Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

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

Elizabeth Peter1, Judith Friedland1,2

  • 11 University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics : JERHRE
|April 20, 2017
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Upholding Pluralism in Occupational Therapy: A Response to Recent Calls for Political Alignment.

Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie·2026
Same author

Nurses and misinformation: A matter of trust.

Nursing ethics·2025
Same author

Advance Care Planning in Advanced Heart Failure: The Illusion of Individual Autonomy.

Qualitative health research·2025
Same author

Experiences of Moral Distress in Canadian Intensive Care Unit Professionals During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Exploratory Multiple Case Study in Ontario and Alberta, Canada.

Journal of intensive care medicine·2025
Same author

An Ethics of Care, Relational Suffering, and Contested Invisible Disability.

Journal of bioethical inquiry·2025
Same author

Responses to "Reflections on 30 Years of <i>Nursing Ethic</i>s".

Nursing ethics·2025

Research ethics committees (RECs) need closer engagement to better understand participant vulnerability. An up-close ethics approach fosters stronger relationships and improves risk mitigation in research protocols.

Area of Science:

  • Bioethics
  • Qualitative Research
  • Sociology of Science

Background:

  • Research ethics committees (RECs) may lack field proximity, leading to potential misunderstandings of participant vulnerability.
  • Existing ethical review processes might not fully capture the nuanced vulnerabilities encountered in research settings.
  • A critical qualitative approach is needed to examine how RECs perceive and address participant risks.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how RECs identify unrecognized vulnerabilities in research protocols.
  • To analyze the strategies RECs employ to protect perceived participant vulnerability and mitigate risks.
  • To explore the implications of REC distance from research settings on ethical oversight.

Main Methods:

  • Critical qualitative methodology informed by feminist ethics.
Keywords:
careempiricalfeminist ethicsresearch ethicsvulnerability

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of response letters sent by three university-based RECs to researchers.
  • Identification of overarching themes and subthemes related to vulnerability and risk.

    • Main Results:

    • An overarching theme of 'recognizing and responding to cascading vulnerabilities' was identified.
    • Four subthemes emerged: identifying vulnerable groups, recognizing risky research, imagining 'what ifs,' and mitigating perceived risks.
    • RECs' distant perspective can lead to a gap in understanding the full spectrum of participant vulnerability.

    Conclusions:

    • An 'up-close' ethics approach is essential for fostering better relationships between participants, researchers, and RECs.
    • Closer engagement allows for a more accurate understanding of participant vulnerability and inherent strengths.
    • This approach can enhance the effectiveness of ethical review and risk mitigation in research.