Policy Statement

Close-Up Research is committed to the welfare and dignity of all participants. We recognise our responsibility to ensure that every participant feels safe, respected, and in control of their involvement.

This consent policy outlines our approach to consent during project delivery, and ensures responsible conduct by its researchers and filmmakers.

In brief:

• Consent is informed, recorded, and ongoing.
• Participants can opt out at any time – even after filming or publication.
• We explain all aspects of the process clearly.

1) HOW WE ADDRESS CONSENT & COMFORT IN GENERAL:

As a member of the Market Research Society, we adhere to the MRS Code of Conduct, and complies with the Data Protection Act 2018.

That means managing consent and participant comfort is our priority. We conduct research and make films with, not on, participants.

Before any filming begins, usually on arrival or via an earlier video call, we (the video ethnographer) go through with participants the overall process for our visit, explaining what the project is about, what the filming involves, and what sort of interview / discussion questions we’ll be asking. We also invite any questions from the participants.

We then go through the consent form (which also details much of the above, and has a link to our Privacy Policy), before checking that the participants have understood the process and signed the form. We photograph the signed forms on a mobile phone, which is then backed-up to the ‘cloud’.

We explain that anyone whose consent hasn’t been given will be positioned out of shot. Should any non-consented people accidentally end up in shot, we simply do not have them appear in the final edit. Similarly, if anyone who has previously agreed to being on camera then changes their mind after filming, we just don’t include them in the edit.

We also offer anonymity options such as not using the person’s name or using a pseudonym, and blurring them out. (If appropriate to the project, we can also change voices and appearances in the edit, or even turn people into totally different-looking animated characters).

To aid participant comfort and build rapport, after introducing ourselves and getting the consent form signed on arrival, we usually then hang out for a while (typically anything from 30-60 minutes), before checking with the participant how they’re doing and asking if they’re ok with the camera being turned on.

We explain that if the participant is uncomfortable at any time, or prefers to end participation for any reason, that’s ok: just let the video ethnographer know and we can stop filming – we explain that we’re there for them, and they’re in control.

We make an effort to check how people are feeling throughout our visits, to gauge ongoing consent and comfort around participation. If we sense that a participant is tired or uncomfortable, we ask and stop filming where appropriate.

When it comes to the filmed interviews / discussions, we explain before asking any questions that there are no right or wrong answers. We are there to listen, without judgment, in order to understand their authentic experiences and thoughts. And the participant is free to refrain from answering any questions or from participating at any time, without needing to give a reason.

Where appropriate, we share the final edit with participants via a private password-protected weblink ahead of publication, to make sure they are ok with the result.

A final note: Close-Up’s video ethnographers are DBS-checked and clear, and when filming with young people present, we always ensure there is at least one guardian present in the room. You can read our “Safeguarding Policy” here.

2) HOW WE APPROACH PUBLISHING FOOTAGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE, ’VULNERABLE’ PARTICIPANTS, OR SENSITIVE SUBJECT MATTER:

i) The approach to publication should be proportionate to how sensitive the subject matter is, and so each project should be assessed individually.

For example, for the film we made about young people’s experiences of living in temporary housing, which was shared on social media and shown at The House of Commons – because the young people’s experiences were traumatic and deeply personal, and as there is stigma around growing up in a homeless family, we anonymised the young people. Whilst their voices are heard in the film, neither they nor their names are seen. The concept for the film was decided before filming, via co-design sessions with the young people.

On the other hand, for a film we made about the impacts of a programme funded by the police’s violence reduction unit – the 17-year-old in our case study was really proud of how far she’d come, from a shy angry young person with a short temper, to an empowered and respected youth representative and boxing instructor in touch with her emotions. So she was keen to share her story on camera, especially if it might inspire others, and destigmatise her types of experiences. The activities captured and questions asked on camera were agreed on before filming, via chats with the young person.

For both films, we made sure that the participants were comfortable with the level of personalisation in the stories they were sharing (ie. In the violence reduction film, we don’t go into much personal detail in the edit about the girl’s childhood backstory or how her anger manifested, just that she had a temper, which was exacerbated by lockdown, and was affecting her life in such a way that she decided to do something about it.)

And we made sure that the young people got to see and sign off on the films before publication.

ii) Participants should always have the right to retract their participation at any time, including after publication.

So as well as sharing the films before publication, if, after a few years, a participant decides they’d rather not have their story in the public domain any more, we would simply remove it from any web links / social media pages.

There is of course the risk that once a film is already in the public domain, it can be duplicated and shared en masse – but again, the degree of this risk and any possible resulting damage/injury should be assessed from the start.

If the risk of going viral and causing damage can be reasonably foreseen as anything above minimal, then we’d have to seriously consider not publishing, even if the young / vulnerable person has consented to and is keen on publication.

But if the risk is minimal, and the participant is happy with publication, then we’d go ahead. Then if for any reason the participant later changes their mind, we’d just remove the post.

There’s always a delicate balance to be struck, around showing participant behaviours or thoughts ‘authentically / objectively’, and ensuring that participants are then comfortable with how they perceive themselves to be coming across in the finished films.

When done right, it’s especially rewarding to work with participants who are initially nervous about how they might be coming across during filming, but who, on seeing the edited film, actually love it and are grateful, feeling it perfectly distils the reality of their lived experience.