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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
