包容性研究中的脆弱性:探索合作研究人员和专业研究人员在一个以社区为基础的残疾家庭参与项目中的经历

IF 3.9 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Rosemarie van den Breemer, G. A. Steigen, Camilla Tostrup Lyngar, Inger Marie Lid
{"title":"包容性研究中的脆弱性:探索合作研究人员和专业研究人员在一个以社区为基础的残疾家庭参与项目中的经历","authors":"Rosemarie van den Breemer, G. A. Steigen, Camilla Tostrup Lyngar, Inger Marie Lid","doi":"10.1177/16094069241236181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":48220,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vulnerability in Inclusive Research: Exploring Co- and Professional Researchers’ Experiences in a Community-Based Participatory Project on the Disability Family\",\"authors\":\"Rosemarie van den Breemer, G. A. Steigen, Camilla Tostrup Lyngar, Inger Marie Lid\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/16094069241236181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48220,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Qualitative Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Qualitative Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241236181\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241236181","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在向保护主义色彩较淡的研究伦理范式过渡的过程中--弱势群体不再被排斥在研究之外--学术研究人员需要以不同的方式思考脆弱性问题。本文通过对专业研究人员和合作研究人员在社区参与式研究(CBPR)项目中的经历进行集体自述式调查,探讨了在工作过程中如何体验和感知脆弱性,以及如何应对脆弱性。文章发现,脆弱性主要通过两种方式表现出来,即感受到 "情感伤害 "和 "认识论上的自我怀疑"。文章的主要论点是,在像 CBPR 这样的定性研究中,当涉及到处于脆弱生活环境中的人时,脆弱性是不可避免的。我们为今后的研究提出了四项主要建议:(a) 接受脆弱性是 CBPR 不可避免的一部分;(b) 在现场和团队合作中平衡保护与参与者自主之间的关系;(c) 使用过程性方法,因为研究环境中的伦理风险可能会随着时间的推移而改变;(d) 接受将共同研究者置于解释权威的中心会增加专业研究者的脆弱性的观点。这篇文章通过对专业研究人员和共同研究人员生活经历的创新性关注,拓展了对包容性研究中伦理问题和风险的现有理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Vulnerability in Inclusive Research: Exploring Co- and Professional Researchers’ Experiences in a Community-Based Participatory Project on the Disability Family
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
International Journal of Qualitative Methods SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
139
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal Highlights Impact Factor: 5.4 Ranked 5/110 in Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary – SSCI Indexed In: Clarivate Analytics: Social Science Citation Index, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and Scopus Launched In: 2002 Publication is subject to payment of an article processing charge (APC) Submit here International Journal of Qualitative Methods (IJQM) is a peer-reviewed open access journal which focuses on methodological advances, innovations, and insights in qualitative or mixed methods studies. Please see the Aims and Scope tab for further information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信