LITERATURE REVIEW
3.9 INFORMED CONSENT
Various ethical concerns are attached to research. First, the researcher must gain the voluntary consent of the participant and respondents to use data gathered from the study (Nnebue, 2010). Second, consent is based on the ability of participant and respondents to read and understand the consent form, and voluntarily participate in the study (Sankar, 2004). Similarly, for the study, the researcher (and fieldworkers) asked each participant to sign a consent form. Questionnaire respondents were only asked to sign and date forms, without divulging any personal details.
Each consent form outlined the aim and objective of the research, the researcher's details, risks and benefits, the freedom of the participant to withdraw at any stage and confidentiality. Also, Lawson and Adamson (1995) state that the language used on consent forms should be simple with understandable phrases and words, and scientific terms must be clearly explained. The forms should consider the educational status of the participants, have a high school level readability and consider regional differences in language. For this study, the researcher (and fieldworkers) informed the respondents and participants of their role and the purpose of the research. Respondents were assured of total confidentiality and anonymity, as outlined on the form.
74 The data reflect age groups 12 to 16; these respondents are considered minors. This posed an ethical concern as minors generally require parental consent for participation in the study. Fieldworker, Melinda Pillay, worked with respondents over 18 years of age, thus her questionnaires (n=150/15%) did not encounter any ethical issues.
Respondents under 18 who filled out questionnaires at churches did so with parental and guardian consent (n=750/75%). However, at school students between Grade 8 to 12 completed questionnaires without parental consent (n=100/10%).
Most school based studies, which include students, or teachers attain consent from all or either of the school administration, principal, parents and the Department of Education.
This consent is likewise based on the nature and extent of the particular case. Generally parents are asked to give consent for children under 18 to participate in any study;
however, this may not always be the case. Spriggs (2010) argues that children may not necessarily need to have parental consent if the minor is mature enough to understand the nature of the research and if the research is beneficial with little risk. He further states that parental consent is there to ensure additional protection but there are circumstances when such consent is (i) inappropriate (e.g. evaluation of abused or neglected children) or (ii) offers no protection (names and addresses or contact details may need to be provided in research that is anonymous).
Strode et al. (2010) states that South African Law indicates that minors do not possess the capability to act independently. However, legislators have recognised that minors are capable of participating in research without parental consent if they have the maturity and capability. For example, children over 14 can consent to medical treatment, with parental consent only required for persons under that age. Yet, Strode et al. (2010) contends that even this age limit may change to allow children from the age of 12 to make decisions to attain medical treatment.
In addition, Mason-Jones et al. (2011) states that 14 year olds may be just as competent as adults to provide consent and appreciate their participation. Strode and Slack (2011:
71) contend that:
Where proxy consent is necessary for research, consent from persons with no parental responsibilities and rights but who provide day-to-day care of children,
75 namely caregivers, ought to be permissible where the research approximates minimal risk (and other requirements are met).
Therefore, consent can be obtained (for minors the participation of minors in research) from those who provide day-to-day protection and maintenance of a child. Attaining parental consent does not undermine such authority, but promotes shared decision- making in research participation (Mason-Jones et al., 2011).
The above guidelines apply to this study, because parental consent for disseminating questionnaires in schools was not an ethical transgression. In addition, consent was provided by the principal of the school in question. The questionnaires used for this study, did not contain any inflammatory material that would have harmed or put the students at risk. Likewise, the principal did not believe that this study would harm the students in any way, and found it beneficial to them understanding crime within the community, especially since crime and violence also filtered into schools.
Moreover, the study was supported by the local government office (SDB ABM) and safety forum (SDB CSF) and formed part of a broader examination of crime within Wentworth and surrounding communities18. The researchers approach can be critiqued with arguments that minors do not understand crime and its effects. However, the study explored the application of the CPTED model to the physical and built environment to reduce crime and vulnerability. It did not intend to offer an elaborate sensitive exploration of victimisation, which would have required parental consent.
Interestingly, the researcher found that the participation of minors in the study was advantageous to understanding crime in the community as youth are more likely to spend time outdoors. Also, the Wentworth community experiences high levels of crime to which students are exposed. Many students have experienced bouts of violence within and outside of schools due to student-on-student, and teenage gang violence. In some instances this violence has led to the deaths of young adults from the community (Chetty, 2005; Abrahams and Andrew, 2006). Furthermore, only ten percent of the
18 See Appendices Six for a copy of the consent form outlining the participation of the researcher as a member of the SDB CSF, intern at the SDB ABM offices and permission for access to use of documents and data.
76 aggregate questionnaires were completed by students. Evaluation of completed questionnaires also revealed that the majority of incomplete questionnaires originated from respondents over 25 years old. This demonstrates that respondents between 12 and 18 years old understood crime in the community and appreciated the objectives and aims of the study.