Rubens, Corsets and Taxonomies: A Response to Meek Lange, Rogers and Dodds

Abstract

In ‘Vulnerability in Research Ethics: A way forward, Margaret Meek Lange, Wendy Rogers and Susan Dodds (hereafter ‘the authors’) provide an interesting and valuable contribution to the conceptualization of vulnerability. However, I would like to take a deeper look at their proposal. The authors’ analysis ‘rests on [1)] developing a typology of sources of vulnerability and [2)] showing how distinct sources generate distinct obligations on the part of the researcher.’1 In their article they criticize the treatment of vulnerability offered by codes and research ethics documents. They describe and accept my criticisms of the subpopulation approach to vulnerability and my analysis of vulnerability based on layers,2 but they suggest going beyond it.3 I acknowledge the usefulness of identifying obligations as a second step in the analysis of vulnerability. However, I maintain that a) we do not need a taxonomy to classify vulnerabilities, b) the authors do not provide an adequate or successful taxonomy, and c) they are unable to link their taxonomy to specific obligations. Hence I propose avoiding an approach that requires taxonomies, and suggest instead using some characteristics of layers that can be related to relevant duties of researchers.