共 50 条
Vulnerability in Inclusive Research: Exploring Co- and Professional Researchers' Experiences in a Community-Based Participatory Project on the Disability Family
被引:0
|作者:
van den Breemer, Rosemarie
[1
,2
,5
]
Steigen, Grete Arnesdatter
[3
]
Lyngar, Camilla Tostrup
[3
]
Lid, Inger Marie
[4
]
机构:
[1] Inland Norway Univ Appl Sci, Dept Law Philosophy & Int Studies, Rena, Norway
[2] Vid Specialized Univ, Ctr Diaconia & Profess Praxis, Oslo, Norway
[3] Staped, Paradis, Norway
[4] Vid Specialized Univ, Dept Hlth, Oslo, Norway
[5] Inland Norway Univ Appl Sci, Dept Law Philosophy & Int Studies, Vormstuguvegen 2, N-2624 Lillehammer, Norway
来源:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE METHODS
|
2024年
/
23卷
关键词:
vulnerability;
community based participatory research;
lived experience;
inclusive research;
collective autoethnography;
research ethics;
disability family;
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;
SENSITIVE TOPICS;
HEALTH;
IMPACT;
CHILDREN;
ISSUES;
IDENTITY;
PARENTS;
STIGMA;
ETHICS;
D O I:
10.1177/16094069241236181
中图分类号:
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号:
03 ;
0303 ;
摘要:
In the transition to a less protectionist research ethics paradigm-in which vulnerable groups are no longer excluded from participating in research-academic researchers need to think differently about vulnerability. By means of a collective autoethnographic investigation of professional and co-researcher's experiences in a community-based participatory research (CBPR) project, this article explores how vulnerability is experienced and perceived in the work process and how to respond to vulnerability. It finds that vulnerability manifests in two main ways-that of feeling "emotional hurt" and "epistemic self-doubt"-and that it comes from two main layers: the lived life and from working within CBPR. The main argument in the article is that vulnerability is inevitable in qualitative research like CBPR, when involving persons in vulnerable life situations. We propose four key recommendations for future research: (a) accept vulnerability as an inevitable part of CBPR, (b) balance protection with participant autonomy in situ and together as a team, (c) use a processual approach because ethical risks in the research context might alter over time, and (d) accept that placing co-researchers at the center of interpretative authority can increase professional researcher's vulnerability. The article expands existing understandings of ethical issues and risk in inclusive research through a combined and innovative focus on both professional and co-researcher's lived experiences.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文