Abstract
The Special Collection will focus on examples (theoretical, empirical or methodological) of research with and for people in vulnerable situations, by putting them in the centre of active research. People in vulnerable situations are perceiving and/or experiencing multi-layered, embedded situational, structural or individual vulnerabilities. They are often hard to reach and need specific, innovative and sensitive research approaches by recognizing them as experts of their own challenges and topics to do justice to their vulnerable situations. These might foster empowerment, transformative practices, and emancipatory perspectives for people in vulnerable situations. This guest editor’s introduction will give an overview of themes that are taken from the articles of the Special Collection.
Introduction
The present Special Collection on “Conducting Qualitative Research with People in Vulnerable Situations” brings together theoretical, empirical, ethical, and methodological contributions that engage critically with research involving people in vulnerable situations—including, importantly, researchers themselves who may also encounter vulnerability within academic and fieldwork contexts. By situating individuals in vulnerable situations at the center of research rather than at its margins, the Special Collection emphasizes the need to reconceptualize participants not as passive objects of study but as co-creators of knowledge. This orientation aligns with broader movements toward participatory, emancipatory, and transformative research paradigms, which seek to redistribute power within the research process and foster conditions for empowerment.
This introduction has been written based on the articles available in the Special Collection up to August 25th, 2025. While subsequent contributions may offer additional insights, the framing presented here draws primarily on those earlier works. The intention is not to suggest that later publications are of lesser importance but rather to acknowledge the temporal boundaries within which this synthesis was undertaken. The Special Collection as a whole reflects an ongoing dialogue on how best to conduct ethically sound, inclusive, and socially responsive research with individuals and groups in vulnerable situations.
People in Vulnerable Situations
According to the European Commission, General Directorate HOME, vulnerable persons are “[m]inors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children, victims of trafficking in human beings, persons with serious illnesses, persons with mental disorders and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, such as victims of female genital mutilation” (COM n.d). This is a very precise and rather legal definition of what “vulnerable” might mean. In recent research, this perspective has been broadened to definitions that includes more individual, place-depending, time-depending, surrounding and other parameters which highlights that people in vulnerable situations are perceiving, experiencing multi-layered, multi-dimensional, situationally embedded, structural or individual vulnerabilities (s. e.g. Gilodi et al., 2022; Kosonen et al., 2025). Bilger and van Liempt (2009) define vulnerable people as “the impoverished, disenfranchised, and/or those subject to discrimination, intolerance and/or stigma” (p.1).
Besides using the term “people in vulnerable situations”, terms like “vulnerable population”, ”hidden population” or “hard-to-reach population” are used (e.g. Liao et al., 2025). Especially for the last term, a growing body of literature highlights the persistent exclusion of certain social groups from research processes, often captured under the broad and contested label “hard-to-reach” (e.g., Barker et al., 2024; Benoit et al., 2005; Darko, 2023; Hardy & Chakraborti, 2020). Such exclusion can result from spatial, social, and structural barriers (Bonevski et al., 2014; Ellard-Gray et al., 2015), as well as intersectional disadvantages linked to gender, ethnicity, legal status, or socioeconomic background. However, the term “hard-to-reach” itself has been criticized for being imprecise and potentially stigmatizing, as it implies uniformity within diverse populations and often shifts the burden of inaccessibility onto participants rather than interrogating methodological shortcomings (e.g. Brackertz & Meredyth, 2008).
People in vulnerable situations are often hard to reach and need specific, innovative and sensitive research approaches by recognizing them as experts of their own challenges and topics to do justice to their vulnerable situations. These might foster empowerment, transformative practices or emancipatory perspectives for people in vulnerable situations. In this Special Collection, the focus is on people in vulnerable situations where vulnerabilities are seen from the perspective of the persons themselves rather than predefined by others (Nienaber et al., 2020).
An example of this are researchers themselves. Even though, neither hard-to reach nor hidden, researchers conducting research in the field can also experience situations in which they are vulnerable. This can relate to their own lived or living experiences and can become apparent at any phase during the research and always needs to be seen in the framework and environment the research is conducted, and different forms of vulnerabilities appear.
“By reframing language that defines these groups as excluded, considered vulnerable, or structurally disadvantaged, researchers can redirect focus from individual deficits to systemic caused of inequities.” (Liao et al., 2025) Johansen and Winther (2025) are emphasizing that researchers need to be sensitive how they reproduce “understandings of vulnerabilities”. Otherwise – according to Liao et al. (2025) – paternalistic perspectives and behaviours foster vulnerabilities through an increase of power relations and inequalities. By using the word “in vulnerable situations” the guest editor wants to raise awareness that people can be vulnerable in some situations, but not vulnerable in other situations.
Collaborative and Participatory (Action) Research
In recent years, collaborative and participatory (action) research are gaining importance by including e.g. peer-researchers, co-creation or co-design in the research process. As Jensen and Ånensen (2021) stated, collaborative and participatory (action) research is based on critical research “to democratise research methods and subvert power inequalities in research relationships, knowledge creation and representation.” (p.17) (s. e.g. also Kindon et al., 2007; Nienaber et al., 2023) Methods of co-creation, collaboration and participation are regarded as particularly appropriate for reaching (marginalized) persons in vulnerable situations (Apers et al., 2021). As Hay (2010, p. 262) classifies – based on Parkes & Panelli, (2001) – the modes of participation can go from co-option (conducting research on a research group), compliance, consultation, cooperation, and co-learning to collective action where the researched group sets the agenda and conducts the research as peer-researchers. Especially when working with people in vulnerable situations, researcher should consider how or whether their research improves the situation of the participants and how this can be fostered or even guaranteed (Skrobanek et al., 2021). Recruiting peer-researchers and ensuring the equality and equity among the peer researchers, researchers and involved participants are seen as the base for participatory research (Apers et al., 2021). By including peer-researchers or changing the perspective of the researcher to become at the same time a “practitioner”, the power relations might be reduced, however, it can – depending on the research topic and own lived or living experiences - foster vulnerabilities of researchers (Johansen & Winther; 2025).
In this Special Collection different innovative methods are used to foster a participants-centered research: e.g. autoethnography-led mixed methods (Markey, 2025); native member ethnography (Kosonen et al., 2025); peer-to-peer reflexive discussions (Kosonen et al., 2025), body mapping research (Linell & Abdelhady, 2025), “Kaupapa Maori Methodology” (Meredith et al., 2024), child-friendly-multimodal-interviews (Johansen & Winther, 2025) or art-based research methods (ABR) (Johansen & Winther, 2025).
Ethical Challenges
While all researchers are expected to adhere to established ethical standards, those engaging with people in vulnerable situations encounter a particularly complex set of dilemmas. Such work often unfolds within contexts marked by structural inequalities, precarious life conditions, and heightened sensitivities, which amplify the ethical stakes. Scholars have documented that questions of power imbalance, reciprocity, and harm minimization take on specific significance in these settings, requiring researchers to move beyond standardized procedural ethics toward more nuanced, relational, and contextually grounded approaches (Bansal et al., 2019; Bilger & van Liempt, 2009; Gomez et al., 2021; Markey, 2025; Rappaport, 2016).
One of the most frequently cited principles in research ethics is the commitment to “do no harm.” However, as de Kock et al. (2025) reinforce, this principle becomes particularly challenging in qualitative migration and refugee studies (QMRS) – but also for other research dealing with people in vulnerable situations - where the dynamics of trauma, and precarity intersect with research practices. Simply avoiding harm may inadvertently reproduce asymmetries between researchers and participants, reinforcing an image of the detached, objective scholar who minimizes engagement. Mackenzie et al. (2007) have argued for a shift toward facilitating reciprocal benefits, suggesting that research should not only mitigate harm but also actively contribute to the well-being and empowerment of participants. De Kock et al. (2025) expand this perspective by noting that “doing no harm” can embody biases of disengagement, and that procedural and relational ethics must both be taken seriously (Bilger & van Liempt, 2009; Clark-Kazak, 2021). Relational ethics in particular highlight the importance of building trust, acknowledging interdependencies, and cultivating a reflexive awareness of power dynamics throughout the research process. This move toward reciprocity and equity is further reflected in institutional frameworks. The revised European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA, 2023), which explicitly incorporates principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion, signals an important step toward embedding reciprocal and participatory ethics into formal research governance. However, as the literature underscores, the articulation of these principles must be made explicit within university-level ethics standards to ensure they are operationalized in practice rather than remaining aspirational statements. Such institutional clarity is especially critical when research involves groups whose vulnerabilities heighten the potential consequences of ethical missteps.
Researchers themselves may also experience vulnerabilities, which complicate conventional ethical assumptions. Kosonen et al. (2025) demonstrate how vulnerability may intensify during the post-research phase, when researchers remain embedded within field contexts after participants have vacated their roles in the study. In autoethnographic and at-home ethnographic research, vulnerability can be embraced as a resource for deeper insight, yet it also influences how findings are communicated, how peer engagement is navigated, and how ethical dilemmas are managed. This recognition challenges the binary view of participants as “vulnerable” and researchers as “protected”, instead reframing vulnerability as a relational condition that shapes all actors in the research encounter. Gatwiri et al. (2025) emphasize: “To mitigate [e.g. depression, isolation, tiredness], reflective practices supervision, peer-support, and self-care are essential, ensuring researchers well-being and the ethical conduct of trauma research.” (p.2).
The ethical challenges of engaging with populations in vulnerable situations also extend to practical considerations. As Liao et al. (2025) argue, conducting qualitative research in such contexts requires attentiveness to structural inequities, processes of othering, and barriers to participation. Creating physically safe interview environments, cultivating emotional and cultural competence, and ensuring respect for participants’ agency are not peripheral concerns but central ethical obligations. These dimensions are also echoed in emerging approaches such as Linell and Abdelhady’s (2025) “Embodied Oscillative Ethics,” which emphasize navigating vulnerability through enhancing participants’ capacity to determine how they are represented and studied. By foregrounding agency, such frameworks move beyond paternalistic protections to establish collaborative and empowering research relationships. Decolonial perspectives further extend these ethical debates by highlighting the need to disrupt epistemic hierarchies and Eurocentric research practices. Meredith et al. (2024) stress the importance of decolonizing research processes to avoid perpetuating harm, advocating instead for cultural safety throughout the project. Cultural safety, in this context, entails more than sensitivity to difference; it requires the co-construction of relationships based on equity, trust, and shared values. By embedding customs, relational practices, and community priorities into research design, cultural safety safeguards not only participants but also researchers, fostering an environment in which knowledge is co-produced rather than extracted. Taken together, these perspectives underscore that ethical challenges in research with vulnerable and hard-to-reach populations cannot be adequately addressed through rigid procedural guidelines alone. Rather, they demand a dynamic, context-sensitive approach that incorporates both structural awareness and relational engagement. Researchers must continuously navigate the tension between minimizing harm and facilitating reciprocal benefits, while also acknowledging their own positionalities and vulnerabilities (Gatwiri et al., 2025). At the institutional level, codes of conduct and ethics committees must evolve to reflect these complexities, embedding reciprocity, inclusivity, and cultural safety into their frameworks.
Conclusion
This Special Collection seeks to advance scholarly debate in two interrelated directions. On the one hand, it offers insights into the methodological and ethical challenges encountered by researchers working with persons or groups in vulnerable situations. Research with people in vulnerable situations often requires navigating complex dynamics of trust, representation, and power. Reciprocity and relational engagement are seen as one important element to reduce power relationships and to foster equity and well-being among all involved in the research.
On the other hand, the Special Collection broadens the conversation by emphasizing the sensitivity, equity, and safety not only of participants but also of researchers themselves. Researchers working in contexts of vulnerability may experience secondary trauma, exposure to unsafe environments, or precarious employment conditions that exacerbate their own vulnerabilities. It therefore entails the reflexivity of researchers about their own vulnerability/ies. By drawing attention to these dimensions, the Special Collection challenges the assumption that vulnerability is solely a property of research participants and instead frames it as a relational phenomenon that can affect all actors within the research process.
Several articles of this Special Collection highlight that adaptability and flexibility during the research process are important to reduce the risk of harming. Moreover, structural and contextual frameworks of studies are essential.
All articles place ethics at their core whether through structural awareness, sound ethics, flexibility, ensuring the “no harm” rule or reflecting very carefully before, during and after the empirical research phase about the potential ethical implications and emotional as well as physical risks.
