The issue of 'vulnerability' in researching political elites
Tools
Tools
Traianou, Anna. 2024. The issue of 'vulnerability' in researching political elites. Education Inquiry, ISSN 2000-4508 [Article] (Forthcoming)
|
Text
VulnerabilitypoliticalelitesAT.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. Download (242kB) | Preview |
Abstract or Description
Much sociological research in education and elsewhere has focused on understanding the perspectives and experiences of ‘marginalised’ or subordinate groups, along with those of members of the occupations and organisations involved with them. However, since the 1980s and 90s a small tradition of work has emerged concerned with ‘studying up’: focusing on the role of elites (e.g. Ball 1990; Walford 1994; Troyna and Halpin 1994). Initially, studies of politicians, government officials, pressure groups, and their networks, tended to assume that they belonged to close-knit groups which could be easily identified (Walford 2012). However, the shift in the 2000s towards the notion of the governance of education reframed this research to include global policy actors who occupy ‘multiple spaces’ and policy networks, being ‘simultaneously national and transnational’, and therefore more difficult to identify (Grek 2021:18; see also Yates 2004). The aim of this focus on elites was to document the operation of elite power in shaping educational institutions and in resisting ‘struggles for social transformation’ (Ozga and Gewirtz 1994: 123). The term ‘elite’ is not always defined within this literature, but is generally used to describe individuals or groups who ostensibly have closer proximity to power or who are able to claim distinctive professional expertise (Ball 1994; see also Morris, 2009; Khan 2012; Maxwell 2015). Despite this growing body of work, there have been few reflexive accounts analysing the ways in which this research is conducted and the challenges encountered by policy researchers (but see Addey and Piattoeva 2021; Lancaster 2017; Duke 2002). More specifically, the ethical aspects of research associated with interviewing ‘elites’ involved in educational policymaking remain underexplored (Addey and Piattoeva 2021).
One ethical issue that has been addressed in studying marginalised or subordinate groups is vulnerability. In this paper I want to suggest that this is also relevant in studying elites, following up on some suggestions by previous writers: Smith (2006: 651) makes a brief suggestion that ‘we need to make room to consider the possibility of “vulnerable elites”; while Neal and McLaughlin (2009) refer to a multi-layered vulnerability in their reflective account of their research on the Commissioners of the Parekh Report. At face value, the concept may seem inapplicable, because of the assumption that vulnerability and power are negatively related: since elites have power, it might be concluded that they cannot be vulnerable. However, I will suggest that the issue is more complicated than this. Indeed, discussions in the research ethics literature have already shown that the concept of vulnerability is itself by no means straightforward.
Subject to particular criticism has been the idea – built into research ethics codes, and the procedures employed by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Research Ethics Committees (RECs) – that certain categories of research participant are intrinsically vulnerable, so that heightened protections must always be placed upon research projects involving them. Typical categories of the vulnerable include: young children, people with learning difficulties, sex workers, prisoners, people in poverty, and those suffering from serious illnesses. However, there can be reasonable disagreement about who should, and who should not, be included in this list. For instance, some commentators challenge treating children as vulnerable because this implies that they lack competence or are powerless (Morrow and Richards 1999; Farrell 2005; Wright 2015). Furthermore, members of the categories designated as vulnerable vary considerably in relevant respects, for example as a result of their intersectional positions. More fundamentally, at least one writer has challenged the very appropriateness of the concept of vulnerability in the context of research ethics (van den Hoonaard 2018, 2020; see also Levine et al 2004). Van den Hoonard argues not only it is difficult to determine who is vulnerable, but also that designating potential research participants as vulnerable often results in their being excluded from studies, so that their perspectives are ignored.
There is a more general criticism, too. This is that research ethics cannot properly be a matter simply of following a set of rules, such as those specifying who is, and who is not, ‘vulnerable’. This is because, in doing research, there are multiple ethical and methodological considerations that must be taken into account, and these will often conflict. So, judgments have to be made in particular situations about what is the priority and how conflicting ideals should be interpreted and reconciled (Hammersley and Traianou 2012).
In this paper I will explore the issue of vulnerability in the context of my own recent research. I will begin by discussing further some of the complexities surrounding the concept of ‘vulnerability’, arguing that there needs to be clarification of in what respects particular participants may be vulnerable. Often this seems to be interpreted solely in relation to the capacity to provide informed consent, but this is only one aspect of vulnerability. A quite different interpretation is vulnerability to particular kinds of harm (Traianou and Hammersley 2023). I will conclude by discussing how these complexities apply in the context of researching political elites, drawing on research in which members of a Greek political elite were interviewed (Traianou 2021).
|
Item Type: |
Article |
||||
| Departments, Centres and Research Units: |
Educational Studies |
||||
| Dates: |
|
||||
| Item ID: |
34669 |
||||
| Date Deposited: |
18 Jan 2024 09:56 |
||||
| Last Modified: |
19 Jan 2024 04:57 |
||||
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes, this version has been peer-reviewed. |
||||
|
URI: |
View statistics for this item...
 |
Edit Record (login required) |