Content uploaded by Cécile Rousseau
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cécile Rousseau on Apr 18, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Multilayered Ethics in Research Involving
Unaccompanied Refugee Minors
MARIANNE VERVLIET
Department of Social Welfare Studies, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium
Marianne.Vervliet@Ugent.be
CE
´CILE ROUSSEAU
Division of Social and Transcultural Psychiatry, McGill University, Canada
ERIC BROEKAERT
Department of Orthopedagogics, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium
ILSE DERLUYN
Department of Social Welfare Studies, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium
MS received August 2013; revised MS received November 2014
Research articles about unaccompanied refugee minors (UM) have rarely ad-
dressed ethical issues. This is remarkable, given UM’s specific, marginalized and
vulnerable position within society, and the growing interest and developments in
research ethics in refugee research. This article poses the question whether
studies involving UM raise specific ethical issues compared to research on
other refugee groups. We formulate personal reflections on ethical issues in a
particular research project—a longitudinal study of UM in Belgium—and con-
nect them to the existing body of literature on research ethics in qualitative and
refugee research. We conclude that research ethics in studies with UM need to
be multilayered because of researchers’ obligation to take ethical responsibility
at both the micro and socio-political levels.
Keywords: Informed consent, refugees, research ethics, unaccompanied refugee minors
Introduction
Children and adolescents below the age of 18 constitute about half of the
worldwide refugee population and a large group among them are unaccom-
panied, being separated from their parents or legal guardian (UNHCR 2013,
2014). In 2013, 25,300 new asylum claims were lodged by unaccompanied
refugee minors (UM) in 77 countries worldwide, which is the highest level
since 2006, constituting about 4 per cent of the total number of asylum claims
in those countries (UNHCR 2014). In 2013, Europe received more than half
(15,700) of UM’s asylum claims, the greatest numbers being registered in
Journal of Refugee Studies ßThe Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press.
All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
doi:10.1093/jrs/feu039
Sweden, Germany, the United Kingdom and Norway (UNHCR 2014).
Belgium received 1,771 UM in 2013, with as main countries of origin
Morocco, Afghanistan, Guinea and Congo (Guardianship Service 2014:
‘Statistics Unaccompanied Minors’, unpublished).
Different human rights instruments, including and arising from the
International Convention on the Rights of the Child, state that unaccompanied
refugee minors are in need of special protection, implying that all UM must be
granted temporary residence status and adequate care and reception (EMN 2010;
FRA 2010). This population is considered ‘vulnerable’ because of their young age,
combined with their status as refugees and their being unaccompanied by parents
(Derluyn and Broekaert, 2008a;Derluyn and Vervliet, 2012). Accordingly, re-
search on UM has often focused on UM’s mental health, often demonstrating
high incidences of a variety of mental health problems (see, e.g. Derluyn et al.
2008b;Derluyn et al. 2009;Bronstein et al.2012;Fazel et al.2012). Recent studies,
however, have increasingly stressed the remarkable psychological strength, resili-
ence and agency of UM, despite their high risk of facing traumatic experiences and
daily stressors and of developing psychological problems (see, e.g. Luster et al.
2010;Ni Raghallaigh and Gilligan 2010). In our longitudinal research project,
about which we report in this article, we therefore consider UM through an inte-
grative, holistic lens: as dynamic human agents who are part of dynamic systemic
contexts (on micro, meso and macro levels) and who at the same time exhibit both
vulnerabilities and abilities and capacities (Vervliet et al.2013a).
It has been widely stressed that working with UM requires high professional,
ethical standards, as needed for all children and adolescents in specific situations
of child protection (Derluyn and Broekaert, 2008a;FRA 2010;Vervliet et al.,
2013a;Vervliet et al. 2013b). It is therefore self-evident that we use comparable
standards when doing research with this population (ERIC 2014). It remains
unclear, however, which specific elements of this ethical responsibility arise
when doing research involving unaccompanied refugee minors. This question
occupied a central place in our longitudinal mixed-methods study of UM in
Belgium. Throughout the follow-up of a group of UM (N¼103) during the first
18 months of their residence in Belgium, we were confronted with numerous
challenges that we experienced as ‘ethically important’ and that were primarily
situated in the researcher–participant relationship, in the bonds created, and in
the emotions and questions this evoked on both sides. Confronted with these
ethical challenges in the research project, we noticed that, while ethics in re-
search on refugee groups is increasingly receiving the attention of researchers
(see, e.g. Leaning 2001;Jacobsen and Landau 2003;MacKenzie et al. 2007;De
Haene et al. 2010;Zion et al. 2010), few studies have addressed ethics in research
specifically with UM (Thomas and Byford 2003;Hopkins 2008). Moreover,
although very valuable, these studies mainly focused on methodological and
procedural ethical issues (e.g. ethical approval, informed consent, privacy, con-
fidentiality and dissemination), which only partially covered the ethical ques-
tions we encountered during our research project.
2Marianne Vervliet et al.
This article therefore aims to further investigate points of particular interest
concerning ethics in research involving UM, through sharing and analysing
‘thick descriptions’ (Brinkmann and Kvale 2005) of personal reflections on
ethical challenges and related research actions in our longitudinal, mixed-meth-
ods study with UM. Going beyond ‘procedural ethics’ (Guillemin and Gillam
2004), we will reflect on ‘relational ethics’ (Ellis 2007), in doing so referring to
the work of Levinas (1906–95). The core of Levinas’s thinking is the interper-
sonal, asymmetrical relationship between the ‘I’ and the ‘Other’—a relationship
wherein the ‘I’ receives an inescapable moral appeal to take up his/her unique
responsibility for the ‘Other’, and for all ‘Others’ (Duyndam and Poorthuis
2003;Ege
´a-Kuehne 2008). Levinas’s ‘philosophy of the Other’ gave us import-
ant support in gaining a deeper understanding of our emotions and actions in
the research process, as it challenged us to rethink and reframe our own initial
reflections (De Schauwer and Van Hove 2011).
We will first introduce the aims and methods of our study and its partici-
pants. Second, we will introduce vignettes that illustrate the follow-up in the
cases of three Afghan participants, Nabi, Hamid and Hazratullah (pseudo-
nyms), using extracts from the researcher’s ([Marianne Vervliet], first author)
personal notes. Third, building on these vignettes as reference points, we will
share reflections on six central themes that were ethically highly important
throughout our research journey. Finally, we will argue that researchers’
ethical responsibility in studies of UM concerns both being an ‘ethical re-
searcher’ and doing ‘ethical research’ (Vandekinderen et al. 2013) and is thus
situated on a micro as well as on a macro/socio-political level.
Study Aims, Methods and Participants
The central aim of our research was to gain more insight into possible
evolutions in the mental health, aspirations, feelings of agency and lived
experiences of a group of UM during their first 18 months in Belgium. We
also wanted to support practitioners (social workers and legal guardians) and
policy makers by making this enlarged knowledge available.
The study took place between 2009 and 2012, and started during the par-
ticipants’ first weeks in Belgium, in the two reception centres where all newly
arrived UM are cared for (see below for an extensive description of the first
moments of contact). During the following 18 months, all participants
(N¼103) were met at least twice (at six and 18 months). At each encounter,
a semi-structured interview was conducted and the participants were asked to
complete several self-report questionnaires. Central topics in both the ques-
tionnaires and the interview were participants’ aspirations, mental health,
traumatic experiences, daily living experiences (positive aspects and stressors)
and feelings of agency. In between the face-to-face meetings, regular tele-
phone conversations with all participants took place to keep track of them.
In the context of a case study focusing on Afghan UM, 13 of the Afghan
Multilayered Ethics in Research Involving Unaccompanied Refugee Minors 3
participants were also encountered at least five additional times, each includ-
ing a semi-structured interview related to the same themes.
Most participants were male (84.5 per cent), the mean self-reported age at
arrival was 15.99 years (SD ¼0.85, range 14–17) and the most frequent coun-
tries of origin were Afghanistan (46.6 percent), Guinea (19.4 percent) and
Congo (5.6 percent). Twenty-four participants did not participate at the
second measurement moment (after six months’ stay in Belgium), of whom
13 participated again at the third measurement moment (at 18 months).
Fifteen adolescents dropped out between the second and third measurement
moments. Drop-out reasons at the second and third measurement moments
were that participation was emotionally too demanding (20), participants had
disappeared or could not be reached anymore (10), they had left the country
(3) or they lacked time to participate (6).
The research team consisted of the researcher ([Marianne Vervliet], first
author), who followed all Afghan participants; research assistants, each of
whom followed about 10 participants from other countries of origin for 8–12
months (two research assistants successively followed one participant); and in-
terpreters for the different language groups. This research team collaborated
intensively: the research assistants were supervised by the researcher in monthly
group meetings and individual in-between contacts; and the researcher was in-
dividually supervised at least every two weeks by [Ilse Derluyn] (co-author) as
an ‘ethical auditor’ (Hugman et al. 2011a) and on an annual basis in meetings
with academic and practitioner guidance committees.
Before the sampling started, ethical approval for the study was obtained
from the Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational
Sciences of Ghent University.
Following Nabi, Hamid and Hazratullah: Three Vignettes as Reference Points
Nabi
18 August 2010: First Encounter This is Nabi’s second day in the (first re-
ception) centre. He says he has not yet had an opportunity to talk with his
social worker and that he does not feel at ease with the other residents. He
opens up about the many hazards he encountered along the way to Europe,
such as being swept overboard when crossing from Turkey to Greece and
believing he was going to die because he could not swim. I am deeply touched
by his story and realize that the interpreter and I are possibly the first persons
with whom he has shared these experiences and feelings since his arrival. This
impresses me greatly.
1 October 2011: Seventh Meeting (Nabi is now over 18 years old (according
to an age test) and has transferred from the residential centre for UM, where
he lived for almost a year, to a small local residence for asylum seekers. He
no longer has a guardian.) Nabi says he has received subsidiary protection
4Marianne Vervliet et al.
status. This allows him to stay in Belgium for at least one year, with possible
renewal thereafter. Nabi says: ‘When I got my decision, one month ago, all
my stress was gone, but now I have to run after my other problems.’ As the
regulations stipulate, with this particular decision, he has only two months to
find his own private housing and leave the refugee residential centre, but so
far he has not been able to find a flat he can afford.
3 October 2011: Phone Call Nabi asks if I can help him to search for ac-
commodation. First, I ask what he has done already to find a house and how
he wants me to help him. He explains that he has been searching and asks if
I can help him to search in the city, where he knows I am living. I search
in some estate agents’ online databases and send him an e-mail with some
advertisements for flats to rent.
9 December 2011: Text and Phone Call Nabi sends me a text: ‘Hello
[Marianne], I would like to talk with you.’ When I call him, he says:
‘I really have so many problems, I’ve still no house and no work.’ We
make an appointment for tomorrow.
10 December 2011: Eighth Meeting I am shocked when I see Nabi. I get the
impression that his health has broken down completely during recent months,
both emotionally and physically. He looks tired, has lost weight and seems to
feel miserable. He says that he has not managed to find a house yet, that he
had to leave the residence one month ago, and that he has been moving
continually between friends living in different cities and willing to give him
shelter, he himself being without any money. He says he feels exhausted, sad
and guilty towards his friends. He asks me: ‘Can you show me the way? What
do I have to do?’ and says: ‘If you receive documents you have to do every-
thing on your own, they don’t help you anymore.’ At first, I don’t really
follow up the question as to what I could do, but ask him if he wants to tell
me how he feels and what has happened since our last meeting: what actions
he has taken and what other people, such as his social worker, have done to
find a solution. He says that the social worker did not help him and seems
not to care about him and that he feels lost since all his own actions to find a
flat are failing. Then he asks again if I can help him. First, I try to support
him emotionally by saying that I understand he is in a very difficult situation
and also that I believe he has already taken some very good actions in his
search for a house. Then, I try to make it clear that I don’t have any magical
solution, but that I want to think together with him about what he could do.
I ask if he could contact his former social worker to ask for her help again.
But he says he does not trust her anymore. Because I am not familiar with
residence policies for people with his particular documents, I ask if I could
contact her to obtain more information about who is legally authorized to
support him right now. I also tell him I could contact organizations
Multilayered Ethics in Research Involving Unaccompanied Refugee Minors 5
supporting young refugees to ask what they could do. He agrees with these
proposals and I also try to encourage him to keep on searching.
12 December 2011: Phone Call I call Nabi’s former social worker to inform
her about his precarious situation and ask what he could do. I get the
impression that she feels accused by my questions, certainly when she tells
about all actions she has taken already in order to help him. And it sounds
as though she believes I am following Nabi too much in what he says.
13 December 2011: Phone Call I call Nabi to give information about the
rules and jurisdictions and advice from the organizations I have contacted.
He clearly appreciates this a lot.
Hamid
8 November 2011: Fourth Meeting Hamid tells me that he is tired of the life
in the asylum centre, where he has already lived for more than one year,
especially because there is no progress in his asylum procedure. He complains
about his guardian: the man visited him only a few times, does not call, and
gives the impression of not being concerned. For example, when two months
ago he was very ill and even hospitalized for several weeks, his guardian did
not show up, which he thinks is a real shame. I ask him if he has raised his
complaints with his social worker. He says he has not done this yet and I
again encourage him to do so. But he says he does not believe that the social
worker can really help him with this.
11 November 2011 I have now met in total four participants with the same
guardian as Hamid, who shared similar complaints. The more I hear them
complain, the more I feel in strong disagreement, and even angry, with how
this guardian is treating them and (not) taking up his responsibilities. I also
realize that I probably have more information about this guardian than the
participants’ social workers. I have a growing and intense feeling that ‘I have
to do something, I cannot leave it like that’. I decide to follow the same
strategy with Hamid and the other participants: I talk both with them and
with their social workers, and explicitly pass the message to all the partici-
pants that they have the legal right to make an official complaint against
their guardian and ask for another guardian to be appointed. I also tell them
that I am prepared to support them in this process and to look for the best
way to do this, together with their social workers. I also consider making a
complaint against this guardian myself, but we (my supervisor and I) decide
that it seems better not to do this, since ethically, I would need the consent of
all the participants and social workers concerned. We also think it would be
better to support the participants in making their own complaint if they want,
because this is an action they can take themselves and which could strengthen
their self-respect. I also realize that this is probably much more the action
6Marianne Vervliet et al.
field of social workers. Positioning myself (as a researcher) between several
actors might make it confusing for the young people involved and I run the
risk of creating a negative image of social workers’ support if I go too far in
an action like this.
Hazratullah
5 November 2010: E-Mail from Staff of the First Reception Centre Based on
his age assessment test, the migration authorities have decided that
Hazratullah is over 18 years old.
13 January 2011: Text and Phone Call He sends me a message: ‘[Marianne]
please call me.’ When I call, together with the interpreter, he says he is being
detained in a closed centre and we understand this is because of the Dublin
regulations, as he has already applied for asylum in Switzerland. He asks if
we can call his lawyer to ask for his support. We phone the lawyer and pass
his answer back to Hazratullah: if he faxes the documents he received at his
imprisonment, the lawyer will consider what he can do to help.
26 January 2011: Fourth Meeting—Second Visit in Detention Centre, One Week
before His Deportation He is having an extremely difficult time in the centre.
He says he is very grateful for our visits and phone calls. When we go he
says: ‘I will not abandon you.’
29 August 2011: Letter I receive a letter and a drawing from Hazratullah in
Switzerland. He writes:
Hello [name of interpreter], I wish you a lucky Eid [end of Ramadan]. Thank
you [Marianne]. I wish you all the best. Please stay in contact. Best of luck my
friends.
28 December 2011: Phone Call Hazratullah calls me: ‘I just want to say that
I’m free! I just heard that I can leave today. I’m so surprised. I will call you
later.’ He sounds very happy that he can finally leave the closed detention
centre where he has been living for almost one year now.
10 March 2012 Several missed calls from Hazratullah. I call him back and
ask how he is doing. He is tired of living in the asylum centre in Switzerland,
where he is waiting for an answer in his asylum procedure, and says that he is
planning to go to the United Kingdom. He feels that he cannot wait any
longer because he has to earn money to support his family. He asks if we
[the interpreter and/or I] can lend him money to make the journey. He knows
somebody who can arrange the trip for him, and he will certainly pay
us back. I tell him that we cannot do this, because we are following many
other young people and that we cannot possibly give money to everyone.
Multilayered Ethics in Research Involving Unaccompanied Refugee Minors 7
He repeats his question and, when I respond similarly, he says: ‘It’s okay’,
but he sounds disappointed. I propose making contact with the local
non-governmental organization (NGO) that supported him before (on an
emotional and juridical level), but he answers: ‘Everybody says I need to
wait, but they make me crazy by saying that, I just cannot do that!’ I feel
guilty, very uncomfortable and worried, but I feel that giving money may also
create unrealistic expectations of me and be unfair towards other participants.
From ‘Stepping In’ to ‘Stepping Out’: Six Ethically Important Themes
throughout Our Research Journey
Stepping In: First Contact with Participants
Our first encounter with the participants took place in one of the two recep-
tion centres for newly arrived UM. The centres’ psychologists, as ‘gate-
keepers’ (Hopkins 2008), introduced the study to all newcomers over 14
years old (we considered participation too demanding for younger UM)
and, if they were interested in taking part, a meeting was organized between
participant, researcher and an interpreter. In this meeting, we first gave a
description of the research aims and conditions, to enable participants as far
as possible to make their own decision about whether to participate and on
what terms (Guillemin and Gillam 2004): the freedom not to participate, to
stop participation at any moment or not to answer questions; the confiden-
tiality of all information; and the independence of the study from the migra-
tion authorities and their decisions (both positive and negative). We stressed
that participation would not imply any positive impact on their residence
procedure, and that non-participation would not impact their procedure
negatively. We also explained why we wanted to ask to audiotape the con-
versations (and the freedom to refuse this) and we gave the researcher’s
contact information, stating that they could always contact us with additional
questions about the research or to receive emotional support. Concerning the
latter, we had already made agreements with several psychologists before
starting the study to refer participants, if needed. After the participant gave
his oral consent, a written informed consent was explained and signed.
Although we felt that it was not easy for the participants to understand
what was happening (who were we, why did we come to meet them, what
is research, etc.?), we tried to explain these different aspects the best we could,
and we also tried to avoid creating unrealistic or erroneous expectations of us
or the research (Leaning 2001). In this regard, it was necessary to take time
(usually about one hour) for extensive and repeated explanations and,
through the twofold informed consent (oral and written), we tried to enhance
participants’ understanding of the project and the freedom of their participa-
tion, as a first step in a continuous, iterative informed consent process
(MacKenzie et al. 2007;De Haene et al. 2010;Hugman et al. 2011a,
2011b). After the first phase of information and consent, the first
8Marianne Vervliet et al.
measurement took place. Often, when the phase lasted long or was intensive,
the measurement was partly or entirely moved forward to a separate meeting,
usually a few days later. Further, their legal guardian was also informed
about their participation and was also asked to sign an informed consent.
All measurement moments were followed by a debriefing (Thomas and
Byford 2003;Block et al. 2013): we asked how participants felt about the
study and whether they wanted to continue. This enabled both positive
(feeling relieved to talk about their experiences, being happy to contribute
to research, etc.) and negative aspects (seeing no direct personal advantage in
participation, perceiving the questions as emotionally too demanding, etc.) to
be mentioned (Newman and Kaloupek 2004;De Haene et al. 2010). While,
for most participants, the positive aspects seemed to prevail, some decided to
cease participation, usually after the first or second meeting.
On the Way: Creating Mutual Bonds
A longitudinal follow-up of the participants meant that we had regular con-
tact with them. This process spontaneously created a particular bond between
participant and researcher.
For the participants, certainly at the start of the research, what we did
seemed remarkable: we wanted to keep contact and come back to them time
after time, regardless of where they lived, the result of their age assessment
test, their legal status or whatever else had happened or changed in their lives
since the previous meeting. At the same time, we noticed that the aim and
conditions of our encounters and the study had to be repeatedly explained,
leading to a renewal of the oral informed consent (De Haene et al. 2010;
Hugman et al. 2011a,2011b). Both aspects, the continuous character of the
relationship and the iteration of consent, were in our view crucial for a
growing trustful relationship between researcher and participant (Hynes
2003;MacKenzie et al. 2007). The role of the interpreters also turned out
to be highly important in creating relationships of trust (Thomas and Byford
2003;Bjo
¨rn 2005;Rousseau et al. 2011).
However, as illustrated by the vignettes, this level of trust, and the meaning
and importance the participants attached to their contacts with us, differed
markedly between individuals and changed over time. While Nabi, for ex-
ample, talked openly from the first meeting onwards, Hamid was much more
reserved at the beginning, so that we thought he would not agree to further
participation, but he gradually became more willing to talk and towards the
end of the study he himself invited the researcher to come.
Not only did the participants’ attachment to us grow; we also experienced
connectedness with the participants and became deeply affected when they
opened up to us, such as about their often extremely difficult life experiences.
Such emotional upheaval, when confronted with this sort of story, is quite
common for all professionals working with refugee groups and sympathy for
the plight of people is even considered as necessary to meet professional
Multilayered Ethics in Research Involving Unaccompanied Refugee Minors 9
standards (Barsky 2000;Guzder and Rousseau 2013). As illustrated by the
vignettes, this sympathy often strengthened during the follow-up, when we
were constant and close witnesses of the many challenges, constraints and
predicaments in participants’ daily lives: we experienced strong feelings of
anger, indignation, injustice and powerlessness (because the problems
seemed so big and insurmountable) and we were often worried about the
participants’ health and safety. According to Levinas, my sensibility, that
I am ‘touchable’ by and for the Other, is the condition for my own being,
my existence, a radical passive condition:
In spite of myself I find myself turned outwards—my interiority, my psyche, my
soul, are turned outwards by ‘being moved in spite of myself’. My being-self
consists in standing turned outside of myself, without first turning myself, as an
active subject, towards the outside. The ‘I’ is to be bare, exposed (Burggraeve
2006: 92).
Mutual bonds and connected empathy and emotions are natural compo-
nents of human relationships, especially in long-term relationships (Hoffman
2000). The longitudinal method of this study therefore showed important
advantages on an ethical level, as it helped to prevent doing harm to partici-
pants (ERIC 2014). As building trust in relationships with UM takes time, we
cannot ‘rush in’ and we cannot simply ‘rush out’, as breaking boundaries of
trust may be very harmful for young people who are already largely con-
fronted with substantial losses (Kohli 2006). For us, this slow rhythm was an
opportunity to respect the differing tempi of participants. At the same time,
we were aware that these bonds were also fruitful for our research on a
methodological level: since we wanted to investigate how their wellbeing
evolved over time, the trust created led to continued participation and open-
ness in the participants’ responses. We also realized that these mutual bonds
introduced important and numerous ethical challenges, which we will discuss
below.
Taking Action in a Complex Context: Acknowledging and Responding to
Appeals
We frequently received explicit requests for help from participants who found
themselves in different difficult situations in Belgium, as illustrated by the
vignettes about Nabi and Hazratullah. We perceived these requests as expres-
sions of agency: participants consciously made the choice to appeal to the
researcher, aiming at initiating change in their situation (Kuczinski 2003). At
the same time, this also indicated how they perceived the researcher: as a
potentially powerful member of society who could have a particular influence
(Kohli 2006;Chase 2010).
In other situations, participants did not make explicit requests, but rather
we, as researchers, felt the urge to help them. The latter often happened in
cases where participants attributed the fact that they faced particular difficult
10 Marianne Vervliet et al.
living situations to the lack of initiative of people they were depending on,
such as their social worker or guardian, as illustrated by the vignette about
Hamid. According to Levinas, my sensibility for the Other makes me an
ethical being, which means that I can be appealed to (Burggraeve 2006). In
my relationship with the Other, I receive a moral appeal from the Other,
which is a strong invitation to take responsibility for the Other or a primary
obligation to care for the Other that I have to fulfil, meaning that I not only
have to refrain from neglecting the Other myself, but must also do something
(Duyndam and Poorthuis 2003).
The appeals arose in day-to-day research practice and we felt that our
responses would have consequences on an ethical level; we could say that
these appeals were ‘ethically important moments’ (Guillemin and Gillam
2004). As the appeals usually came suddenly and unpredictably, we could
not anticipate, reflect on or consider the pros and cons of possible responses.
In any case, not responding to these appeals (or not taking any concrete
action) was simply not an option (MacKenzie et al. 2007;Du
¨vell et al.
2010). In Levinasian terms, we could say:
The appeal of the Other is so strong that I cannot do other than follow and
serve. It demands a response that cannot be prepared beforehand, I have to
surrender. ...I am no longer in control (De Schauwer and Van Hove 2011: 5).
We also felt that we, the researchers, and nobody else, had to respond
directly to the participants’ appeals: ‘Responsibility is what is incumbent
on me exclusively, and what, humanly, I cannot refuse’ (Levinas 1985, in
Biesta 2008: 205, emphasis in the original).
My primary responsibility for the Other is not something over which I have
any choice, but I do have a certain freedom in fulfilling my responsibility:
I have to consider for myself what I must do (Duyndam and Poorthuis 2003).
However, this was not at all self-evident during the research: because of the
unpredictability of the appeals, it was often not immediately clear what re-
sponse was, ethically considered, ‘preferable’. Step by step, however, we
experienced that besides remaining in contact with participants’ suffering
(De Haene et al. 2010), giving information to a participant ourselves, seeking
information from others (social workers, guardians or other organizations)
and passing it to the participant, or referring a participant to others (psych-
ologist, social worker, guardian, lawyer, etc.) could all be valuable supporting
actions or responses to participants’ appeals (Hopkins 2008;Du
¨vell et al.
2010).
The Boundaries of Researchers’ Responsibility
In this continuous process of searching for worthwhile responses, we strug-
gled with the ‘boundaries’ of our responsibility for the participants in several
ways. First, a major and overarching challenge was that our responses had to
take place within a complex, continuously evolving context surrounding each
Multilayered Ethics in Research Involving Unaccompanied Refugee Minors 11
particular young person, involving a range of actors with differing roles
(guardian, social worker, lawyer, friend, family, etc.). Creating partnerships
with guardians and social workers was in itself a necessity in the research.
However, these partnerships sometimes became complicated when facing par-
ticipants’ appeals and we had to move in areas of tension, taking into ac-
count other actors’ roles and opinions, despite the fact that they sometimes
contrasted with our own or the participants’ opinions, as illustrated by the
vignettes about Nabi (social worker) and Hamid (guardian). Although not
always easy, consultation and dialogue with the other actors (Thomas and
Byford 2003;De Schauwer and Van Hove 2011) clearly appeared to be eth-
ically necessary for creating worthwhile responses to the participants’ appeals,
since the other actors in the UM’s contexts were ‘the thirds’ in Levinasian
terms, referring to the larger society (Duyndam and Poorthuis 2003): the
participants, the researchers and the other actors were all ‘Is’ and all
‘Others’. This means that we all had a responsibility towards each other,
that the responsibility of the other actors for the participants limited our
responsibility for them and that we had to try to adjust our actions to
theirs. What made this balancing act especially difficult was our perception,
elicited by the young people’s narrative, that certain other actors seemed not
able to fulfil their mandates in a way which responded to the young people’s
expressed needs (see the role of the guardian in the vignette about Hamid).
Importantly, the other actors we refer to here are not only individuals, such
as guardians or social workers, but also broader societal structures, such as
education and care services. For example, we preferred to refer participants
to external professional psychologists instead of taking this role ourselves, but
were confronted with a lack of experience with UM in psychological care
services (leading to a refusal of treatment) and long waiting lists.
Second, although the stories of the participants and their high level of need
(as was confirmed by our research findings; see Vervliet et al., 2013a,2013b;
Vervliet et al. 2013c) could lead to a perception of the responses of other
actors as inadequate, we found we had to refrain from adopting a ‘saviour’
position through taking action that would position us as only ‘good’ and
would then introduce a split with other actors. We perceived it, for example,
as ‘unethical’ to take actions such as giving money to participants, since we
believed this could create expectations that we would never be able to sustain
in the longer term and thus could do more (long-term) harm than the (short-
term) benefit gained (De Haene et al. 2010;ERIC 2014). Moreover, such
actions were impossible to take for all participants, and we also had our
responsibility towards the ‘other Others’ (Duyndam and Poorthuis 2003).
Nevertheless, as illustrated in the vignette about Hazratullah, it was emotion-
ally difficult to say ‘no’ to those appeals, leaving us with feelings of guilt and
anxiety, since we became, like other adults, also unsupportive. Doing injustice
to the Other thus seems inevitable when drawing lines around our areas of
responsibility (Duyndam and Poorthuis 2003), so as to ‘do no harm’ in a
12 Marianne Vervliet et al.
researcher–participant relationship (De Haene et al. 2010), and we had to
mourn the loss of an omnipotent position.
Third, another challenge in the balancing act of responding to appeals was
to not overlook the agency of the participants themselves (MacKenzie et al.
2007;Rousseau and Kirmaeyer, 2010;De Haene et al. 2010). Taking over
actions that participants could take themselves might create unattainable ex-
pectations of us, even dependency, and would probably also negatively
impact their feelings of self-esteem. This would run utterly counter to our
basic assumption that UM were dynamic human agents who could make
sense of their environment, initiate change and make their own choices
(Kuczinski 2003). We therefore tried as much as possible to empower par-
ticipants to support and encourage them in taking initiatives themselves, en-
countering them as ‘Is’, able to be responsible for themselves and towards
‘Others’ (Duyndam and Poorthuis 2003). Although sounding strong in
theory, in practice, the boundaries of this approach appeared thin and fragile.
For example, it was often unclear whether it would be better—for the par-
ticipants, in responding to their difficult situation—to contact social workers,
lawyers or others ourselves and/or to stimulate the participants to do so. This
resulted in an important continuous search for ways to support participants’
agency in each specific situation.
Channelling Researchers’ Emotions
Obviously, our strong feelings (anger, indignation, injustice, powerlessness,
worry, etc.), which emerged because of the participants’ experiences and were
influenced by the bond we felt with them, challenged our position as re-
searchers (Jacobsen and Landau 2003;Zwi et al. 2003;Du
¨vell et al. 2010),
although this is a natural process and it is considered necessary to be open to
these feelings as professional (Barsky 2000;Guzder and Rousseau 2013).
Channelling our emotions was thus pivotal, as it could help to avoid exceed-
ing the boundaries of our responsibility. This channelling was made possible
by, amongst other methods, keeping a research diary, self-reflection, and
discussion with other researchers and supervisors (Morse 2007).
Stepping Out? Finishing the Research
Another boundary we encountered concerned finishing the research. In re-
search relationships with UM, we cannot ‘rush in’, as building trust takes
time, but we also cannot simply ‘rush out’, as breaking boundaries of trust
may be very harmful for young people who are already confronted with
substantial losses (Kohli 2006). Throughout the research process, we
became more and more aware of the importance of being cautious about
when to finish our follow-up. But, in this final phase, we also could not
completely avoid ‘doing harm’ (De Haene et al. 2010) and therefore tried
to minimize harm by taking time in the final visit to explain as clearly as
possible what the next steps in the research would be (analysis, reporting) and
Multilayered Ethics in Research Involving Unaccompanied Refugee Minors 13
that we would not initiate a new meeting ourselves. At the same time,
we made sure participants had our contact details and we emphasized that,
if they wanted, they still could contact us in future. We also thanked them for
their participation and commitment and, as a sign of appreciation, they
received a gift card (worth E15) for a multimedia/clothes shop. This was
not announced beforehand because we wanted to avoid its influencing re-
search participation. Moreover, we continued to send text messages at
(Afghan) New Year and other holidays, both out of respect and to show
our contactability. Nevertheless, since we continued to experience appeals
during this phase (e.g. some participants remained in contact and/or asked
for our help), we sometimes had the feeling that to some extent we had
abandoned the participants.
Conclusion
In this article, we have illustrated the many ethical challenges in the practice
of our particular longitudinal follow-up study of UM: at the start of our
relationship with the participants, in the development of mutual bonds,
in responding to participants’ appeals, in the boundaries of researchers’
responsibility, in channelling researchers’ emotions and in finishing the
research. The ethical challenges changed the research as initially planned
and expected: it became more intensive, intrusive and complex for the re-
searchers, especially because of the ‘extra’ actions (and connected reflections)
in response to participants’ appeals.
The ethical issues, meaning our ethical responsibility for the participants,
appeared to be coloured by the specific method we used, as well as by the
specificity of UM as a refugee group. First, because of the longitudinal
follow-up method, we were confronted with an ongoing ethical responsibility,
from the first until the last moment of contact with the participants, which
had ethical implications on ‘procedural’ and ‘relational’ levels. ‘Procedural
ethics’ (Guillemin and Gillam 2004) for this method especially implied the
necessity of an iterative or repeated informed consent process (MacKenzie
et al. 2007;Hugman et al. 2011a,2011b;ERIC 2014). Repeated explanations
of aims and research conditions were necessary, since a good understanding
of these elements needs time. A longitudinal design brings in the possibility of
‘having time’ and thus also of being able to adapt the informed consent
process to each individual’s tempo. ‘Relational ethics’ (Ellis 2007), referring
to the recognition and value of mutual respect, dignity and connectedness
between researcher and participant, appeared highly significant. The follow-
up, with regular face-to-face contact moments, led to the development of
long-term relationships: we stepped inevitably into the participants’ context
and became—temporarily and to a varying extent—part of their lives, thereby
creating mutual bonds, marked by trust and empathy. Longitudinal research
on UM thus clearly has strong added value on the ethical level (Kohli 2006).
‘Relational ethics’ also became complex, since within and because of the
14 Marianne Vervliet et al.
duration of the relationship and the mutual bonds, the various appeals,
as ‘ethically important moments’ (Guillemin and Gillam 2004), emerged in
day-to-day research practice, leading to a strong need to respond. Above all,
the connectedness intensified the emotions we experienced when confronted
with participants’ problems.
Second, while the ethical issues discussed above relate to the method and
thus might count for all refugee groups, their concrete expression in our study
appeared to be significantly marked by the specific situation of UM. Both the
fact that the participants were young and separated from their parents and
our knowledge of their emotional vulnerability (Derluyn et al., 2008b;
Derluyn et al. 2009), confirmed by the results of our study (Vervliet et al.,
2013a,b,c), intensified our feelings of responsibility for them. Moreover, the
struggle with the boundaries of our responsibility for the participants was
further complicated by the experience that ‘the thirds’ (in Levinasian terms)
or other actors in the participants’ context (social workers, guardians, psy-
chological services, etc.), often seemed not able to take appropriate respon-
sibility for them. This put us under pressure to take up (parts of) ‘their’
responsibility. We should stress here that the reasons why the other actors
could not take up their responsibility, and why the participants often found
themselves in a situation wherein they lacked adequate support, could—in
general—be situated on the macro level, the level of migration policy, and not
on the micro level, the level of the individual social worker–participant inter-
action. As we showed earlier (Derluyn and Broekaert, 2008;Vervliet et al.,
2013a,b), migration policy fails lamentably to provide UM with adequate
high-quality support, resulting in a situation wherein practitioners far too
often find themselves in a deadlock between what they perceive as the
needs of the participants and the limitations imposed by migration policy
on the scope of the support they can provide (Derluyn and Broekaert,
2008;Vervliet et al., 2013a,b). As a consequence, we could say that the
macro context of policies towards UM importantly influenced the struggles
with our own ethical responsibility towards them on the micro level.
This finally implies that research ethics in studies of refugee groups (in
general) are multilayered: it is not only our responsibility to be ‘ethical re-
searchers’ (Vandekinderen et al. 2013) on the micro level in relation to the
participants and their social and support network, but also to do ‘ethical
research’ (Vandekinderen et al. 2013) on the macro/socio-political level.
As researchers, we are able to identify shortcomings in the support that
refugee groups receive, which implies that we are also responsible for denoun-
cing these deficiencies on the level of policy and related practice, and that
we should advocate for improvements on behalf of refugee groups (Rousseau
and Kirmayer, 2010). Also on a macro level, our ethical responsibility is thus
marked by the UM’s young age, lack of parental support figures and emo-
tional vulnerability, and the shortcomings in the educational and psycho-
logical care structures for them.
Multilayered Ethics in Research Involving Unaccompanied Refugee Minors 15
However, the concrete interpretation of our responsibility on the micro and
socio-political levels is not fixed: we need to take decisions ourselves over and
over again during each research project, which implies a process of continu-
ous reflection (Hopkins 2008;ERIC 2014), negotiation and action, in each
particular ‘ethically important’ situation: what are ‘preferable’ actions and for
whom; and what are the boundaries to our ethical responsibilities? On the
micro level, we should try to take all necessary actions in responding to
appeals, as well as to place the necessary limits on our responses towards
the participants and their social and support network to preserve their and
our own wellbeing. In this, supporting UM and their networks’ agency is
a main point of reference. On the macro level, we should advocate for im-
provements on behalf of refugee groups, but consider the limitations of our
advocacy by acknowledging our multiple (and often conflicting) loyalties:
first, towards the subjects and the (refugee) communities they represent;
second, towards the academy; and third, towards the society of which we
form part and with which we are always (at least partially) complicit
(Jacobsen and Landau 2003;Rousseau and Kirmaeyer, 2010).
Acknowledgements
We are indebted to all participants, their guardians and all the centre staff
involved. Our thanks go to the research assistants and interpreters for their
contributions. Thanks to Elisabeth De Schauwer for the introduction to the
work of Levinas. The support of the European Refugee Fund and the Special
Research Fund of Ghent University made this research possible.
BARSKY, R.F. (2000) Arguing and Justifying: Assessing the Convention Refugees’ Choice of
Moment, Motive and Host Country. Vol. 1. Burlington, USA: Ashgate, pp. 95–109.
BIESTA, G.J.J. (2008) ‘Pedagogy with Empty Hands: Levinas, Education and the Question of
Being Human’. In Ege
´a-Kuehne, D. (ed.) Levinas and Education: At the Intersection of Faith
and Reason. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 198–210.
BJO
¨RN, G.J. (2005) ‘Ethics and Interpreting in Psychotherapy with Refugee Children and
Families’. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 59: 516–521.
BLOCK, K.D., WARR, L., GIBBS, L. and RIGGS, E. (2013) ‘Addressing Ethical and
Methodological Challenges in Research with Refugee-Background Young People:
Reflections from the Field’. Journal of Refugee Studies 26(1): 69–87.
BRINKMANN, S. and KVALE, S. (2005) ‘Confronting the ethics of qualitative research’.
Journal of Constructivist Psychology 18(2): 157–181.
BRONSTEIN, I., MONTGOMERY, P. and DOBROWOLSKI, S. (2012) ‘PTSD in Asylum-
Seeking Male Adolescents from Afghanistan’. Journal of Traumatic Stress 25: 551–557.
BURGGRAEVE, R. (2006) ‘From the Self to the Other and Back to the Self-Otherwise: Levinas’
Redefinition of the Subject’. Subject Matters 3(1): 75–104.
CHASE, E. (2010) ‘Agency and Silence: Young People Seeking Asylum alone in the UK’. British
Journal of Social Work 40(7): 2050–2068.
DE HAENE, L., GRIETENS, H. and VERSCHUEREN, K. (2010) ‘Holding Harm: Narrative
Methods in Mental Health Research on Refugee Trauma’. Qualitative Health Research
20(12): 1664–1676.
16 Marianne Vervliet et al.
DERLUYN, I. and BROEKAERT, E. (2008a) ‘Unaccompanied Refugee Children and
Adolescents: The Glaring Contrast between a Legal and a Psychological Perspective’.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 31(4): 319–330.
DERLUYN, I., BROEKAERT, E. and SCHUYTEN, G. (2008b) ‘Emotional and behavioural
problems in migrant adolescents in Belgium’. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
17(1): 54–62.
DERLUYN, I., MELS, C. and BROEKAERT, E. (2009) ‘Mental Health Problems in Separated
Refugee Adolescents’. Journal of Adolescent Health 44(3): 291–297.
DERLUYN, I. and VERVLIET, M. (2012) ‘The wellbeing of unaccompanied refugee minors’.
In Ingleby, D., Krasnik, A., Lorant, V. and Razum, O. (eds) Health inequalities and risk
factors among migrants and ethnic minorities. Vol. 1. Antwerpen/Apeldoorn: Garant, pp. 95–
109.
DE SCHAUWER, E. and VAN HOVE, G. (2011) ‘Swimming Is Never Without
Risk: Opening Up on Learning through Activism and Research’. Qualitative Inquiry
17(2): 224–232.
DU
¨VELL, F., TRIANDAFYLLIDOU, A. and VOLLMER, B. (2010) ‘Ethical Issues in Irregular
Migration Research in Europe’. Population Space and Place 16(3): 227–239.
DUYNDAM, J. and POORTHUIS, M. (2003) Levinas. Rotterdam: Lemniscaat.
EGE
´A-KUEHNE, D. (2008) ‘Levinas’s Quest for Justice: Of Faith and the ‘‘Possibility of
Educations’’’. In Ege
´a-Kuehne, D. (ed.) Levinas and Education: At the Intersection of Faith
and Reason. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 26–40.
ELLIS, C. (2007) ‘Telling Secrets, Revealing Lives: Relational Ethics in Research with Intimate
Others’. Qualitative Inquiry 13(1): 3–29.
ETHICAL RESEARCH INVOLVING CHILDREN (ERIC) (2014) International Charter
for Ethical Research Involving Children, http://childethics.com/charter/ (accessed 26 October
2014).
EUROPEAN MIGRATION NETWORK (EMN) (2010) Policies on Reception, Return and
Integration Arrangements for, and Numbers of, Unaccompanied Minors: An EU Comparative
Study. Brussels: European Migration Network.
EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (FRA) (2010) Separated,
Asylum Seeking Children in European Union Member States: Comparative Report. Vienna:
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
FAZEL, M., REED, R.V., PANTER-BRICK, C. and STEIN, A. (2012) ‘Mental Health of
Displaced and Refugee Children Resettled in High-Income Countries: Risk and Protective
Factors’. Lancet 379(9812): 266–282.
GUILLEMIN, M. and GILLAM, L. (2004) ‘Ethics, Reflexivity, and ‘‘Ethically Important
Moments’’ in Research’. Qualitative Inquiry 10(2): 261–280.
GUZDER, J. and ROUSSEAU, C. (2013) ‘A Diversity of Voices: McGill ‘‘Working with
Culture’’ Seminars’. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry Journal 37(2): 347–364.
HOFFMAN, M.L. (2000) Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice.
Cambridge, UK: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
HOPKINS, P. (2008) ‘Ethical Issues in Research with Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking
Children’. Childrens Geographies 6(1): 37–48.
HUGMAN, R., BARTOLOMAI, L. and PITTAWAY, E. (2011a) ‘Human Agency and the
Meaning of Informed Consent: Reflections on Research with Refugees’. Journal of Refugee
Studies 24(4): 655–671.
HUGMAN, R., PITTAWAY, E. and BARTOLOMEI, L. (2011b) ‘When ‘‘Do No Harm’’ Is Not
Enough: The Ethics of Research with Refugees and Other Vulnerable Groups’. British Journal
of Social Work 41(7): 1271–1287.
HYNES, T. (2003) ‘The Issue of ‘‘Trust’’ or ‘‘Mistrust’’ in Research with Refugees: Choices,
Caveats and Considerations for Researchers’, The UN Refugee Agency [UNHCR],
Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit, New Issues in Refugee Research. London: Middlesex
University.
Multilayered Ethics in Research Involving Unaccompanied Refugee Minors 17
JACOBSEN, K. and LANDAU, L.B. (2003) ‘The Dual Imperative in Refugee Research: Some
Methodological and Ethical Considerations in Social Science Research on Forced Migration’.
Disasters 27(3): 185–206.
KOHLI, R.K.S. (2006) ‘The Comfort of Strangers: Social Work Practice with Unaccompanied
Asylum-Seeking Children and Young People in the UK’. Child & Family Social Work
11(1): 1–10.
KUCZINSKI, L. (2003) ‘Beyond Bidirectionality: Bilateral Conceptual Frameworks for
Understanding Dynamics in Parent–Child Relations’. In Kuczynsky, L. (ed.) Handbook of
Dynamics in Parent–Child Relations. London: SAGE, pp. 1–23.
LEANING, J. (2001) ‘Ethics of Research in Refugee Populations’. Lancet 357(9266): 1432–1433.
LUSTER, T., QIN, D., BATES, L., RANA, M. and LEE, J.A. (2010) ‘Successful Adaptation
among Sudanese Unaccompanied Minors: Perspectives of Youth and Foster Parents’.
Childhood 17(2): 197–211.
MACKENZIE, C., MCDOWELL, C. and PITTAWAY, E. (2007) ‘Beyond ‘‘Do No Harm’’: The
Challenge of Constructing Ethical Relationships in Refugee Research’. Journal of Refugee
Studies 20(2): 299–319.
MORSE, J.M. (2007) ‘Ethics in Action: Ethical Principles for Doing Qualitative Health
Research’. Qualitative Health Research 17(8): 1003–1005.
NEWMAN, E. and KALOUPEK, D.G. (2004) ‘The Risks and Benefits of Participating in
Trauma-Focused Research Studies’. Journal of Traumatic Stress 17(5): 383–394.
NI RAGHALLAIGH, M. and GILLIGAN, R. (2010) ‘Active Survival in the Lives of
Unaccompanied Minors: Coping Strategies, Resilience, and the Relevance of Religion’.
Child & Family Social Work 15(2): 226–237.
ROUSSEAU, C. and KIRMAYER, L.J. (2010) ‘From Complicity to Advocacy: The Necessity of
Refugee Research’. American Journal of Bioethics 10(2): 65–67.
ROUSSEAU, C., MAESHAM, T. and MORO, M.R. (2011) ‘Working with Interpreters in Child
Mental Health’. Child and Adolescent Mental Health 16(1): 55–59.
THOMAS, S. and BYFORD, S. (2003) ‘Research with Unaccompanied Children Seeking
Asylum’. British Medical Journal 327(7428): 1400–1402.
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR) (2013) UNHCR
Global Trends 2012, http://www.unhcr.org/51bacb0f9.html (accessed 26 October 2014).
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR) (2014) UNHCR
Global Trends 2013, http://www.unhcr.org/5399a14f9.html (accessed 26 October 2014).
VERVLIET, M., DE MOL, J., BROEKAERT, E. and DERLUYN, I. (2013a) ‘That I Live,
That’s Because of Her.’ Intersectionality as a Framework for Unaccompanied Refugee
Mothers’. British Journal of Social Work, Available at http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/content/
early/2013/03/27/bjsw.bct060.abstract (accessed 22 July 2013).
VERVLIET, M., LAMMERTYN, J., BROEKAERT, E. and DERLUYN, I. (2013b)
‘Longitudinal follow-up of the mental health of unaccompanied refugee minors’. European
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 23: 337–346.
VERVLIET, M., MEYER DEMOTT, M., JAKOBSEN, M., TROND, H., BROEKAERT, E.
and DERLUYN, I. (2013c) ‘The mental health of unaccompanied refugee minors on arrival in
the host country’. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 55: 33–37.
VANDEKINDEREN, C., ROETS, G. and VAN HOVE, G. (2013) ‘The Researcher and the
Beast: Uncovering Processes of Othering and Becoming Animal in Research Ventures in the
Field of Critical Disability Studies’. Qualitative Inquiry, http://qix.sagepub.com/content/early/
2013/06/13/1077800413489267.abstract (accessed 26 October 2014).
ZION, D., BRISKMAN, L. and LOFF, B. (2010) ‘Returning to History: The Ethics of
Researching Asylum Seeker Health in Australia’. American Journal of Bioethics 10(2): 48–56.
ZWI, K.J., HERZBERG, B., DOSSETOR, D. and FIELD, J. (2003) ‘A Child in Detention:
Dilemmas Faced by Health Professionals’. Medical Journal of Australia 179(6): 319–322.
18 Marianne Vervliet et al.
