Dimensions of Researcher Vulnerability in Qualitative Health Research and Recommendations for Future Practice

Author:

Sterie Anca-Cristina12ORCID,Potthoff Sarah3ORCID,Erdmann Anke4ORCID,Burner-Fritsch Isabel Sophie5ORCID,Oyine Aluh Deborah67,Schneiders Mira L.8

Affiliation:

1. Chair of Geriatric Palliative Care, Palliative and Supportive Care Service and Service of Geriatric Medicine and Geriatric Rehabilitation, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

2. Service of Palliative and Supportive Care, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

3. Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

4. Institute for Experimental Medicine, Medical Ethics Working Group, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany

5. Department of Palliative Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany

6. Lisbon Institute of Global Mental Health, Comprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), NOVA Medical School, NOVA University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

7. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacy Management, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nsukka, Nigeria

8. Socio-Ecological Health Research Unit, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium

Abstract

Vulnerability has typically been addressed in the context of research ethics from the point of view of participants, with a focus on how to prevent the potential or exacerbation of existing harm caused by the power and role asymmetries between researchers and participants. However, more recent approaches to research ethics question whether researchers are, by definition, located in a privileged position during the research process and safe from any kind of vulnerability. In line with this, we reflect on the dimensions of researcher vulnerability specific to studies using a qualitative methodology in health research. Our argument is that participants and researchers should be on the receiving end of efforts to implement ethical procedures and protection from harm. Based on the autoethnographic analysis of our experiences as qualitative health researchers, this paper aims to identify dimensions of researcher vulnerability, and draw out relevant recommendations for practice. The reflections upon which this paper is based emerged during a spring school focusing on research ethics in qualitative health research, during which we discussed situations from our own research experience which left us feeling vulnerable. We identify four dimensions related to the experience of vulnerability (reciprocity; emotional labor; application of ethical standards; reversed power asymmetries) and five crosscutting aspects relating to these dimensions (researching sensitive topics; researching in contexts of vulnerability, poverty and structural violence; being a novice; lacking adequate support; insufficient time and space for ethical reflexivity). Our recommendations address particular challenges for these dimensions, and center on the role of reflexivity, as one of the cornerstones for enabling ethical qualitative research practice, requiring us to acknowledge and address our own vulnerability and positionality. Autoethnographic exercises are particularly useful for zooming in on ethically important moments in research related to researcher vulnerability and fruitful for identifying resources to respond to such challenges in the future.

Funder

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Education

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