Ethical issues involved in the Channel 4 Television Production ‘Boys and Girls Alone’
I have found that looking at other research and reviewing the ethical issues has helped me improve the ethical considerations in my own research.
Here’s one such example.
The British Sociological Association published a new set of guidelines in 2002 (“the Statement”). This provides 61 guidelines under ten headings, which I’m going to use to discuss the ethical issues involved in the Channel 4 Television production “Boys and Girls Alone”. It was on the television a few years ago. Did you see it?
There was a lot of complaints about the programme published in the media.
Here’s just two:
Henricson, C. (2009) Abide by Ofcom rules Available online at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5703932.ece (Accessed 1st May 2010)
Mackenzie, A. (2009) Our top priority for Boys and Girls Alone Available online at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5711350.ece (Accessed 1st May 2010)
Mackenzie (2009) states ‘The aim with Boys and Girls Alone was to give the children the chance to make the decisions about their lives in a safe environment. At the same time we wanted to allow the parents to see how their kids coped without them and offer the audience an insight into both childhood and parenting’. Channel 4 worked within a framework of informed consent (points 16, 17 and 30 of the BSA guidelines); this needs to be an ongoing agreement that is reviewed (point 25).
‘As shown in the programme, the children’s parents were able to watch what was going on and could also speak to their children or intercede if they felt it was necessary. Parents were free to withdraw their child at any time.’; stated the Head of Factual Entertainment for Channel 4 (Mackenzie, 2009).
Informed consent though, is often more, a matter of individual conscience and there is no mention of a contract identifying particularities. Graef (1980,p.163) raises the ethical question of ‘How much information do subjects need to give ‘informed consent’? and about the rights of children. Graef (1980) advised that children and parents should be invited to view their ‘performance’ (point 25). Channel 4 have a duty of care to those they involve in the programme. The children cannot be entirely free to decide whether to participate in the programme (point 29) and so the Parents and Guardians take on the role as Gatekeepers to safeguard the children’s welfare (point 56). To meet individual needs, Channel 4 needs to present the information about the purpose of the programme; what their participation will involve; the time required; support; benefits and disadvantages in a range of ways for both the Children the Parents / Guardians to understand (point 28).
Channel 4 has a responsibility to ensure the well-being of the research participants (points 13-15), to ensure that they do not come to any harm, however that is defined (points 26-30). The participants must be treated equally and fairly. The programme makers must ensure participants suffer no physical or mental distress as a result of activities (point 13). Mackenzie (2009) states ‘Safety protocols were put in place to ensure that the children’s wellbeing remained top priority’. The trouble is that we don’t know what these were. Gross et al (1988, p.viii) make the point that image makers rarely show television viewers the participants; as they wish to be seen (points 24 and 38).
In the UK, ethical principles are supported by the Data Protection Act 1998, which sets out the law on holding information about identifiable living individuals. The act relates to the way personal data are processed and obtained. It also concerns what type of data are gathered and the need for the data to be relevant, up to date and not kept for longer than necessary, and states that it must be kept within the European Union. This clearly affects the way that Channel 4 carried out its work (points 34-39). Henricson (2009) questions whether the programme caused harm to the participants and questions whether the participants’ needs were second to the objectives of the programme. We need to ask, what were the objectives of the programme? However, the overarching aim of TV producers is to get high viewing figures.
‘As shown in the programme, the children’s parents were able to watch what was going on and could also speak to their children or intercede if they felt it was necessary. Parents were free to withdraw their child at any time.’; stated the Head of Factual Entertainment for Channel 4 (Mackenzie, 2009).
Informed consent though, is often more, a matter of individual conscience and there is no mention of a contract identifying particularities. Graef (1980,p.163) raises the ethical question of ‘How much information do subjects need to give ‘informed consent’? and about the rights of children. Graef (1980) advised that children and parents should be invited to view their ‘performance’ (point 25). Channel 4 have a duty of care to those they involve in the programme. The children cannot be entirely free to decide whether to participate in the programme (point 29) and so the Parents and Guardians take on the role as Gatekeepers to safeguard the children’s welfare (point 56). To meet individual needs, Channel 4 needs to present the information about the purpose of the programme; what their participation will involve; the time required; support; benefits and disadvantages in a range of ways for both the Children the Parents / Guardians to understand (point 28).
Channel 4 has a responsibility to ensure the well-being of the research participants (points 13-15), to ensure that they do not come to any harm, however that is defined (points 26-30). The participants must be treated equally and fairly. The programme makers must ensure participants suffer no physical or mental distress as a result of activities (point 13). Mackenzie (2009) states ‘Safety protocols were put in place to ensure that the children’s wellbeing remained top priority’. The trouble is that we don’t know what these were. Gross et al (1988, p.viii) make the point that image makers rarely show television viewers the participants; as they wish to be seen (points 24 and 38).
In the UK, ethical principles are supported by the Data Protection Act 1998, which sets out the law on holding information about identifiable living individuals. The act relates to the way personal data are processed and obtained. It also concerns what type of data are gathered and the need for the data to be relevant, up to date and not kept for longer than necessary, and states that it must be kept within the European Union. This clearly affects the way that Channel 4 carried out its work (points 34-39). Henricson (2009) questions whether the programme caused harm to the participants and questions whether the participants’ needs were second to the objectives of the programme. We need to ask, what were the objectives of the programme? However, the overarching aim of TV producers is to get high viewing figures.
The Parents and Children may be unaware of the techniques and ploys / powers of programme directors and the outcomes of filming cannot be preordained; making it important for Channel 4 to make participants aware of potential hazards of external interpretation (points 26-27 and 31-33). Also important is making it clear on who owns and controls the data and how it is to be used (points 18-23). Only in editing can the summarised version of the research be presented and this lies ultimately on the control of the television-makers and not the participants. This is exactly analogous to any social researcher who has to write the final report, choosing how to interpret and present the data together with the conclusions, except that it’s not the researcher doing it.
The Statement (BSA, 2002) focuses on professional integrity and maintaining the integrity of sociological inquiry as a discipline; safeguarding the interests and safety of all involved and ensuring that the research is worthwhile (points 5-9) and seeks to do good. The guidelines veer between taking a deontological approach (guarding people’s rights), and a teleological approach (seeking to do good on balance). A key consideration in research ethics is whether the potential benefits justify any potential harm. Mackenzie (2009) states ‘The parents’ response to the series has been very positive. They have learnt a huge amount about their children from seeing them in this way. Many parents report more confident and able children following this stimulating and happy experience’. It doesn’t seem to have been a happy experience all the time for all the children.
The effects of the programme cannot be predicted and there can be no guarantees of the negative repercussions on the participants (point 40). Busher and Clarke (1990, p.144) explain ‘some children seem to attract more attention in the classroom than do others’ ; similarly the filming of ‘Boys and Girls Alone’ could also be skewed both to over emphasise and over-display certain characters or behaviour. Mackenzie (2009) states ‘we regard welfare as our first priority before, during and after filming and all of our programmes are made to be compliant with the relevant Ofcom guidelines’. Henricson (2009) Deputy Chief Executive of the Family and Parenting Institute questions whether Channel 4 did follow Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code (2009). Point 1.29 of the Broadcasting Code (Ofcom, 2009) states ‘People under eighteen must not be caused unnecessary distress or anxiety by their involvement in programmes or by the broadcast of those programmes’. It is very easy for ethical ideals to be subverted in practice. Some of the children may have found it difficult to withdraw from the relationship with the research participants and so Channel 4 need to manage the process carefully to help prevent or resolve any feelings of loss (points 10-12).
‘Boys and Girls Alone’ highlights many different ethical dilemmas. Ethical decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis and researchers have a responsibility to develop and refine their own ethical integrity. Although the BSA guidelines might allow something, the individual researcher may not wish to proceed with it because it transgresses their own code of personal ethics. Not everything that is ethical is legal and there is a close relationship between law and ethics. The codes of ethics and ethical guidelines are established to enable people to make consistent decisions based on firm ethical principles and to protect human rights; but the aspirations of ethical practice must always be higher than the minimum ethical standards that are set out. An open mind and continued reflection is vital. We should be aware of the need to make flexible decisions against the need for consistent judgment.
The Statement (BSA, 2002) focuses on professional integrity and maintaining the integrity of sociological inquiry as a discipline; safeguarding the interests and safety of all involved and ensuring that the research is worthwhile (points 5-9) and seeks to do good. The guidelines veer between taking a deontological approach (guarding people’s rights), and a teleological approach (seeking to do good on balance). A key consideration in research ethics is whether the potential benefits justify any potential harm. Mackenzie (2009) states ‘The parents’ response to the series has been very positive. They have learnt a huge amount about their children from seeing them in this way. Many parents report more confident and able children following this stimulating and happy experience’. It doesn’t seem to have been a happy experience all the time for all the children.
The effects of the programme cannot be predicted and there can be no guarantees of the negative repercussions on the participants (point 40). Busher and Clarke (1990, p.144) explain ‘some children seem to attract more attention in the classroom than do others’ ; similarly the filming of ‘Boys and Girls Alone’ could also be skewed both to over emphasise and over-display certain characters or behaviour. Mackenzie (2009) states ‘we regard welfare as our first priority before, during and after filming and all of our programmes are made to be compliant with the relevant Ofcom guidelines’. Henricson (2009) Deputy Chief Executive of the Family and Parenting Institute questions whether Channel 4 did follow Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code (2009). Point 1.29 of the Broadcasting Code (Ofcom, 2009) states ‘People under eighteen must not be caused unnecessary distress or anxiety by their involvement in programmes or by the broadcast of those programmes’. It is very easy for ethical ideals to be subverted in practice. Some of the children may have found it difficult to withdraw from the relationship with the research participants and so Channel 4 need to manage the process carefully to help prevent or resolve any feelings of loss (points 10-12).
‘Boys and Girls Alone’ highlights many different ethical dilemmas. Ethical decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis and researchers have a responsibility to develop and refine their own ethical integrity. Although the BSA guidelines might allow something, the individual researcher may not wish to proceed with it because it transgresses their own code of personal ethics. Not everything that is ethical is legal and there is a close relationship between law and ethics. The codes of ethics and ethical guidelines are established to enable people to make consistent decisions based on firm ethical principles and to protect human rights; but the aspirations of ethical practice must always be higher than the minimum ethical standards that are set out. An open mind and continued reflection is vital. We should be aware of the need to make flexible decisions against the need for consistent judgment.
References
Alderson, P. (2000) ‘Children as Researchers: The Effects of Participation Rights on Research Methodology’, in P. Christensen and A. James (eds) and Practices,
Research with Children: Perspectivespp. 241–75. London: Falmer Press.
British Sociological Association (BSA) Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological Association (March 2002) British Sociological Association, Available online at: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/equality/Statement+Ethical+Practice.htm (Accessed 26th May 2010)
Busher, H. And Clarke, S. (1990) ‘The Ethics of Using Video in Educational Research’ in Using Video-Recording for Teacher Professional Development, School of Education, University of Leeds
Graef, R. (1980) ‘The Case Study as Pandora’s Box’, in Simons, H. (ed). Towards a Science of the Singular, Occasional Publication No.10, Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia
Gross, L., Katz, J.S. and Ruby, J. (eds) (1988) ‘Introduction: A Moral Pause’, in Gross, L., Katz, J.S. and Ruby, J. (eds) Image Ethics, New York: Oxford University press
Henricson, C. (2009) Abide by Ofcom rules Available online at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5703932.ece (Accessed 1st May 2010)