Interrogating the concept of vulnerability in social research ethics

Author:

Traianou Anna,Hammersley MartynORCID

Abstract

This paper examines the concept of vulnerability in the context of social research ethics. An ambiguity is noted in use of this term: it may refer to an incapacity to provide informed consent to participate in a research project, or it may imply heightened susceptibility to the risk of harm. It is pointed out that vulnerability is a matter of degree, and that there are different sources and types of harm, which must be taken into account in any judgment about whether additional precautions are required to protect particular categories of research participants. Furthermore, such judgments must be sensitive to the particular context in which research is taking place. This is one of several considerations that raise questions about the desirability of the sort of pre-emptive ethical regulation that has become institutionalized in many countries over the past few decades, a form that is more appropriate to medical rather than to social research. However, this is not to deny that a concern with the vulnerability of research participants is necessary on the part of social researchers. Furthermore, it must be recognized that researchers themselves may be vulnerable to harm in the research process. Finally, some discussion is provided of the way in which a concern with vulnerability can conflict with other considerations that researchers need to take into account in doing their work. The key point is that vulnerability is a complex and controversial concept, and it requires careful handling in thinking about social research ethics.

Publisher

Jagiellonian University

Subject

Philosophy

Reference76 articles.

1. Alcadipani R., Hodgson, D. (2009), “By Any Means Necessary? Ethnographic Access, Ethics, and the Critical Researcher,” Tamara Journal 7 (4): 127–146.

2. Behar R. (1996), The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology That Breaks Your Heart, Beacon, Boston.

3. Bloor N., Fincham B., Sampson H. (2010), “Unprepared for the Worst: Risks of Harm in Qualitative Research,” Methodological Innovations Online 5 (1): 45–55.

4. Boldt J. (2019), “The Concept of Vulnerability in Medical Ethics and Philosophy,” Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 14 (1): 1–8.

5. Borofsky R. (2005), Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn From It, University of California Press, Berkeley.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3