The University of Manchester Study Highlights Critical Gaps

Researchers at the University of Manchester have issued a stark warning about the way children and young people are involved in research consent processes across the United Kingdom. Published on May 1, 2026, in the journal Methods in Psychology, their analysis reveals that current practices often sideline children's perspectives, treating consent as a mere administrative checkbox rather than a genuine dialogue. Led by Dr. Sarah MacQuarrie, a Senior Lecturer in Psychology of Education, the study draws on extensive review of ethical frameworks and real-world examples to argue for transformative change in how universities and research institutions engage young participants.

This issue strikes at the heart of higher education's role in ethical research. UK universities, bound by rigorous standards from bodies like the Health Research Authority (HRA), conduct thousands of studies annually involving children—from educational interventions to health trials. Yet, the Manchester team's findings expose systemic flaws that undermine participation rates and research validity. By prioritizing legal formalities over meaningful involvement, these processes exclude diverse voices, particularly from marginalized communities, perpetuating what the authors term "epistemic injustice."

The study's timing is prescient, coinciding with heightened scrutiny on research ethics amid evolving data protection laws like the UK GDPR and growing calls for child-centered methodologies in academia.

Distinguishing Consent from Assent in Child Research

In research ethics, consent refers to the legally binding agreement from individuals capable of making informed decisions, typically parents or guardians for minors under 16 in the UK. Assent, on the other hand, is the child's affirmative agreement to participate, even if not legally authoritative. UK guidelines, such as those from the HRA, mandate parental consent for studies involving children while strongly encouraging assent where developmentally appropriate—no fixed age threshold exists, but judgment considers factors like maturity, comprehension, and the child's expressed wishes.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, in its influential 2015 report on children in clinical research, emphasized shared decision-making between children and parents, advocating for assent as a process that respects growing autonomy. For instance, children as young as seven can often grasp basic study concepts if explained simply, yet many protocols overlook this by relying solely on adult sign-off.

This distinction is crucial in university settings, where ethics committees review proposals. Failure to secure meaningful assent not only risks invalidating data but also misses opportunities to empower young participants, fostering lifelong research literacy.

Key Challenges Identified in Current Practices

The Manchester study pinpoints several entrenched barriers. First, consent forms are notoriously lengthy and jargon-heavy, often exceeding 10 pages with dense legal language shaped by GDPR and institutional risk aversion. These documents intimidate families, particularly non-native English speakers or those with low literacy, leading to lower return rates and skewed samples favoring affluent, educated groups.

Second, schools emerge as pivotal gatekeepers. Researchers frequently route information through teachers, who—overburdened—may simplify or omit details, diluting the message. Varying school resources exacerbate this; urban comprehensives might manage digitally, while rural primaries struggle with paper distribution.

Third, consent is viewed as a one-off event rather than ongoing. Children may agree initially but later withdraw due to discomfort, yet protocols rarely revisit assent dynamically. Dr. MacQuarrie notes, “Current processes prioritize systems over the children they protect,” highlighting how this paternalism underestimates digital-native youth's capacities.

• Legalistic forms deter 20-30% of potential participants in similar surveys (broader UK studies on consent barriers).
• Gatekeeper reliance reduces direct family engagement by up to 50% in school-based research.
• Ongoing assent checks could boost retention by recognizing dissent early.

The Gatekeeper Role: Parents, Schools, and Institutions

Parents hold legal authority, but their consent often reflects incomplete information filtered through intermediaries. The study critiques how universities defer to schools for recruitment, inadvertently creating bottlenecks. A case from a Manchester-led educational trial illustrated this: only 40% of targeted families received forms due to administrative delays, skewing results toward proactive parents.

University ethics committees, like Manchester's Research Ethics Committee, mandate proportionality—minimal burden for low-risk studies—but implementation varies. Some institutions now pilot "assent mats," visual tools helping children express preferences via images or emojis, bridging verbal gaps for younger ages.

Stakeholders include ethics reviewers, who balance protection with inclusion, and funders like UKRI, pushing for diverse cohorts to ensure generalizability.

Photo by Giammarco Boscaro on Unsplash

Epistemic Injustice: Excluding Marginalized Voices

The paper invokes epistemic injustice—where certain groups' knowledge is dismissed due to structural biases. Complex forms alienate low-income, ethnic minority, or disabled families, perpetuating underrepresentation. For example, a Liverpool University study on child mental health saw 25% lower participation from BAME communities, attributed to cultural mistrust and language barriers.HRA guidance urges tailored information sheets in multiple formats, yet adoption lags.

In higher education, this hampers evidence-based policy. Diverse child input is vital for studies on inequality, climate education, or health disparities—fields central to UK universities like Manchester's social sciences departments.

Real-World Case Studies from UK Academia

UK universities provide telling examples. At UCL, a pediatric trial used comic-book assent forms, boosting child engagement by 35% and yielding richer qualitative data. Conversely, a Birmingham ethics review rejected a proposal for lacking assent protocols, forcing redesign.

Edinburgh's Young Persons Advisory Group (YPAG) exemplifies best practice: teens co-design consent materials, ensuring relevance. Stats show such involvement cuts dropout by 15-20%. Oxford's Nuffield-backed initiatives recommend RECs consult child experts routinely.Nuffield recommendations

Expert Recommendations for Systemic Reform

Dr. MacQuarrie and colleagues propose a relational model: consent as iterative conversations, not signatures. Key steps include:

• Short, visual info packs for children (age 5+).
• Direct researcher-family contact bypassing overburdened schools.
• Ongoing check-ins allowing dissent without penalty.
• Cultural tailoring, e.g., translated/multilingual materials.
• Ethics training emphasizing child competence.

UKRI and HRA could mandate these in funding calls. Universities like Manchester are piloting "flexible assent frameworks," training PhD students accordingly.

Impacts on Research Quality and Higher Education

Poor consent erodes data diversity, biasing outcomes—e.g., overrepresenting middle-class views in educational research. This affects policy, from curriculum design to health interventions. In UK higher ed, where £10bn+ flows to child-related studies yearly, inclusive practices enhance impact scores in REF evaluations.

Solutions boost participation: visual aids raise assent rates 25-40% per meta-analyses. Long-term, they cultivate ethical researchers, vital for lecturer and postdoc roles.

Photo by Giammarco Boscaro on Unsplash

Stakeholder Perspectives and Future Outlook

Researchers welcome flexibility but fear bureaucracy. Parents value clarity; children, via YPAGs, demand fun, honest info. Policymakers eye GDPR alignment. By 2030, AI-assisted assent (e.g., chatbots explaining studies) could personalize processes.

Manchester's work signals a shift: ethics as empowerment. UK universities must adapt, training ethics committees and integrating into curricula for psychology, education, and social work programs.

Actionable Insights for UK University Researchers

• Audit forms for readability (Flesch score >70).
• Pilot assent tools like videos/emojis.
• Collaborate with schools via joint workshops.
• Document assent journeys for REC transparency.

Embracing these elevates research integrity, positioning UK higher ed as global leaders in child-centric ethics.