 303; Fisher et al., 2014, 148).

Furthermore, in the study we are presenting (Kolarić, 2020) the data collection was carried out in three research phases employing (1) focus group method, (2) survey method, and (3) individual interview method. The analysis of the data after each phase allowed the development of the instruments used in the subsequent phases (Kolarić, 2020, 76–100). The results were combined and summarized in the final discussion.

The focus group results provided an initial insight into the research phenomena and a clearer research focus by identifying themes and concepts that needed to be further explored in the subsequent research phases. This allowed for the revision of the initial set of research questions after the first research phase. The discussions in focus groups were relatively free-flowing to allow the participants some freedom of expression of thoughts, opinions and experiences, and to allow the researchers to pursue the themes and ideas in greater depth. The group dynamics, mutual encouragement, and stimulation provoked the participants to offer a broad span of themes and ideas.

The researchers were aware that in group interviews individual participants would be under a pressure to conform with the dominant opinion in a peer group which might influence their expressed opinions, as this shortcoming of the method has been noted by other scholars (Hennessy & Heary, 2005, 239). In the original presented study, this was compensated by collecting additional data in the subsequent research phases and by triangulation.

Overall, eight focus group sessions were conducted and lasted 90 minutes. The discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed within a day or two. The data analysis took place in two stages, the first after each session and the second after all sessions were completed. The collected data were analyzed using MAXQDA qualitative data analysis software (Kolarić, 2020, 79–86).

In the second research phase, a quantitative method of a survey was embedded in primary qualitative research because it was considered best suited for answering some of the questions arising from the first research phase results. It was decided to use the advantage of collecting a large amount of data in a short period, which is typically possible by a survey. Another reason for using a survey was because it was considered that among the participants some would feel the most comfortable with providing answers completely anonymously and in the written form, rather than in personal interaction. The SPSS program was used for data analysis, and the data were described by descriptive statistics (Kolarić, 2020, 86–92).

Aiming at filling the gaps in the findings of the first and the second research phases, the third research phase employed semi-structured individual interviews. Open-ended questions directed to only one participant allowed for a deeper investigation of what is left unknown. The interviews lasted from 20 to 60 minutes, were recorded by a digital voice recorder, and were transcribed within a day or two. Again, the data were analyzed using MAXQDA qualitative data analysis software (Kolarić, 2020, 92–99).

The use of multiple methods of data collection enabled triangulation of the data which contributed to the study’s validity, as it has been described by Creswell (2003, 195–205).

The overall research was successful in capturing the phenomena of adolescent participants’ information needs and related information behavior. Some shortcomings of the study stem from the limitations of the data collection methods and the research setting. Some intimate and sensitive decisions that the participants might have been making, might have been left out of the group discussions. To protect the participants from revealing something they might regret afterward (the over-discloser phenomena, explained later in the paper), the researchers needed to make trade-offs between pursuing the research goal and minding research ethics, which might have left some sensitive topics out of the deeper discussion and out of reach. The issues of research ethics in youth studies and consequences on data collection have been discussed by scholars in information sciences as well as in other disciplines (Hennessy & Heary, 2005, 239–240; Franklin, 2013, 181). Moreover, it has been known that age-related behaviors affect adolescents’ participation in focus group discussions (Krueger & Casey, 2014, 438). Consequently pre-existing relationships and peer pressure might have affected participants’ answers in the study we are presenting (Kolarić, 2020, 70). Likewise, we may assume that the school setting and related pre-existing adult-student power relations influenced the participants’ answers and the collected data. Some may also argue that participation in a study that is carried out in a school setting is not completely voluntary considering the potential students’ anticipation of the consequences of refusing to be involved in the research. This gives us a reason for considering other settings in future studies (Kolarić, 2020, 211–213).

3.2 Developmentally appropriate research approach

The second question that arose was about a research approach that would be developmentally appropriate for studying adolescents. Among the scholars who deal with adolescent development are Lacković and Grgin who explain that as a life-stage characterized by a maturation process, adolescence brings cognitive-developmental advances including advances in formal thinking with its four major aspects noted by Piaget: introspection, abstract thinking, logical thinking, and hypothetical reasoning (Lacković-Grgin, 2006, 197–205). The life stage is characterized by a growing ability to reflect on concepts and ideas, along with the ability to have discussions backed up by arguments. This suggests that adolescents can provide accounts about their experiences, opinions and behaviors researchers can rely on, via interviews, focus group discussions, surveys or other means of data collection. At the same time, the adolescent population is characterized by a certain amount of criticism towards adults (Lacković-Grgin, 2006, 205) which may prevent them from trusting an adult researcher. As they move away from adult authorities towards growing independence, adolescents might not be prone to disclose their opinions to adult researchers. Scholars who deal with youth research methodology argue that this needs to be taken into consideration when planning research involving adolescents, bearing in mind that selection and adjustment of appropriate research methods need to address the developmental strengths of the investigated population (Raby, 2007, 47). Some researchers devote considerable attention to adjusting research methods and instruments to the investigated population. Koh (2013) gives the participants an option to choose an online interview method which suits them best, such as text-based chatting with instant messaging, telephone or Skype, assuming that by communicating through preferred and familiar methods, the participants would be more comfortable and consequently more likely to provide quality data (Koh, 2013, 1830). Fisher and colleagues design Teen Design Days were minding and meeting teenagers’ developmental needs such as physical activity, competence, achievement, self-definition, creative expression, positive social interaction, and structure and clear limits (Fisher et al., 2014, 145). However, there are not many authors who devote attention to the issue of addressing the adolescents’ developmental attributes and adjustment of the research methods in their writings.

In our study on adolescents that constitutes the context of this methodological discussion (Kolarić, 2020), the developmental strengths of adolescents were met by accepting participants as active subjects who have valuable knowledge regarding the research topic and are capable of sharing it. They are treated as creative agents who can contribute to the research goal, taking into consideration their ability for introspection, reflection, and discussion about their experiences and opinions. Another attribute of adolescence is the need for belonging to a peer group. Scholars who investigate appropriate approaches and methods to investigate the youth remind us that adolescent peer relationships may be very challenging (Brown, 2004, 365–367) and can inhibit the free sharing of opinions when placed in groups (Hennessy & Heary, 2005, 239). In the study of adolescents in Croatia (Kolarić, 2020) the researchers took into serious consideration the described phenomena. As the phenomena have some serious implications on the data collected in the focus group discussions, the researchers used other means of data collection in the subsequent phases, for collecting the data the participants would not feel comfortable with sharing in the groups. Moreover, offering different ways of giving answers allowed for the expression of opinions and experiences in the way that best suited the individual participants. A survey method was used to enable the providing of the data anonymously and without direct personal interaction. Individual interviews provided the participants with a safer environment to report opinions and experiences they would not want to share with the group and to allow for a deeper investigation of the emerging topics by devoting the attention to only one participant.

Furthermore, Agosto and Hughes-Hassell noted that adolescents could be genuinely excited about adult researcher’s interest in what they have to say about their everyday life interaction with information and in their lives in general (Agosto & Hughes-Hassell, 2006, 1425). Aware of that, in the presented study (Kolarić, 2020) the researchers continually sought to spark the participants’ interest and enthusiasm, aware that this is the only way they would open themselves and offer valuable data.

As stated earlier, when planning this study, the researchers intended to address the adolescent developmental strengths. One drawback is that adolescent developmental need for physical activity was neglected, although Fisher et al. (2014, 149) recommend including physical exercise in the research process. Adolescents aged 16–19 were considered old enough to participate in 90 minutes group discussions, provided with refreshments, but without a break. This resulted in some participants showing a level of weariness and boredom, which needs to be given attention when planning future studies.

3.3 Getting access to the potential participants

The third methodological issue that generated some dilemmas was about getting access to the research participants. Gaining access to potential participants is among the significant challenges a researcher needs to deal with. The recruitment of adolescent research participants poses several challenges, starting with legal and ethical issues. Lamb and colleagues explain that access to underaged potential research participants requires the consent of adult caretakers as they are considered vulnerable because they may not be cognitively mature enough to fully understand the research they might be involved in (Lamb et al., 2001, 43). However, it is generally agreed that by the age of fourteen adolescents have the capacity for abstract and hypothetical thinking, as well as for imagining consequences, and that an adequate communication and explanation of the research process can ensure the fulfilment of adolescents’ developmental needs, as well as ethical and legal requirements (Lamb et al., 2001, 44).

Carey et al. (2001, 319) argue that the discussion of issues of gaining access to potential participants in everyday life information behavior of studies is essential for both theory and research practice. Getting access is an emergent process, and it depends on the characteristics of the researcher and of the participants, as well as on the research context. Consequently, there is no list of facilitative practices that would guarantee success. Getting access requires more than following prescriptions from textbooks which usually mention personal connections, persistence, persuasive accounts of the study’s intent, and other means. Rather, research participants themselves provide a researcher with the cues that guide him or her in the process of negotiating access (Carey et al., 2001, 319–332).

A rather easy way to access underaged participants and their adult caregivers are through institutions such as kindergartens and schools, and gatekeepers such as teachers, providing their understanding of the purpose of a study. Meyers and colleagues argue that although schools are convenient setting for gaining access to the youth of different age ranges, this type of recruitment has some drawbacks in terms of limitation of a researcher’s role by already established authority structures and of limitation of students’ reports by their perception of what is acceptable in the school environment (Meyers et al., 2007, 312). Even so, some recent studies have been conducted among adolescents in school settings, with classrooms and school libraries serving as the research venues (Paek & Hove, 2012; Ettel III et al., 2012; Franklin, 2013; Lilley, 2014; Fisher et al., 2014; Taylor, 2018). Taylor argues that those students who volunteer are not only accessible but also interested in the research and therefore suitable study participants (Taylor, 2018, 512).

The study on adolescents we are presenting (Kolarić, 2020) was undertaken in high schools. The researchers were aware of the pre-established student-adult power relations that exist in the school setting, and of how these power relations can prevent the students from giving open and honest accounts, as well as provoke them to give socially acceptable answers. Even so, it was held that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks (Kolarić, 2020, 78). First, this allowed access to a larger number of potential participants who were needed to participate in the series of sessions on a voluntary basis. Since this research was of a larger scale, the school setting was the best place to guarantee that the students would be easily approached for participation in all the research phases. Second, provided the students’ willingness to participate and some help from the administrations, it enabled easy obtaining of parents’ and caregivers’ consents. Gatekeepers (school librarians, teachers, and school expert associates in psychology and pedagogy) took care that the students would participate in the sessions without negative consequences in terms of hindering the learning and causing academic harm. Moreover, focus groups replicate the small group setting students are familiar with from their schoolwork. Schools are places where adolescents are used to being asked, giving answers, and discussing various topics, which makes them a somehow natural environment for doing the research. Gatekeepers asked for volunteers and therefore only those who expressed willingness participated in the research. However, the interviewer informed the participants that she worked in a public library to differentiate herself from the school staff, as it is known that the identification with teachers might impede providing some valuable data. This approach was supported by experiences of other scholars who argue that students are familiar with group work in a school setting (Mauthner, 1997, 23) and that distancing from school staff can be beneficial for a researcher (Russel, 2005, 191).

With the help of the administrations of several high schools in the city of Rijeka, who understood the research purpose and saw some value in it, it was quite easy to access students who were willing to participate in the research. The researchers e-mailed the principals of all high schools in the city, and the study was conducted in schools whose administration responded positively. Additionally, the researchers used the acquaintance with some school librarians and teachers who helped in communication with the administrations and recruited the students who volunteered in the study (Kolarić, 2020, 78).

In contrast to positioning herself as an outsider among the adolescent participants (explained in the following section), the interviewer took the role of an insider in interaction with school administration and gatekeepers, similarly to McKechnie who took the role of an insider with the mothers and the role of an outsider with children (Carey et al., 2001, 327). Acting as a former school librarian familiar with the school setting, and a person eager to gain the knowledge necessary to contribute to the development of informed decision-making aids for adolescents, the interviewer was welcomed by gatekeepers and allowed to carry out the study at some of the high schools in the city of Rijeka. Other scholars who tackle the issue of conducting research with adolescents also argue that taking an insider status increases the level of trust in a research process (Merriam et al., 2001; Raby, 2007, 49).

Although some researchers give financial compensation to the participants (Fisher et al., 2014, 147) this was not the case with the presented study since this is not a usual practice in Croatia.

3.4 Adult researcher’s position

The fourth methodological issue that had to be resolved was about negotiating an adult researcher’s position when interacting with adolescents. The researchers took a significant effort to gain competences required to perform this challenging task. In the book devoted to methodological issues in youth studies, edited by an American author Best, Raby speaks about the great gulf separating adult researchers from adolescent research participants (Raby, 2007, 39). She argues that to learn about adolescents’ lives, we need to cross the gulf of developmental and cultural differences, and perhaps transcend some differences of other types. In the same book, Taft warns adult researchers that they need to be aware of how the dynamics of unequal social power and authority inevitably shape the youth research process (Taft, 2007, 208). Inequalities such as those of representation, size, dependence, or decision making, have some serious implications on a research process (Raby, 2007, 47; Taft, 2007, 208). As youth researchers, we need to remain conscious of the adult authority and how it may prevent participants from revealing certain information about their lives (Taft, 2007, 223).

Consequently, researchers need to carefully consider taking the position that would result in adequate access to adolescents’ worlds. For example, what is known as insider status facilitates access to research participants, increases the levels of trust, and ensures a shared understanding of language and culture (Merriam et al., 2001; Raby, 2007, 49). However, taking the status is hardly possible for any adult researching youth. Having said that, we need to ask ourselves: how do researchers negotiate their role as adults researching adolescents? It is safe to say that adult researchers will always be in a position that sets them apart from young participants, being in control as those who make decisions regarding the research process (Raby, 2007, 46). Adult authority may create power-laden research interactions, shaping what young people tell us and what they choose not to tell (Taft, 2007, 211–212). Likewise, the adult researcher’s position as an outsider may impede the establishment of trust and decrease shared understandings, depending for example on the research topic, age difference, and alike.

Even so, in the research process which this paper presents (Kolarić, 2020), the researcher positioned herself as an outsider taking into consideration a significant age difference. This position had a wide variety of implications on a research process (as stated by Taft, 2007, 207). The researcher avoided been there, done that attitude, aware that being an adolescent is shaped not only by age but also by social and historical factors. On the other hand, the position of an outsider who is not familiar with adolescents’ worlds has some advantages such as allowing asking naive and ignorant questions and asking for clarifications, while participants may pay more attention to explaining their answers. This beneficial consequence of an outsider position was elaborated by Raby ( 2007, 50). Taft also argues that admitting ignorance is helpful because it provokes young participants to elaborate on their thoughts, opinions and experiences, and opens a way for a collection of some rich authentic data (Taft, 2007, 208). Moreover, in a school setting in which adolescents may be considered inferior in terms of power, admitting ignorance shifts power relations in favor of participants.

In the study we are presenting (Kolarić, 2020), the participants regarded the researcher as an adult interested in their experiences and opinions, and generally in well-being, who seeks answers that might contribute to the development of informed decision-making aids. The researcher was explicitly asking the participants for help, making clear that they have the knowledge not only valuable, but also necessary for her to succeed in her work, and was asking them to share that knowledge. This perception of the researcher allowed the participants to lead her in the act of discovery and proved beneficial for this study. The redistribution of power was also facilitated by group interviewing in focus groups discussions, reducing differences between the adult researchers as the ultimate source of authority and young participants in a peer group, and promoting the adolescents’ equal participation in the research process (the phenomena which had been noted by Hannessy & Heary, 2005, 237; Meyers et al., 2007, 317). When placed in the peer groups, they felt safer and freer to disclose their experiences, opinions and ideas. It had been noted by other researchers that group discussions can help in reducing individual anxiety and pressure associated with one-on-one adolescent-adult conversation, creating a safe peer environment (Mauthner, 1997, 23; Hennessy & Heary, 2005, 237).

3.5 The question of trust

The fifth methodological concern was about the question of trust which some scholars see as central in doing research with adolescents (Russel, 2005, 185; Emond, 2003, 110; Westcott & Littleton, 2005, 153). To deal with this issue, the researchers have been exploring the ways scholars address the issue of developing trust, in the information science discipline and information behavior field, but also in other disciplines. It has been emphasized that the relationship between a researcher and participants shapes the research process, determines the sort of information we gather, and how we interpret it (Walker, 1988, according to Russel, 2005, 185). Likewise, it has been recognized that getting participants’ trust is perhaps the most challenging task in everyday life information behavior research, and yet it is essential to obtain rich and authentic data (Carey et al., 2001, 323–324; Agosto & Hughes-Hassell, 2005, 143). Markwei and Rasmussen emphasize the importance of gaining trust when investigating homeless youth information behavior (Markwei & Rasmussen, 2015, 13–14). Buchanan and Tuckerman approach vulnerable adolescents in disadvantaged and disengaged circumstances via support groups to facilitate the establishment of trust, but emphasize that this does not guarantee automatic and full acceptance. Therefore, their data collection procedure includes the time spent observing the participants’ interaction with support workers, allowing the establishment of a degree of trust, acceptance, and familiarity with the NEET (not in education, employment or training) adolescents. It also includes the researchers’ sensitivity to issues of low self-esteem and confidence that are likely to characterize NEET individuals (Buchanan & Tuckerman, 2016, 533).

In the original study we are presenting (Kolarić, 2020), the researchers were aware that young peoples’ everyday life information behavior is often related to personal and sensitive topics, which makes our job even more difficult. In the reported study, the trust was gradually built, starting with an explanation of the research process and its purpose. The authors agreed with the remark made by Lamb et al. (2001, 44) that the understanding of the process has already proven essential for eliciting the enthusiasm and cooperation of the participants. A two-way interaction in which the researcher learns about the participants’ lives and they learn about the researcher, which has been written about by Russel (2005, 185), in terms of building a reciprocal relationship, mutual disclosure, and building trust, was achieved through exchange of information about the researcher’s work as a librarian in the Rijeka City Library, her interest in the research topic, and the information about the participants’ everyday lives in school and in their free time activities. It has already been mentioned that the researcher had put some effort to differentiate herself from the school staff in the participants’ eyes. This resulted in the perception that she could be trusted with secrets such as sharing information in the cases when it included breaking the school rules, which resulted in collecting some valuable data (i.e. information sharing behavior). However, the researcher was aware that being a woman in her forties influenced the participants’ answers and that some topics were left out of her reach. Building a trustful relationship was particularly successful with those students who participated in all the research phases. When meeting again, they were being friendly and were asking how they could help and contribute to her work. However, in cases like this the researcher needs to make sure that their willingness to contribute does not influence giving the answers which the participants consider desirable.

Lastly, showing respect for participants and their points of view has already been proved important in establishing trust (earlier noted by Carey et al., 2001, 331), and that was considered during the sessions.

3.6 Ethical considerations

The sixth concern that arose in the research was about ethical issues that need to be considered when doing research with adolescents. Many of the researches who investigated underaged participants in the past mentioned asking for approval of relevant ethics committees and conducting the research following the guidelines of the research institutions for investigations of human subjects (Ettel III et al., 2012; Decat et al., 2013; Buchanan & Tuckerman, 2016; Esmaeilzadeh et al., 2018, Kim et al., 2011). Moreover, youth researchers warn about drawbacks of the methods which include group conversations and provoke young people to share some private or even intimate information with peers (Hennessy & Heary, 2005, 239–240). They also warn about some potentially harmful consequences of over-disclosure phenomena which refers to revealing information they might not feel comfortable with having shared afterward (Bloor et al., 2001, 24–25). It has been remarked that the researchers cannot control confidentiality once the sessions were over and therefore what had been said may have consequences beyond the temporal and social boundaries of the focus group interviews (Bloor et al., 2001, 24–25; Gibson, 2007, 481).

In the original study (Kolarić, 2020) the researchers minded research ethics and took steps to protect the safety and privacy of the participants. Firstly, they obtained the approval of the University of Zadar Ethics Committee, as well as the parents’ or guardians’ written consent necessary for researching underage students. The consent form included an explanation of the research purpose and process (Kolarić, 2020, 77). The participants took part in the research of their own free will, approached by gatekeepers who were asking for volunteers to participate in the research. One may argue that, when approached at school by members of the school staff who are considered superior in the terms of power relations, a student might not feel free to refuse participation in the research process. This is why those who approached the students emphasized that the participation is completely voluntary and that they are free to refuse it. The participants were assured that the information they would reveal would stay confidential. The data was anonymized to protect the participants’ identity. Special consideration was given to adolescents’ participation in focus group discussions as in group sessions, participants disclose their personal information not only with the researcher but also with group members, avoiding what is known as over-disclosure phenomena. To prevent the participants from suffering negative consequences for participating in the research process the researchers avoided discussions on some sensitive topics, such as sexuality and drug abuse, even when they showed up in some of the comments. Such sensitive topics should be left for individual interviews, in cases when the participants are willing to discuss them (Kolarić, 2020, 78). Lastly, to achieve some level of reciprocity as a form of exchange among the researcher and the participants (earlier described by Julien, 1997, 77), the researchers thanked the participants for their effort and offered some additional information about the research. One student expressed interest in the study results and left his contact (Kolarić, 2020, 77). We may argue that to fully meet and involve adolescents in a research process requires a more inclusive and empowering approach. Some argue that Participant action research is an ideal approach for including youth as subjects, rather than as objects, in a research process (Raby, 2007, 53–54). It seems that there is a growing group of researchers who advocate youth participation in social change and social research (Chin, 2007, 274–275).