Vulnerability is an underexamined concept in social work. Scholarly activity principally concentrates on policy analysis and theoretical debate; less attention is given to lived experience of vulnerability from the perspectives of particular groups, impoverishing understanding of the phenomenon. This article presents findings from the first United Kingdom-based study of the lived experience of vulnerability from the perspectives of older deafblind adults. Adopting a qualitative design, data were collected via 18 semistructured interviews with eight participants (aged between 49 and 83), undertaken between October 2014 and July 2016. Data were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis.
Findings
Participants interpret vulnerability as layered, describing what they feel vulnerable about, what they feel vulnerable to, and when they feel vulnerable. The latter layer is predominant: vulnerability experiences are time-limited, and situation and setting specific. Situational and pathogenic sources of vulnerability include the responses of other people, particularly the experience of being misunderstood or perceived as incapable. The layers of vulnerability are not discrete: they can be combined and avoidance of one vulnerability can exacerbate another.
Applications
Findings strengthen arguments against categorizing particular groups, including deafblind people, as permanently and immutably vulnerable. Such categorization, focused solely on impairment, provides an inadequate understanding of experience. Policymakers should consider adopting a layered approach to defining vulnerability. Assessment of these layers and how they interact may offer social workers an enhanced understanding of deafblind people's experiences and assist in determining what matters to them. Assessment should explore coping strategies, and assumptions of incapability based on impairment be rejected.
AbleyC.BondJ.RobinsonL. (2011). Improving interprofessional practice for vulnerable older people: gaining a better understanding of vulnerability. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25(5), 359–365. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2011.579195
2.
AlleyR.KeelerG. (2009). Kent deafblind development project. Kent Adult Social Services.
3.
AndersonJ. (2014). Autonomy and vulnerability entwined. In MackenzieC.RogersW.DoddsS. (Eds), Vulnerability. New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy (pp. 134–161). Oxford University Press.
4.
ArndtK. (2010). Conducting interviews with people who are deafblind: Issues in recording and transcription. Field Methods, 23(2), 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10383395
5.
BermanR. C.TyyskäV. (2011). A critical reflection on the use of translators/interpreters in a qualitative cross-language research project. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691101000206
6.
BodsworthS. M.ClareI. C. H.SimblettS. K.DeafblindU. K. (2011). Deafblindness and mental health: Psychological distress and unmet need among adults with dual sensory impairment. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 29(1), 6–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619610387495
ChomskyC. (1986). Analytic study of the Tadoma method: Language abilities of three deaf-blind subjects. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 29(3), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2903.347
12.
DammeyerJ. (2010). Interaction of dual sensory loss, cognitive function and communication in people who are congenitally deafblind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104(11), 719–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1010401108
13.
DammeyerJ. (2015). Deafblindness and dual sensory loss research: Current status and future directions. World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, 5(2), 37–40. https://doi.org/10.5319/wjo.v5.i2.37]
Department of Health (2014). Care and support for deafblind children and adults policy guidance. Department of Health.
16.
DeuceG.HowardS.RoseS.FuggleC. (2012). A study of charge syndrome in the UK. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 30(2), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619612443883
17.
EhnM.Anderzén-CarlssonA.MöllerC.WahlqvistM. (2019). Life strategies of people with deafblindness due to usher syndrome type 2a—a qualitative study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 14(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2019.1656790
EvansM. (2017a). Empowering people experiencing usher syndrome as participants in research. British Journal of Social Work, 47(8), 2328–2345. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw147
20.
EvansM. (2017b). Usher syndrome: A phenomenological study of adults across the lifespan living in England. London South Bank University.
21.
FawcettB. (2009). Vulnerability: Questioning the certainties in social work and health. International Social Work, 52(4), 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872809104251
22.
FinemanM. A. (2008). The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 20(1), 1–20.
23.
GillC. (2006). Disability, constructed vulnerability and socially conscious palliative care. Journal of Palliative Care, 22(3), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/082585970602200309
24.
GoffmanE. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Penguin Books.
25.
GriffinA.MayV. (2012). Narrative analysis and interpretative phenomenological analysis. In SealeC. (Ed.), Researching society and culture (3rd ed., pp. 441–458). Sage.
26.
HeaslipV.HeanS.ParkerJ. (2016). Lived experience of vulnerability from a gypsy Roma traveller perspective. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 25(13–14), 1987–1998. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13223
27.
HershM. (2013a). Deafblind people, communication, independence, and isolation. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18(4), 446–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ent022
28.
HershM. (2013b). Deafblind people, stigma and the use of communication and mobility assistive devices. Technology and Disability, 25(4), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-130394
29.
HoustonS.Mullan-JensenC. (2012). Towards depth and width in qualitative social work: Aligning interpretative phenomenological analysis with the theory of social domains. Qualitative Social Work, 11(3), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325011400484
30.
HuttonJ. (2000). Introduction. In Lewin-LeighB. (Ed.), Standards for services for adults who are deafblind or have a dual sensory impairment (p. 2). Sense.
31.
JaiswalA.AldersleyH.WittichW.MirzaM.FinlaysonM. (2018). Participation experiences of people with deafblindness or dual sensory loss: A scoping review of global deafblind literature. PLoS One, 13(9), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203772
32.
JouleN.LevensonR. (2008). People from black and minority ethnic communities and vision services: A good practice guide. Thomas Pocklington Trust.
33.
KeywoodK. (2017). The vulnerable adult experiment: Situating vulnerability in adult safeguarding law and policy. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 53(2017), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.05.011
34.
KyleJ.BarnettS. (2012). Deafblind worlds. Deaf studies trust and sense.
35.
LaddP. (2003). Understanding deaf culture: In search of deafhood. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
36.
LeJeuneB. J. (2010). Aging with a dual sensory loss: Thoughts from focus groups. AER (Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired) Journal, 3(4), 146–152.
37.
LingsomS. (2008). Invisible impairments: Dilemmas of concealment and disclosure. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 10(1), 2–16. http://doi.org/10.1080/15017410701391567
38.
LonbayS. P. (2018). ‘These are vulnerable people who don’t have a voice’: Exploring constructions of vulnerability and ageing in the context of safeguarding older people. The British Journal of Social Work, 48(4), 1033–1051. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcy045
39.
LooE. W. H. (2012). Every contact leaves a trace: Ipa as a method for social work research. [Conference session] International conference: Innovative research in a changing and challenging world, Phuket, Thailand.http://www.auamii.com/proceedings_Phuket_2012/Loo.pdf.
40.
MackenzieC.RogersW.DoddsS. (2014). Introduction: What is vulnerability, and why does it matter for moral theory? In MackenzieC.RogersW.DoddsS. (Eds), Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy (pp. 1–32). Oxford University Press.
41.
MullinsL.PreydeM. (2013). The lived experience of students with an invisible disability at a Canadian university. Disability & Society, 28(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.752127
42.
OlesonB. R.JansbølK. (2005). Experiences from people with deafblindness—a nordic project. Information Center for Acquired Deafblindness.
43.
PadgettD. (2008). Qualitative methods in social work research (2nd ed.). Sage.
Pritchard-JonesL. (2016). The good, the bad, and the ‘vulnerable older adult’. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 38(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2016.1145838
47.
RobertsonJ.EmersonE. (2010). Estimating the number of people with co-occurring vision and hearing impairments in the UK. Centre for Disability Research.
48.
RönnbergJ.SamuelssonE.BorgE. (2002). Exploring the perceived world of the deaf-blind: On the development of an instrument. International Journal of Audiology, 41(2), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992020209090404
SchwartzS. (2008). Tactile sign language corpora: Capture and annotation issues. [Conference workshop]. Language resources and evaluation conference, Marrakech, Morrocco.https://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/lrec/pub/08032.pdf.
51.
ScullyJ. L. (2014). Disability and vulnerability: On bodies, dependence, and power. In MackenzieC.RogersW.DoddsS. (Eds), Vulnerability. New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy (pp. 204–221). Oxford University Press.
52.
ShinebourneP. (2011). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In FrostN. (Ed.), Qualitative research methods in psychology: Combining core approaches (pp. 44–65). Open University.
53.
SimcockP. (2017). One of society's most vulnerable groups? A systematically conducted literature review exploring the vulnerability of deafblind people. Health and Social Care in the Community, 25(3), 813–839. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12317
SimcockP.ManthorpeJ. (2020). Ageing with deafblindness. In PutnamM.BigbyC. (Eds), Handbook on ageing with disability (pp. 97–107). Routledge.
57.
SimcockP.WittichW. (2019). Are older deafblind people being left behind? A narrative review of literature on deafblindness through the lens of the United Nations principles for older people. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 41(3), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2019.1627088
58.
SmithJ.FlowersP.LarkinM. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. Theory, method and research. Sage.
59.
SmithT. (1993). Psychosocial Services: Reaction. In ReimanJ. W.JohnsonP. A. (Eds), National symposium on children and youth who are Deaf-blind (pp. 21–40). OR Teaching Research Publications.
60.
SquiresA. (2009). Methodological challenges in cross-language qualitative research: A research review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(2), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.08.006
61.
StoneS. D. (2005). Reactions to invisible disability: The experience of young women survivors of hemorrhagic stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27(6), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280400008990
VicaryS.YoungA.HicksS. (2017). A reflective journal as learning process and contribution to quality and validity in interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Social Work, 16(4), 550–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325016635244
WittichW.SimcockP. (2019). Aging and combined vision and hearing loss. In RavenscroftJ. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of visual impairment (pp. 438–456). Routledge.
