Recognizing Risk and Vulnerability in Research Ethics: Imagining the “What Ifs?”

Abstract

Research ethics committees (RECs) may misunderstand the vulnerability of participants, given their distance from the field. What RECs identify as the vulnerabilities that were not adequately recognized in protocols and how they attempt to protect the perceived vulnerability of participants and mitigate risks were examined using the response letters sent to researchers by three university-based RECs. Using a critical qualitative method informed by feminist ethics, we identified an overarching theme of recognizing and responding to cascading vulnerabilities and four subthemes: identifying vulnerable groups, recognizing potentially risky research, imagining the “what ifs,” and mitigating perceived risks. An ethics approach that is up-close, as opposed to distant, is needed to foster closer relationships among participants, researchers, and RECs and to understand participant vulnerability and strength better.

Keywords

research ethics empirical vulnerability feminist ethics care

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott

Grady

(2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 6(1), 3-19.

Agllias

(2011). Utilizing participants’ strengths to reduce risk of harm in a study of family estrangement. Qualitative Health Research, 2, 1136-1146.

Ahern

(2012). Informed consent: Are researchers accurately representing risks and benefits? Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 26, 671-678.

Angen

(2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 378-395.

Beck

Konnert

(2007). Ethical issues in the study of bereavement: The opinions of bereaved adults. Death Studies, 31, 783-799.

Bell

Salmon

(2011). What women who use drugs have to say about ethical research: Findings of an exploratory qualitative study. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 6(4), 84-98.

Buckle

Dwyer

Jackson

(2009). Qualitative bereavement research: Incongruity between the perspectives of participants and research ethics boards. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13, 111-125.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2016). Strategy for patient-oriented research. Retrieved from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2014). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans (TCPS2). Ottawa, Ontario: Author.

10.

Chu

A. T.

DePrince

A. P.

(2013). Perceptions of trauma research with a sample of at-risk youth. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 8(4), 67-76.

11.

Common Rule. (1991). Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Washington. DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

12.

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. (2016). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

13.

Decker

S. E.

Naugle

A. E.

Carter-Visscher

Bell

Seifert

(2011). Ethical issues in research on sensitive topics: Participants’ experiences of distress and benefit. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 6(3), 55-64.

14.

Dubois

Beskow

Campbell

Dugosh

Festinger

Harts

. . . Lidz

(2012). Restoring balance: A consensus statement on the protection of vulnerable research participants. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 2220-2225.

15.

Edwards

Stone

Swift

(2007). Differences between research ethics committees. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 23(1), 17-23.

16.

Ells

(2012). Respect for people in situations of vulnerability: A new principle for health-care professionals and health-care organizations. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 5, 180-185.

17.

Emanuel

Grady

(2008). Four paradigms of clinical research and oversight. In Emanuel

E. J.

Grady

C. C.

Crouch

R. A.

Lie

R. K.

Miller

F. G.

Wendler

D. D.

(Eds.), The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics (pp. 222-230). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

18.

Emanuel

Wendler

Grady

(2008). An ethical framework for biomedical research. In Emanuel

E. J.

Grady

C. C.

Crouch

R. A.

Lie

R. K.

Miller

F. G.

Wendler

D. D.

(Eds.), The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics (pp. 123-135). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

19.

Emerson

(2007). Working with “key incidents.” In Seale

Gobo

Gubrium

J. F.

Silverman

(Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 427-442). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

20.

Fisher

(2012). Ethics in qualitative research: “Vulnerability,” citizenship and human rights. Ethics & Social Welfare, 6, 2-17.

21.

Gilligan

(1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

22.

Grady

(2010). Do IRBs protect human research participants? Journal of the American Medical Association, 304, 1122-1123.

23.

Heifner

Knapik

(2013). Addressing methodological and ethical challenges of qualitative health research on persons with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 27, 65-71.

24.

Held

(2015). Care and justice, still. In Engster

Hamington

(Eds.), Care ethics and political theory (pp. 19-36). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

25.

Hudson

Collins

(2015). Bringing the Common Rule into the 21st century. New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 2293-2296.

26.

Khanlou

Peter

(2005). Participatory action research: Considerations for ethical review. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 2333-2340.

27.

Kincheloe

McLaren

(2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

(Eds.), Qualitative research (pp. 303-341). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

28.

Kipnis

(2001). Vulnerability in research subjects: A bioethical taxonomy. In National Bioethics Advisory Commission [NBAC].Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants (Vol. 2, pp. G1-G3). Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

29.

Klitzman

(2013a). How IRBs view and make decisions about consent forms. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 8(1), 8-19.

30.

Klitzman

(2013b). How IRBs view and make decisions about social risks. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 8(3), 58-65.

31.

Klitzman

(2015). The ethics police? New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

32.

Labott

S. M.

Johnson

T. P.

Fendrich

Feeny

N. C.

(2013). Emotional risks to respondents in survey research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 8(4), 53-66.

33.

Lange

Rogers

Dodds

(2013). Vulnerability in research ethics: A way forward. Bioethics, 27, 333-340.

34.

Lyons

N. P.

(1983). Two perspectives: On self, relationships, and morality. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 125-145.

35.

Mackenzie

Rogers

Dodds

(2014). Introduction: What is vulnerability, and why does it matter for moral theory? In Mackenzie

Rogers

Dodds

(Eds.), Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy (pp. 1-29). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

36.

Malone

Yerger

McGruder

Froelicher

(2006). “It’s like Tuskegee in reverse”: A case study of ethical tensions in Institutional Review Board Review of Community-Based Participatory research. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1914-1919.

37.

Massey

Widom

(2013). Reactions to research participation in victims of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 8(4), 77-92.

38.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

39.

Mohammed

Peter

Gastaldo

Howell

(2016). The “conflicted dying”: The active search for life extension in advanced cancer through biomedical treatment. Qualitative Health Research, 26, 555-567.

40.

Moreno

(2001). Goodbye to all that. The end of moderate protectionism in human subjects research. Hastings Center Report, 31(3), 9-17.

41.

Morrisey

(2012). Ethics and research among persons with disabilities in long-term care. Qualitative Health Research, 22, 1284-1297.

42.

Peter

(2015). The ethics in qualitative health research: Special considerations. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 20, 2625-2630.

43.

Peter

Morgan

(2001). Explorations of a trust approach for nursing ethics. Nursing Inquiry, 8, 3-10.

44.

Schonfeld

(2013). The perils of protection: Vulnerability and women in clinical research. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 34, 189-296.

45.

Schroeder

Gefenas

(2009). Vulnerability: Too vague and too broad? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 8, 113-121.

46.

Sherwin

(1998). A relational approach to autonomy in health. In Sherwin

(Ed.), The politics of women’s health: Exploring agency and autonomy (pp. 19-47). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

47.

Siriwardhana

(2015). Rethinking vulnerability and research: Defining the need for a post-research ethics audit. Asian Bioethics Review, 7, 188-200.

48.

Stark

(2012). Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

49.

Taylor

H. A.

(2007). Moving beyond compliance: Measuring ethical quality to enhance the oversight of human subjects research. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 29, 9-14.

50.

Tronto

(2014). Care ethics. In Jennings

(Ed.), Bioethics (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 495-504). Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA.