Abstract
The concept of vulnerability appears to capture many important ethical aspects in research. However, it is one of the most ill-defined and the least operationalizable concepts in research ethics codes. The argument of this chapter is that the concept is archaic and outdated. Its overuse has made it lose its force. The medical research ethics codes (which led to the establishment of research ethics codes in general) have employed this concept over a long period, but the concept is of relatively little use in the social sciences. Research ethics codes provide inadequate definitions, justifications, and explanations for its application. The list of vulnerable groups is either inaccurate, inappropriate, or incomplete. The chapter concludes with practical suggestions that members of research ethics committees might wish to follow to assist in resolving issues associated with the concept of vulnerability. Unless amended, vulnerability, as conceived in ethics codes, will remain captive in its own conceptual chains.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bankoff G (2011) Rendering the world unsafe: ‘Vulnerability’ as western discourse. Disasters 25(1):19–35
Berger RJ, Lorenz LS (2015) Disability and qualitative inquiry: methods for rethinking an Ableist world. Routledge, Abingdon
Bracken-Roche D, Bell E, Macdonald ME, Racine E (2017) The concept of ‘vulnerability’ in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines. Health Res Policy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0164-6
Butler-Hallett M (2018) Email message from St. John’s, Newfoundland to W.C. van den Hoonaard, Douglas, New Brunswick. 18 October
CIHR et al. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada(2010) Tri-council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans, vol II. Panel on Research Ethics, Ottawa
Goodley D (2014) Dis/ability studies: theorising disablism and ableism. Routledge, London
Goodley D, Lawthom R, Runswick-Cole K (2014) Dis/ability and austerity: beyond work and slow death. Disabil Soc 29(6):980–984
Ho CW (2017) CIOMS guidelines remain conservative about vulnerability and social justice. Indian J Med Ethics 2(3):175–179. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2017.061
Iphofen R (2009) Ethical decision-making in social research: a practical guide. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Korol S (2018) Male patients with ankylosing spondylitis respond better to biologics, study finds. Becker’s Spine Rev. 10 October. https://www.beckersspine.com/biologics/item/42985-male-patients-with-ankylosing-spondylitis-respond-better-to-biologics-study-finds.html. Accessed 18 Oct 2018
Lange, Margaret Meek, Wendy Rogers, Susan Dodds (2013) “Vulnerability in Research Ethics: a Way Forward” First published: 30 May. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12032
Lester JN, Nusbaum EA (2017) “Reclaiming” disability in critical qualitative research: introduction to the special issue. Qual Inq 24(1):3–7. https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/qixa/24/1
Levine C, Faden R, Grady C, Hammerschmidt D, Eckenwiler L, Sugarman J (2004) The limitations of ‘vulnerability’ as a protection for human research participants. Am J Bioeth 4(3):44–49
Luna F (2009) Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: layers not labels. Int J Fem Approaches Bioeth 2(1):121–139
Panel on Research Ethics (2006) Proportionate approach to research ethics review in the TCPS: proposed textual changes for the concept of vulnerability in the TCPS. Ottawa. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/archives/policy-politique/reports-rapports/cv-nv/. Accessed 21 Sept 2018
Prince MJ (2016) Reconsidering knowledge and power: reflections on disability communities and disability studies in Canada. Can J Disabil Stud 5(2):2–30
van den Hoonaard WC (2003) Is anonymity an artefact in ethnographic research? J Acad Ethics 1(2):141–151
van den Hoonaard WC (2008) Re-imagining the ‘subject:’ conceptual and ethical considerations on the participant in health research. Cien Saude Colet 13(2):371–379. (Brazil). ABRASCO
van den Hoonaard WC (2011) The seduction of ethics: transforming the social sciences. University of Toronto Press, Toronto
van den Hoonaard WC (2018) The vulnerability of vulnerability: why social science researchers should abandon the doctrine of vulnerability. In: Iphofen R, Tolich M (eds) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research ethics. Sage, London
Zagorac I (2016) How should we treat the vulnerable? Qualitative study of authoritative ethics documents. J Health Care Poor Underserved 27:1655–1671
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
van den Hoonaard, W.C. (2020). “Vulnerability” as a Concept Captive in Its Own Prison. In: Iphofen, R. (eds) Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16758-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16759-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities