Natalia Arce[*]
Yasmin Winther[**]
Keywords: ethical considerations; gathering information from children; playful methodologies; do-no-harm approach; best-interest-of-the-child standards; children’s perspective in evaluation
Introduction
This paper offers an examination of the ethical considerations and methodological innovations related to gathering information from children. It draws upon the empirical foundation of the authors’ and Plan Eval’s[1] evaluation experience with children on the move in Latin America and Africa. Rooted in the distinct philosophical and ethical perspectives of collaborative thinking, this paper aims to provide practical solutions that pertain to consulting children, while adhering to international human rights standards, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the do-no- harm approach, and the human rights-based approach.
This paper is based on the authors’ first-hand experiences conducting research with children as key informants. The arguments presented here are grounded in both the successful practices and the challenges encountered. Considering the collaborative thinking approach, this paper underscores the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and ethical reflexivity in evaluation processes involving children. By sharing concrete examples of good practices and innovative methods of engaging with children, this research contributes to advancing the dialogue on how to ethically engage with children, with the ultimate goal of bringing about an inclusive and participatory approach to evaluations involving children in a manner coherent with the values of collaborative thinking.
Children’s perspective in evaluations
When evaluating a project, program, or policy that involves children, ethical considerations must be a cornerstone of whatever research methodology that is used. In general terms, it is about “balancing the goals and benefits of evaluation with the rights and interests of those being evaluated” (Barnett & Camfield, 2016). To this end, a series of principles that should guide the performance of the evaluation team and govern the evaluation have been identified by the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) (UNEG, 2020), these are: independence, impartiality, honesty and integrity, competence, accountability, respect and protection of human rights, confidentiality, prevention of harm, transparency, among others.
Based on the above, different organizations have developed a series of ethical guidelines to guide the evaluations and actions of those who conduct the research (Better Evaluation, 2024). The guidelines are diverse, spanning various levels of quality (Better Evaluation, n.d.). For example, the most demanding ethical guidelines require the implementation of specific practices for each stage of the evaluation process and/or directed towards each stakeholder involved[2]. Some guidelines stipulate the verification of individual researcher’s specific competencies, requiring specialized training in addition to the required evaluation experience[3].
Gradually, human rights-based approaches have become integrated into an evaluation’s required ethical considerations. As a result, considerations of gender, culture, and the intersectionality of a project or programme’s intersectionality have become recognised as prerequisites for evaluations that seek to 1) research systemic inequalities and inequitable power relations and 2) to generate recommendations that effectively address the differentiated needs of the most vulnerable groups. Importantly, evaluations must ensure the broad participation of the most vulnerable groups (such as, women, the elderly, indigenous people, people living with disabilities, etc.) as consulted stakeholders and, in best practices, as part of the evaluation team itself.
However, ensuring such participation entails its own challenges, especially when there is no shared worldview between stakeholder groups, such as occurs between adults, children and adolescents. In these cases, an evaluation’s approaches, language, resources, tools, and methods must be adapted to each stakeholder group. As adults, researchers are compelled to question how they are to achieve this. They must ask themselves:
“How can we step away from our adult-centric worldview?”
International standards regarding the participation of children and adolescents provide general guidelines as to how to do this. For instance, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child states that safe spaces for the participation of children and adolescents must be provided and that research methods should be transparent and informative, voluntary, respectful, relevant, adapted, inclusive, supported by training, safe, and attentive to risk, and responsible (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009). This implies 1) recognizing and respecting non-verbal forms of communication; 2) ensuring that they are properly informed about the matter to be addressed and the use that will be made of the information collected; 3) providing them with safe and friendly conditions and spaces that allow them to express their opinions comfortably, without pressure or manipulation; and 4) enhancing actions to include those who, for any reason, might have difficulty expressing their views (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009)[4]. Importantly, all stakeholders must be informed that they free to choose whether they want to participate or not.
The challenge for evaluation specialists who wish to conduct research involving children is to supplement traditional evaluation frameworks with innovative strategies that effectively capture the perspectives of children while ensuring and protecting their rights. Fortunately, UN agencies, such as UNICEF (UNICEF, 2015), and NGOs, such as Save the Children (Save the Children, 2004), among others (Graham, Powell, Taylor, Anderson, & Fitzgerald, 2013), have developed methodological toolkits that facilitate this task. While this article will not reproduce these guidelines in full, it will highlight that the authors consider to be best practices and necessary conditions for consulting children and adolescents, based on their experience.
Design of methodology and instruments
First, we recommend integrating a specialized Ethics Committee as a component of the evaluation architecture, during the inception phase before data collection begins. In fact, using an external ethics review committee is standard practice for some United Nations agencies, such as UNICEF[5]. The inclusion of an external and expert perspective ensures the verification that methodological adaptations are appropriate, ensure participation while avoiding harm, that they consider not only age, but also the specific vulnerabilities of all stakeholder groups (e.g., disability, the elderly, migration status, etc.) involved in the research, just as the human-rights based approach requires. The Ethics Committee, independent of the evaluation team, would conduct a preliminary review of the methodologies, protocols, and tools for gathering and systematizing information obtained from consultations with children and adolescents. If necessary, it could suggest changes or adaptations that the evaluation team must integrate before piloting and applying the data collection tools. Only after the Ethics Committee has reviewed and approved the proposed data collection tools can data collection commence. It is a good practice for this Committee to have an interdisciplinary composition (e.g., psychology, pedagogy, and child and adolescent rights specialists).
Additionally, our experience causes us to advocate for even a second or third verification of an evaluation’s data collection tools and methodologies, the second to be carried out by the agency or organisation whose project, policy, or program is being evaluated, and, if applicable, the third by the implementation partner that has direct contact with children and adolescents during the project implementation, when it is not the same that the entity that has commissioned the evaluation. The implementation partners have firsthand knowledge of the vulnerabilities faced and their differentiated needs. They can also be a great ally in providing child-friendly spaces for consultations.
Child-friendly spaces deserve a special mention. Typical evaluations stipulate that consultations with children and adolescents can be conducted if there is a comfortable place to sit and take notes. However, it is important for evaluators to reflect on what is meant by the term “comfortable.” It is important to recognise that comfort has different meanings for different age groups. For example, for a child or adolescent, comfort might mean that the space itself does not make them feel that they are being examined, judged, or detained. This involves having furniture that matches the child’s size, ensuring the furniture does not create a barrier between the evaluator and the child, and including decorations that convey warmth, among other factors. Of course, there is no standard design for child-friendly spaces, as they also depend on the age and background of the child being consulted. For example, a seven-year-old child is not the same as a fifteen-year-old adolescent. The decor suitable for a seven-year-old may make a fifteen-year-old feel infantilized. Consulting a child who has always developed in a family environment is not the same as consulting one in a migration situation who has been through migration stations. The former may not be much affected by a consultation from an adult behind a desk and computer, while the latter may feel distrust or even re-victimized.
Recognizing aspects such as those noted above, allow the evaluation team—from the initial phase of the evaluation—to identify the profiles and needs of the children and adolescents to be consulted and, in coordination with the entity whose project or program is being evaluated and the implementation partner -if applicable-, to provide the necessary spaces. If appropriate child-friendly spaces are not already available, they will need to be established for the purposes of the evaluation.
Prior, free, and informed consent
Once the methods, instruments, and consultation spaces have been approved by the Ethics Committee, it is necessary to obtain free, prior, and informed consent from both the children and adolescents and/or their parents or caregivers. Typically, parents or caregivers sign a consent form on which the evaluation objectives, the purpose of the consultation, and all considerations of independence and confidentiality that will be applied are outlined. Meanwhile, children and adolescents might be asked to sign their own form, containing the same terms but in age-appropriate language. In our experience, this process generally proceeds smoothly. The challenge arises when the children and adolescents to be consulted do not have parents or caregivers and/or are institutionalized. In these contexts, their increased vulnerability and consequent mistrust has compelled us as researchers to be flexible in obtaining their consent. For example, in the evaluation of a children on the move initiative, some of the adolescents were unaccompanied migrant minors in shelters awaiting family reunification or assisted return. In some cases, despite their willingness to participate in the consultation, there were evident fears about signing documents. Therefore, in cases where written consent might be intimidating or impractical, alternative methods such as informed verbal consent recorded with a witness (e.g., staff from the implementing organization or shelter) can be utilized, especially in high-risk or sensitive environments.
Only after informed consent has been obtained can researchers proceed with the consultation, bearing in mind that, at the child’s or adolescent’s discretion, the consent and willingness to participate can be withdrawn at any time.
Gathering information from children and adolescents
The evaluation team must recognize that the initial contact with children and adolescents is as crucial as the rest of the consultation. A friendly approach, or simply one without excessive formality, can make the difference between a fruitful consultation and an unproductive one. The organization whose project or program is being evaluated, along with its implementation partner -if applicable- can again be valuable allies in this regard. Based on the authors’ experience, it is worth allocating time in the fieldwork schedule to involve the evaluation team in recreational or sports activities with the children and adolescents, alongside the implementing organizations, before proceeding with the consultations. For instance, during an evaluation involving children on the move, it proved beneficial for the evaluator to participate in psychosocial support activities with the adolescents before consulting them. For example, these activities included playing soccer with the unaccompanied migrant children’s shelter, led by the implementing organization. The evaluator joined a team, participated in teamwork, and shared jokes and laughter typical of such activities. The adolescents saw the evaluator as an equal, and the brief camaraderie established during the games was crucial for fostering trust during the subsequent consultation. In cases where such an initiative did not take place, gaining the adolescents’ trust was a slower process, making it more challenging to encourage their participation and share their experiences and assessments in the short time allotted to the consultation. Of course, implementing this good practice requires prior coordination with the implementing organizations and other logistical considerations in defining the schedule.
This might not always be possible; nevertheless, researchers should ensure that, regardless of the circumstances, an icebreaker or informal pre-consultation activity be implemented as a standard procedure prior to conducting consultations with children. These activities aim to use the presentation moment or the initial part of the consultation session to improve group interaction and help create a comfortable and trusting environment. There is a wide variety of icebreaker activities (e.g., introducing the neighbour, ball of names, find someone who, two truths and a lie, etc.), with the most important aspect being adapting the exercise to the context and characteristics of the group.
Not all consultations with children and adolescents will necessarily take place in focus groups. Therefore, researchers must develop icebreakers relevant to individual interviews. In these cases, a less formal introduction, such as sharing aspects of our personality, can be more fruitful than merely presenting our role as an evaluator. Examples of this might be: sharing our name, where we are from, something we like and something we don’t, interests, favourite foods, etc., with the child or adolescent doing the same. This often reveals commonalities and creates an initial empathetic connection that foster a more trusting atmosphere. It is also crucial to understand the background of the child being consulted, as questions that might seem natural in a normal scenario could generate fear in others. For instance, in an evaluation involving children on the move, dealing with adolescents in irregular migration situations who had been detained in migration stations and feared deportation, it was more appropriate to ask, “What name would you like us to call you?” instead of “What is your name?” This formulation helped them overcome their fear of being “identified,” and made them feel they could share their opinions without providing what they perceived as sensitive information (their name and country of origin), which would typically be natural to share in other contexts.
Exploring new methodologies tailored to each age group
The authors’ experience has shown the necessity of exploring new methods tailored to each age group. Generally, playful methodologies are the best option for consulting children and adolescents. In fact, “evidence from psychology has stipulated that people can feel ‘playful’ at any age, but the way that playfulness is expressed is different according to life stage” (Johnston, Wildy, & Shand, 2023). For instance, during the previously referenced evaluation involving children on the move, adolescents were consulted about their satisfaction with the playful methodologies used in psychosocial activities. They highlighted the positive contribution, but also mentioned that “they did not like being treated like little kids.[6]” This confirmed that it is not about omitting playful methodologies for consultations but understanding that as researchers, we must use games and language appropriate to each age group. For example, with a group of adolescents, a “role-playing game” was effective, where the adolescents acted as evaluators and, after a visit to the unaccompanied migrant children’s shelter (the place where the girls were housed), they highlighted what they liked, what they didn’t like, and their improvement recommendations.
Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting remote digital technologies that gained prominence during this time have also allowed us to identify other consultation alternatives that may be more attractive to adolescents, even outside the pandemic context. For example, replacing traditional survey formats (using Google Forms or SurveyMonkey) with other visually appealing applications that even offer the possibility of creating an avatar is a good practice.
Safeguarding of sensitive data
Ensuring the safeguarding of sensitive data is paramount when conducting evaluations involving children. Given the heightened vulnerabilities and the sensitive nature of the information gathered, specific strategies must be implemented to protect all data gathered throughout the entire evaluation process.
First and foremost, detailed information about how the data will be collected, stored, used, and shared should be clearly communicated to both the children and their guardians, so that their consent can be fully grounded. Talking to children and adolescents about privacy is an effective way to explain to children how researchers are going to use their data in a way that they understand (Park, 2021)[7]. Guidelines, toolkits and diverse resources have been developed that allow a creative demonstration of privacy concerns and measures taken[8] to ensure the confidentiality of all data gathered during the course of an evaluation. In addition, consent forms should explicitly address data protection measures and provide assurances that the data will be handled with the utmost care.
It is fundamental to control and limit the access of sensitive data only to members of the evaluation team who need this to perform their roles. It is important that all members of the evaluation team undergo comprehensive training on data protection and privacy issues. This training should cover best practices for handling sensitive data, recognizing potential security threats, and understanding the legal and ethical implications of data breaches. Capacity building initiatives should also extend to implementing partners and any third-party service providers (if needed) to ensure a unified approach to data safeguarding across all entities involved in the evaluation.
To further protect the identities of the children involved, anonymization and de-identification techniques should be employed. This involves removing or masking any personally identifiable information (PII) from all data sets before analysis and reporting. Techniques such as data aggregation and pseudonymization or assigning a Unique Identifier Code (IEC) to each stakeholder that is used in place of their names, can be used to ensure that individual responses cannot be traced back to specific participants.
Desirable skills in the evaluation team
Ideally, an evaluation should be conducted by a multidisciplinary team. However, this is not always possible, and single-person external evaluations of projects, programs, and policies are becoming increasingly common. In such scenarios, it is especially important for the evaluator to possess the range of skills necessary to ensure that their interactions with children and adolescents within the evaluation framework do not cause harm.
For example, a good practice is to have the ability to provide psychological first aid. This allows the evaluator to assist a child or adolescent in overcoming episodes of anxiety or similar distress during the consultation process. The evaluator can help them find calmness and immediately refer them to an entity or person who can provide specialized care. Psychological first aid[9] tools are diverse, but having the ability to apply techniques such as diaphragmatic breathing or coping strategies can make a significant difference. In experiences such as the evaluation involving children on the move, the authors did not have to implement all these techniques. However, it was important that they be familiar with them as the adolescents being consulted were in a highly vulnerable situation due to their irregular migration status, which generally meant they had survived serious risks and violence.
Psychological first aid is just one example. In practice, the evaluator must possess skills relevant to the context and risks faced by the population being consulted. In some cases, this is not solely that responsibility of the researchers, but a requirement of the organisation or agency that commissioned the evaluation. For instance, in the case of an evaluation involving children on the move, the organisations that have commissioned the evaluation required that the evaluation team complete a virtual and self-directed training on the prevention of sexual abuse and exploitation. This training aimed not only to prevent such practices, but also to enable the team to identify instances of abuse and exploitation that had occurred, and to act according to established protocols.
Dissemination of evaluation findings with a childhood perspective
Disseminating the findings and recommendations of the evaluation is a task that also involves applying a childhood perspective. A traditional executive summary may not be the best way to communicate the results to children and adolescents, as it is likely to use technical language and may not be the most user-friendly format.
Even when little is known about the dissemination stages of the research process to children (Egli, et al., 2019), there is an increasing demand from organizations (often captured in the evaluation’s terms of reference) that, in addition to the evaluation report, dissemination instruments or activities should be designed to communicate the results of the evaluation in an appropriate manner to the children or adolescents who were involved in the process[10]. In the case of the ‘children on the move’ evaluation conducted by Plan Eval, this issue was particularly challenging, as it involved children and adolescents in situations of human mobility, making it nearly impossible to re-establish contact with them once the evaluation process was completed. Therefore, on that occasion, the dissemination of results was limited to generating briefing notes to be shared with the implementation partners.
Nevertheless, this presented an opportunity to emphasize that feedback of results should also be tailored to the specific needs and characteristics of the children and adolescents consulted. For example, infographics, video capsules/reels, or other social media content, illustrations, animations, among others, can be created. Of course, adapting the language to the corresponding age group will also be crucial.
A significant advantage today is artificial intelligence, which has become a valuable tool to optimize evaluation work. Just as in the educational field, AI can be used to review texts, break down tasks into simpler steps, or adapt proposals to different learning stages (Paulista, 2024). In the evaluation field, AI can be used to rephrase texts to make them more user-friendly for diverse audiences, including children and adolescents. Naturally, the Ethics Committee would play a key role in reviewing and validating these products. Finally, it is essential to budget for the development of adapted dissemination resources for the evaluation.
Conclusions
The practices shared in this paper are not the only ones available for integrating a childhood perspective into project, program, and policy evaluations. Other entities have developed extensive and rigorously crafted guidelines, frameworks, and toolkits that are freely accessible. However, the evaluation of the children on the move intervention provided a valuable opportunity reflection, and, when taken into consideration with other available resources, the reflections, lessons, and best practices presented here will positively contribute to the ethical consultation children in future evaluations.
Firstly, it has allowed us, as evaluators, to become aware of the need to set aside our adult-centric viewpoint from the early stages of evaluation design. With concrete examples, we have demonstrated that the first condition to ensure harm-free action was identifying the differentiated needs of children and adolescents, even when they were not apparent at first glance.
Furthermore, we have shared best practices that have shown us that not all children and adolescents can be treated equally. Instead, it is necessary to recognize, through an intersectional approach, their diverse needs and various situations of risk and exclusion. For instance, the specific contexts of children and adolescents in situations of human mobility compelled us to make additional adaptations to meet to their dual vulnerability.
Moreover, reviewing all phases of the evaluation—from design of the evaluation, to the dissemination of findings and recommendations—allowed us to demonstrate that a rights-based approach and the best interest of the child are cross-cutting issues. Furthermore, we have shown that these approaches are not ethereal or marginal reference issues: on the contrary, they translate into concrete practices to be implemented by the evaluation team.
Finally, with this brief contribution we hope not only to share best practices, but also to catalyse reflection within our profession allowing us to advance the design and implementation of evaluations that are protective and which do not replicate the inequitable positions of power and the practices of discrimination and exclusion that children commonly face.
[*] Natalia holds an MSc in Planification, Management and Evaluation of Cooperation and Development Interventions from UNED, and a bachelor’s degree in law from ITESO, Mexico. With her work experience in Latin America, she is deeply involved in Project Planning, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, under a human-rights based approach, intersectionality, and gender perspective.
[**] Yasmin holds an MSc in Finance with a focus on Economic Policy from SOAS, University of London, and a bachelor’s degree in economics from PUC-SP, Brazil. With her work experience spanning Africa, Asia, and Latin America, she is skilled in quantitative and mixed methods, including tools like R, EViews and Stata. She contributes to evidence- based decision-making and policy development through evaluation, research, and capacity building.
[1] Founded in 2007, Plan Eval is a consultancy firm dedicated to monitoring and evaluating public-interest programmes. It is the oldest M&E practice currently active in Brazil. Its European subsidiary, Plan Eval SRL, operates in Belgium since 2016. Plan Eval is an institutional member of the European Evaluation Society and the Rede Brasileira de Monitoramento e Avaliação. Plan Eval offer solutions to measure and evaluate the impact of interventions on any scale, from local development projects to multi-country programmes. Find mor at Plan Eval’s website https://plan-eval.com/english/
[2] For instance, the Australasian Evaluation Society Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Evaluations include practices for three stages: commissioning and preparing the evaluation, conducting the evaluation, and reporting (AES, 2013). On the other hand, the United Nations Evaluation Group includes guidelines directed at the leadership entity, those who organize evaluations, and those who conduct evaluations (UNEG, 2020).
[3] For example, a Plan Eval’s client requested that all evaluation consultants involved in the process complete a Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) training before starting the field missions.
[4] See para. 134.
[5] Consult the HML IRB website as an example: https://www.healthmedialabirb.com/unicef
[6] e.g. Adolescent in a focus group that took place in Mexico, during the evaluation of children on the move (2023).
[7] The Future of Privacy Forum and Common Sense assembled a panel of youth privacy experts for a webinar presentation on, “Talking to Kids about Privacy,” exploring both the importance of and approaches to talking to kids about privacy. Among other topics, the panel addressed a model for engaging children in informing data protection policies. Watch the full webinar here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAcLoThw6I4
[8] Some resources for talking to children and adolescents about privacy can be consulted here: Future of privacy forum (https://fpf.org/blog/talking-to-kids-about-privacy/); Data Protection Commission (https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/dpc-guidance/childrens-data-protection-rights) and The London School of Economics and Political Science (https://www.lse.ac.uk/my-privacy-uk).
[9] According to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, psychological first aid “is a direct response and set of actions to help someone in distress”. “It is a form of helping that involves paying attention to the person’s reactions, active listening and if relevant, practical assistance to help address immediate problems and basic needs”. (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2018)
[10] For example, UNICEF’s Adolescent Development and Participation Section (ADAP) in Programme Division and the Evaluation Office (EO) at UNICEF Headquarters in New York have developed guidelines to, among others, disseminate the results and support/lead closing the feedback loop with adolescents through the production of adolescent-friendly versions of the findings (UNICEF, 2018).
References
Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2009). Committee on the Rights of the Child’s General Comment No. 12. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu: https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-12/the_right_of_the_child_to_be_heardcrc-c-gc-12.pdf Access date: September 13, 2024
AES. (2013). Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Evaluations. Retrieved from https://www.aes.asn.au: https://www.aes.asn.au/images/AES_Guidelines_web_v2.pdf Access date: September 13, 2024
Barnett, C. &. Camfield, L.(2016). Ethics in evaluation. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 8(4), 528–534. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19439342.2016.1244554#d1e107 Access date: September 13, 2024
Better Evaluation. (2024). Ethical guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.betterevaluation.org: https://www.betterevaluation.org/methods-approaches/methods/ethical-guidelines Access date: September 13, 2024
Better Evaluation. (n.d.). Determine what constitutes high quality evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.betterevaluation.org: https://www.betterevaluation.org/frameworks-guides/rainbow-framework/manage/determine-what-constitutes-high-quality-evaluation#back-to-top-anchor Access date: September 13, 2024
Egli, V., Carroll, P., Donnellan, N., Mackay, L., Anderson, B., & Smith, M. (2019). isseminating research results to kids: practical tips from the Neighbourhoods for Active Kids study. Kotuitui: New Zeland Journal of Social Sciences Online, Vol 14, No. 2, 257-275. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/1177083X.2019.1621909?needAccess=true Access date: September 13, 2024
Graham, A., Powell, M., Taylor, N., Anderson, D., & Fitzgerald, R. (2013). Ethical Research Involving Children. Retrieved from https://childethics.com: https://childethics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ERIC-compendium-approved-digital-web.pdf Access date: September 13, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2018). A guide to Psychological First Aid. Retrieved from https://pscentre.org/: https://pscentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/PFA-Guide-low-res.pdf Access date: September 13, 2024
Johnston, O., Wildy, H., & Shand, J. (2023). Teenagers learn through play too: communicating high expectations through a playful learning approach. Aust. Educ. Res. 50, 921–940. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00534-3 Access date: September 13, 2024
OECD. (2023). Applying a human rights and gender equality lens to the OECD evaluation criteria. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.or: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/applying-a-human-rights-and-gender-equality-lens-to-the-oecd-evaluation-criteria_9aaf2f98-en.html Access date: September 13, 2024
Park, J. (2021). Talking to kids about privacy: advice from a panel of internationa experts . Retrieved from https://fpf.org: https://fpf.org/blog/talking-to-kids-about-privacy/ Access date: September 13, 2024
Paulista, A. C. (2024). The ethical use of AI in early childhood education: a must-read for educators . Retrieved from https://early-beginnings.com: https://early-beginnings.com/blog/the-ethical-use-of-ai-in-early-childhood-education/ Access date: September 13, 2024
Save the Children. (2004). So You Want to Involve Children in Research? . Retrieved from https://www.savethechildren.org.uk: https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/content/dam/global/reports/education-and-child-protection/so-you-want-to-involve-children-in-research.pdf Access date: September 13, 2024
UNEG. (2020). UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation . Retrieved from https://procurement-notices.undp.org/: https://procurement-notices.undp.org/view_file.cfm?doc_id=302194#:~:text=The%20four%20UNEG%20guiding%20ethical,essential%20for%20responsible%20evaluation%20practice. Access date: September 13, 2024
UNEG. (2021). Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation – Towards UNEG Guidance . Retrieved from https://www.uneval.org: https://www.uneval.org/document/detail/980 Access date: September 13, 2024
UNICEF. (2015). UNICEF procedure for ethical standards in research, evaluation, data collection and analysis . Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org: https://www.unicef.org/media/54796/file Access date: September 13, 2024
UNICEF. (2018). UNICEF Guidance Note: Adolescent participation in UNICEF monitoring and evaluation . Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org: https://www.unicef.org/evaluation/media/2746/file/UNICEF%20ADAP%20guidance%20note-final.pdf Access date: September 13, 2024