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.

中文翻译：

---

包容性研究的脆弱性：探索合作和专业研究人员在残疾家庭社区参与项目中的经验

在向保护主义较少的研究伦理范式（即弱势群体不再被排除在参与研究之外）的过渡中，学术研究人员需要以不同的方式思考脆弱性。本文通过对专业人士和共同研究员在基于社区的参与性研究（CBPR）项目中的经验进行集体自民族志调查，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。研究发现，脆弱性主要表现为两种方式——感受“情感伤害”和“认知上的自我怀疑”——并且它来自两个主要层面：生活和 CBPR 内的工作。文章的主要论点是，在像 CBPR 这样的定性研究中，当涉及处于弱势生活状况的人时，脆弱性是不可避免的。我们为未来的研究提出了四项关键建议：(a) 接受脆弱性作为 CBPR 不可避免的一部分，(b) 平衡保护与参与者的现场自主权和团队合作，(c) 使用过程方法，因为研究中存在道德风险背景可能会随着时间的推移而改变，并且（d）接受将共同研究人员置于解释权威的中心可能会增加专业研究人员的脆弱性。本文通过对专业和共同研究人员的生活经历的综合和创新关注，扩展了对包容性研究中的道德问题和风险的现有理解。