Relational vulnerability and the research process with former prisoners in Athens, Georgia (USA)

Abstract

A host of power relations are structurally imposed upon the imprisoned and these produce vulnerabilities that require considerable energy and attention. This paper argues, however, that 'vulnerable populations' is a politically reactive legal category in the context of research with prisoners. In turn, this form of categorical vulnerability is often misaligned with 'actually existing vulnerability' or 'relational vulnerability' in the context of prison life. Substantive ethical, methodological and practical problems result from this misalignment, as I illustrate through the case of my research with former prisoners in Athens, Georgia. I seek to prove two claims in support of my central argument. First, actually existing vulnerability is fundamentally relational and it involves the researcher, the researched, collaborators, and (often distant) people and social structures that were not necessarily directly involved in the research process. Second, vulnerability is a spatially and temporally contingent process. The essay reviews the peculiar history by which prisoners came to be categorized as a 'vulnerable population' in the United States, in addition to recounting my first-hand experiences during the research process. Vulnérabilité relationnelle et procédé de recherche auprès d'anciens prisonniers d'Athens en Géorgie (USA)RÉSUMÉ Une grande quantité de rapports de force sont imposés structurellement à ceux qui sont emprisonnés et ces rapports produisent des vulnérabilités qui demandent une énergie et une attention considérables. Cet article soumet, toutefois, que « les populations vulnérables » forment une catégorie légale politiquement réactive dans le contexte de la recherche auprès des prisonniers. A son tour, souvent, cette forme de catégorie de vulnérabilité ne correspond pas à « la vulnérabilité réelle qui existe » ou à la « vulnérabilité relationnelle » dans le contexte de la vie en prison. Des problèmes substantiels éthiques, méthodologiques et pratiques résultent de ce décalage, comme je le démontre à travers le cas de ma recherche auprès d'anciens prisonniers d'Athens, en Géorgie. Je cherche à © 2016 informa uK limited, trading as taylor & Francis Group KEYWORDS carceral geography; relational vulnerability; vulnerable populations; imprisonment MOTS CLÉS géographie carcérale; vulnérabilité relationnelle; populations vulnérables; emprisonnement ARTICLE HISTORY

Research relationships and responsibilities: ‘Doing’ research with ‘vulnerable’ participants: introduction to the special edition

“…The same paternalistic desire to protect vulnerable people often extends to institutional policies that inhibit interaction between vulnerable clients and researchers (Carter, 2009). Mitchelson (2017) discusses the way in which historic abuses of prisoners through biomedical and psychological experimentation have led to a widespread culture of institutional resistance to research participation from prisons. Mitchelson suggests that little distinction is made between the motivations of psycho-medical research and social science research, with institutions often on the offensive, presuming participants will be reduced to objectified subjects in academic discourse.…”

“…As Anderson and Smith (2001) highlight, emotions were, for a long time, ignored in the research process and only in the last decade or so have Geographers sought to explore this in more detail with Punch (2012, p. 86) noting that 'guilt, apprehension, fears and worries are legitimate, common and even useful experiences of fieldwork' . Bondi (2013) highlights the emotional benefits that can arise from engaging in research, not least for those who stories are more often ignored or hidden, but often researchers are less well equipped to deal with difficult and traumatic experiences raised through research (see for example, Mitchelson, 2017). For example, Briggs (2013) raises the emotional consequences of leaving the field when conducting visual ethnography with street drug users in London, emotions that are reflected in Williams' account (2017).…”

“…A number of the marginalised people who participated in the studies detailed in the special edition have little or no independence, due to institutionalisation (Williams, 2017;von Benzon, 2017) and incarceration (Maillet, Mountz and Williams, this issue) or heightened surveillance (Mitchelson, 2017). One key theme arising in the research is the issue of lack of privacy in research engagements when undertaking research with vulnerable people.…”

Stigma, surveillance, and wounded healing: Promoting a critical ethics of care in research with formerly incarcerated Black women

“…That is, although research exclusion in the name of protection can harm marginalized groups, researchers are simultaneously concerned about risks that are temporally removed from the immediate context of the research study. Anti‐oppressive qualitative researchers and behavioral health ethicists alike have explored how excluding populations, who are deemed vulnerable by IRB's, discursively eliminates their agency, misaligns with greater societal need, and fundamentally leaves lacunae in understanding the lived experiences of communities navigating systemic oppression (Iphofen & Tolich, 2018; Mitchelson, 2017). Contrarily, inclusion also elicits significant concerns regarding the ways in which the process of representation and engagement with stigmatized communities has the potential to harm already marginalized groups.…”

“…IRBs have sought to protect populations that fall under categories of being vulnerable, such as those that are pregnant, children, and those that are incarcerated (Pope et al, 2017). In particular, imprisoned individuals have historically been viewed as “categorically vulnerable,” due to being socially constrained by a host of structurally imposed power relations (Mitchelson, 2017). Moreover, individuals who are incarcerated are geographically residing within coercive and violent spaces, which consequently can impact their sense of self‐determination and decision‐making power within the research process (Hoffman, 2000; Michelson, 2017).…”