Brasil
Cadernos EBAPE.BR
Sumário Anterior Atual Seguinte
Sumário
ARTICLES • Cad. EBAPE.BR 24 • 2026 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395120250097x linkcopy
This document is related to:

Open-access Vulnerability and research ethics: an analysis from the perspective of Management faculty

AuthorshipSCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Vulnerability in scientific research is a core issue in research ethics, particularly in the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Applied Social Sciences (CHSSA), where social, organizational, and relational risks are often underestimated. The purpose of this study is to understand how Business Administration faculty perceive and define vulnerability in research, as well as to identify the contexts and risks associated with participation. This qualitative study is based on 22 semi-structured interviews with Business Administration faculty from three universities and one focus group with four faculty members (total: n = 26). Data were analyzed using content analysis. The findings reveal three main insights: (1) vulnerability is understood as a dynamic, situational, and multifactorial phenomenon that extends beyond biomedical risk; (2) in organizational research, it primarily arises from power asymmetries, hierarchy, institutional dependence, and fear of retaliation, which affect participants’ autonomy and consent; and (3) there is a gap in academic training in Administration regarding ethics and vulnerability, underscoring the need to reassess educational practices and ethical review criteria applied to the CHSSA. This study contributes to improving the ethical design of organizational research and offers insights for researchers, managers, and ethics committees seeking to enhance the governance of research ethics

Keywords:
vulnerability; research ethics; ethics; vulnerable populations; management faculty

Resumo

A vulnerabilidade em pesquisas científicas é um tema central da ética em pesquisa, especialmente nas Ciências Humanas, Sociais e Sociais Aplicadas (CHSSA), em que riscos sociais, organizacionais e relacionais tendem a ser subestimados. O objetivo desta pesquisa é compreender como docentes de Administração percebem e definem a vulnerabilidade em pesquisas, bem como identificar contextos e riscos associados à participação. Trata-se de um estudo qualitativo, baseado em 22 entrevistas semiestruturadas com docentes de Administração de três universidades e um grupo focal com 4 docentes (total: n = 26), analisados por meio de análise de conteúdo. Os resultados indicam 3 achados principais: (1) a vulnerabilidade é compreendida como um fenômeno dinâmico, situacional e multifatorial, que ultrapassa a noção de risco biomédico; (2) em pesquisas organizacionais, ela se manifesta sobretudo por assimetrias de poder, hierarquia, dependência institucional e medo de retaliação, afetando a autonomia e o consentimento dos participantes; e (3) há uma lacuna na formação acadêmica em Administração quanto à ética e à vulnerabilidade, o que reforça a necessidade de revisão das práticas formativas e dos critérios de avaliação ética aplicados às CHSSA. O estudo contribui para o aprimoramento do desenho ético de pesquisas organizacionais e oferece subsídios a pesquisadores, gestores e comitês de ética na qualificação da governança da ética em pesquisa.

Palavras-chave:
vulnerabilidade; ética em pesquisa; ética; populações vulneráveis; docentes de administração

Resumen

La vulnerabilidad en la investigación científica es un tema central de la ética de la investigación, especialmente en las Humanidades, Ciencias Sociales y Ciencias Sociales Aplicadas (CHSSA), donde los riesgos sociales, organizacionales y relacionales suelen ser subestimados. El objetivo de este estudio es comprender cómo los docentes de Administración de Empresas perciben y definen la vulnerabilidad en la investigación, así como identificar los contextos y riesgos asociados a la participación. Se trata de un estudio cualitativo, basado en 22 entrevistas semiestructuradas a docentes de Administración de Empresas de tres universidades y en un grupo focal con cuatro docentes (total: n = 26), cuyos datos fueron analizados mediante análisis de contenido. Los resultados evidencian tres hallazgos principales: (1) la vulnerabilidad es concebida como un fenómeno dinámico, situacional y multifactorial, que trasciende la noción de riesgo biomédico; (2) en la investigación organizacional, se manifiesta principalmente a través de asimetrías de poder, jerarquías, dependencia institucional y temor a represalias, lo que afecta la autonomía y el consentimiento de los participantes; y (3) existe una brecha en la formación académica en Administración en relación con la ética y la vulnerabilidad, lo que refuerza la necesidad de revisar las prácticas formativas y los criterios de evaluación ética aplicados a las CHSSA. El estudio contribuye a mejorar el diseño ético de la investigación organizacional y ofrece insumos a investigadores, gestores y comités de ética para fortalecer la gobernanza de la ética en la investigación.

Palabras clave:
vulnerabilidad; ética en la investigación; ética; poblaciones vulnerables; docentes de administración

INTRODUCTION

Research ethics constitutes a foundational dimension of scientific inquiry, shaping the relationship between researchers, participants, and society while safeguarding the dignity, autonomy, and well-being of those involved. Although the production of knowledge is socially valuable and necessary, it may expose participants to a range of risks and harms, thereby requiring ethical safeguards capable of minimizing adverse consequences and preventing abuses historically associated with scientific research (Batistiolle & Silva, 2006). Recognition of these risks has progressively led to the development of ethical regulations and guidelines designed to protect participants from physical, psychological, and social harm.

Despite significant advances in research ethics debates since the 1990s, substantial differences remain in Brazil between the Biomedical Sciences and the Human, Social, and Applied Social Sciences (HSASS). Scholars such as Alves and Teixeira (2020), Guerriero (2016, 2023), Amaral (2017), and Nicacio (2023) argue that ethical frameworks were originally developed for biomedical research and subsequently extended to other fields on the basis of the same assumptions and evaluative criteria. Whereas biomedical ethics is primarily concerned with protecting participants from physical harm arising from bodily interventions typical of clinical studies, research in the HSASS seeks to understand systems of meaning, social relations, and organizational contexts. The methodological specificities of such inquiries are often overlooked, resulting in ethical review procedures that are poorly aligned with the nature of social research (Alves & Teixeira, 2020; Duarte, 2015). This biomedical standardization tends to constrain broader ethical reflection, highlighting the need for approaches that move beyond exclusively biomedical parameters (Alves & Teixeira, 2020).

Within this debate, vulnerability occupies a central position. Vulnerable populations, particularly those with limited social, economic, or institutional power, may experience explicit or subtle pressures to participate in research, often driven by concerns about potential negative consequences should they refuse (Rogers & Ballantyne, 2008; Tengan et al., 2005). While such risks have been extensively acknowledged in biomedical research, their manifestations within the HSASS — frequently associated with power asymmetries, institutional dependency, and symbolic exposure — remain comparatively underexplored.

Following the enactment of Resolution No. 510/2016 by the Brazilian National Health Council (CNS), several scholars began to question the adequacy of Brazil’s research ethics system for the HSASS (Ministry of Health, 2016). Mainardes (2017) highlights the limitations of the prevailing model, characterized by bureaucratization, centralization, and a utilitarian orientation that is insufficiently responsive to the specificities of these fields. Amaral (2017) draws attention to the political tensions produced by biomedical hegemony and criticizes the application of standards designed for clinical research to the HSASS. According to the author, Resolution No. 510/2016 retained a dualistic distinction between participant and object of study while requiring risk classifications that fail to capture the complexity of social inquiry. Guerriero (2023), in turn, points to the continued dominance of biomedical perspectives within Brazil’s CEP/Conep System (Research Ethics Committees and the National Research Ethics Commission), which has generated guidelines that contradict the principles of Resolution No. 510/2016 and weakened HSASS representation in decision-making processes.

Despite the relevance of these contributions, vulnerability remains relatively neglected, particularly within Management research. Although considerable attention has been devoted to field-specific ethical guidelines, regulatory reforms, and more inclusive approaches to ethical review, limited attention has been paid to how participant vulnerability shapes research ethics in organizational settings. A review of publications indexed in Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science revealed no studies directly addressing perceptions of vulnerability within the field of Management.

Against this backdrop, this study seeks to examine how Management faculty conceptualize and define vulnerability in research, as well as the contexts in which it emerges and the principal risks associated with research participation. By exploring these perceptions, the study contributes to the refinement of ethical practices and supports the development of more responsible forms of inquiry that are sensitive to the particularities of Management research within the HSASS.

Accordingly, the research question guiding this study is: How do Management faculty understand vulnerability in scientific research, and how do they identify its contexts and associated risks within the Human, Social, and Applied Social Sciences? The article is structured as follows. First, the theoretical framework discusses the concept of vulnerability, its relationship to risk, and its specific manifestations in both the Biomedical Sciences and the HSASS. The methodological procedures are then presented, detailing data collection and analysis. Subsequently, the findings are reported and discussed in light of the theoretical framework.

The study’s original contribution lies in demonstrating, from the perspective of Management faculty, that vulnerability in organizational research is relational, situational, and shaped by power asymmetries embedded in work contexts, thereby extending ethical debates beyond a narrow focus on biomedical risk. The article concludes by outlining the study’s theoretical, methodological, and institutional implications, as well as its contributions to Management scholarship through a more nuanced understanding of research ethics, academic training, and the governance of Research Ethics Committees.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Research Ethics

Research ethics involving human participants emerged in response to severe human rights violations committed throughout the twentieth century. Following the atrocities exposed during the Nuremberg Trials in 1947, a series of international codes and ethical standards were developed to safeguard research participants. Yet unethical practices persisted for decades. In 1966, Henry Beecher revealed numerous medical studies involving serious ethical violations, demonstrating that such problems had by no means been eradicated. This context prompted the development of further ethical guidelines, culminating in the Belmont Report (1979), which established three foundational principles for research involving human participants: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.

In Brazil, the first national regulation governing research ethics was National Health Council (CNS) Resolution No. 196/1996, grounded in the principlist tradition of bioethics, the resolution sought to prevent abuses and provide guidance for the ethical review of research projects. It established the CEP/Conep System and standardized requirements such as informed consent procedures and prior ethical review by a research ethics committee. Following extensive public consultation and debate, the resolution was replaced by CNS Resolution No. 466/2012, which retained its bioethical foundations while introducing important innovations, including assent procedures for minors and individuals lacking full decision-making capacity, requiring information to be presented in language appropriate to participants’ level of understanding. However, it soon became apparent that a single regulatory framework could not adequately address the diverse epistemological and methodological traditions represented across different fields of knowledge. Critics argued that the CEP/Conep System remained anchored in a biomedical and bureaucratic logic that was insufficiently responsive to the methodological specificities of the Human and Social Sciences.

Until 2016, research conducted within the Human, Social, and Applied Social Sciences (HSASS) remained subject to the same ethical requirements applied to clinical and biomedical studies, generating tensions and inconsistencies in the review of social science research. In response, CNS Resolution No. 510/2016 was enacted specifically for the Human and Social Sciences. The resolution represented a significant milestone by recognizing the epistemological diversity of these fields and introducing important adaptations, including alternative consent and assent procedures, risk classifications more compatible with social research, and specific provisions for protecting participants from Indigenous and traditional communities. Resolution No. 510/2016 was widely welcomed as a response to longstanding demands from the academic community, including a revised understanding of vulnerability, discussed later in this article. Nevertheless, the resolution was conceived as complementary rather than substitutive. Consequently, issues not explicitly addressed by Resolution No. 510/2016 remained subject to the provisions of Resolution No. 466/2012.

As a result, several challenges persisted. Among them was the need to establish risk-classification criteria specifically tailored to HSASS research, alongside other regulatory refinements that remained under discussion after 2016. In subsequent years, Brazil’s ethical-regulatory framework continued to evolve. CNS Resolution No. 674/2022 introduced new research categories and revised protocol review procedures within the CEP/Conep System, seeking to align ethical review processes more closely with the level of risk associated with each study (Amorim, 2019; Ministry of Health, 2022; Muccioli et al., 2008). More recently, Law No. 14,874/2024 established the National System for Ethics in Research Involving Human Participants, providing a unified legal framework for the protection of research participants throughout the country.

Within this system, Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are defined as “interdisciplinary and independent collegiate bodies, vested with a public munus and exercising advisory, deliberative, and educational functions” (Ministry of Health, 2008, p. 14). Their activities are organized around three interrelated dimensions. The advisory dimension seeks to support researchers in designing studies that protect participants’ rights. The deliberative dimension is responsible for the ethical review and approval of research protocols. The educational dimension promotes ongoing training within the scientific community and fosters a culture of ethical and responsible research.

From this perspective, RECs are expected to move beyond the formal oversight of research projects and assume a more active role in the ethical governance of research, encouraging less utilitarian and more reflexive approaches to scientific practice (Amorim, 2019; Muccioli et al., 2008). In practice, however, this educational mission often encounters significant constraints. The deliberative function tends to dominate committee activities, consuming substantial time and institutional resources and fostering an excessive emphasis on procedural compliance at the expense of substantive ethical reflection. This imbalance frequently reduces interactions between researchers and RECs to a repetitive cycle of submission, review, and procedural revisions, limiting opportunities for deeper ethical learning. Da Costa Marques (2021), for example, describes a review process that extended over nine months and was characterized by administrative demands disproportionate to the ethical issues at stake. Consequently, a central challenge facing the Brazilian system is to reimagine the role of RECs, shifting them from bodies primarily concerned with approving research protocols to spaces dedicated to the production, dissemination, and collective development of ethical knowledge about research practice.

Vulnerability and Research Ethics in the Human, Social, and Applied Social Sciences

Vulnerability is a widely used concept for describing susceptibility to stress, adversity, or harm and is commonly associated with conditions of fragility and exposure to risk (Yunes & Szymanski, 2001). In many formulations, vulnerability is predominantly understood in negative terms, referring to states of fragility arising from three main factors: exposure to risks, social and environmental change, and limited adaptive capacity (Aquino et al., 2017). Across different theoretical and normative traditions, vulnerability is generally understood as arising when individuals or groups occupy positions of weakness, disadvantage, or diminished capacity to adequately protect their own interests due to individual, psychological, social, economic, cultural, or political factors, thereby becoming more susceptible to harm and risk (Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, 2002; Kottow, 2003; Ministry of Health, 2016; Neves, 2006). Vulnerability therefore reflects a complex interaction among multiple factors that may either amplify or mitigate the risks faced by individuals and groups across different contexts and stages of life (De Oliveira Esteves, 2011).

Seeking to systematize the concept, Kottow (2003) and Rogers and Ballantyne (2008) distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic vulnerability. Intrinsic vulnerability refers to internal characteristics or conditions that may limit individuals’ capacity for autonomous decision-making, including intellectual disabilities, mental disorders, or age-related factors. Extrinsic vulnerability, by contrast, stems from external circumstances such as socioeconomic deprivation, limited educational attainment, geographical barriers, or structural constraints that restrict access to rights and opportunities. While this distinction broadened understanding of the phenomenon, it also revealed important limitations, particularly when applied rigidly or through fixed categorical classifications.

More recent scholarship has challenged the tendency to associate vulnerability with stable attributes or predefined social groups. Racine and Bracken-Roche (2018) argue that vulnerability loses analytical value when treated as a static label and may generate unintended consequences, including stigmatization and the unjustified exclusion of potential research participants. They advocate an integrative and functional approach in which vulnerability is understood as relational, contextual, and shaped by the interactions established throughout the research process itself. This perspective is consistent with the view that vulnerability should not be equated with incapacity and underscores the importance of resisting ableist assumptions that may negatively influence ethical approaches to research involving persons with disabilities. Recognizing vulnerability as dynamic and situational, varying across time and context, allows for a more nuanced and less reductionist understanding of the concept.

Within research ethics, vulnerability acquires particular significance. Participation in research, understood as an activity aimed at generating or validating knowledge, may expose individuals to risks and uncertainties, rendering all participants vulnerable to some degree (Santana & Lorenzo, 2008). Such vulnerability tends to intensify in the presence of power asymmetries between researchers and participants, particularly in contexts characterized by knowledge inequalities, institutional dependency, or adverse socioeconomic conditions. Under these circumstances, individuals may agree to participate in studies that do not fully align with their interests or may accept disproportionate levels of risk (Rogers & Ballantyne, 2008). Wilkinson and Moore (1997) further caution that financial or material incentives may encourage participants to underestimate risks and overestimate benefits, thereby undermining the voluntariness and quality of informed consent.

Santana and Lorenzo (2008) identify five criteria that contribute to the characterization of vulnerability in scientific research: (i) limited national capacity for conducting research; (ii) economic deprivation that may motivate participation in exchange for potential benefits; (iii) deficiencies in healthcare provision that make individuals dependent on opportunities offered through research; (iv) low levels of educational attainment that hinder understanding of research procedures; and (v) constraints on informed consent arising from socioeconomic and cultural inequalities related to gender, ethnicity, and place of residence. These criteria raise fundamental questions for research ethics. Do participants assume risks autonomously, or are they influenced by distorted expectations of benefit? To what extent can the existence and magnitude of risks be objectively determined? Can material benefits encourage individuals to accept risks they would otherwise decline?

Resolution No. 510/2016 defines vulnerability in research as a “situation in which an individual or group has a reduced capacity to make decisions or resist participation in research due to individual, psychological, economic, cultural, social, or political factors” (Ministry of Health, 2016, p. 4). This definition marks a departure from strictly categorical understandings and reflects a more situational conception of vulnerability. Findley et al. (2024) reinforce this perspective by arguing that vulnerability is not merely a pre-existing condition of participants but may also be produced or intensified by the design and conduct of research itself, thereby requiring ongoing ethical assessment throughout the research process.

Determining the level of risk associated with a study therefore extends beyond a purely technical evaluation of research procedures. It requires sensitivity to participants’ lived conditions and recognition that vulnerability may shape how risks are perceived and experienced. Informed consent constitutes a central mechanism for protecting autonomy by affirming participants’ right to self-determination and rejecting paternalistic forms of intervention. The Belmont Report reinforces this position by identifying respect for persons, beneficence, and justice as the foundational ethical principles governing research involving human participants. Likewise, principlism, as developed by Beauchamp and Childress (2002), has become a cornerstone of contemporary bioethics through its articulation of four fundamental principles: respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice (De Azambuja Loch, 2002).

Within this framework, respect for autonomy seeks to safeguard individuals’ capacity for self-determination; beneficence requires the maximization of benefits and minimization of risks; non-maleficence imposes an obligation to avoid harm; and justice demands the fair and impartial selection of research participants, ensuring equal opportunities for participation (Beauchamp & Childress, 2002; De Azambuja Loch, 2002). Kottow (2008) emphasizes that bioethics differs from professional ethics insofar as it focuses primarily on the relationship between researchers and participants and on the concrete consequences of research projects for those involved. From this perspective, the primary purpose of research ethics is to protect participants, particularly those in situations of vulnerability who voluntarily expose themselves to risks in the interest of scientific advancement.

Within the Human, Social, and Applied Social Sciences (HSASS), vulnerability assumes distinctive forms. Insufficient attention to ethical issues in these fields may create significant gaps in participant protection and hinder the adequate treatment of ethical dilemmas specific to social research. Whereas the terms “vulnerability” and “vulnerable populations” in health research are frequently associated with exposure to physical or biological risks, vulnerability in the HSASS manifests through multiple dimensions, including social inequality, marginalization, threats to privacy, and emotional involvement (Alves & Teixeira, 2020; Nichiata et al., 2008). Resolution No. 510/2016 explicitly recognizes that participants in HSASS research may be subject to psychological, social, political, or cultural pressures that increase their susceptibility to harm or exploitation.

Protecting participants in such contexts requires a sophisticated understanding of the social dynamics and power relations embedded in research processes, as well as careful attention to issues of privacy, trust, and potential forms of manipulation (Alves & Teixeira, 2020). Traianou and Hammersley (2024) argue that the uncritical transfer of biomedical models of ethical regulation to social research tends to inflate perceptions of risk, reinforce bureaucratic practices, and obscure the need for context-sensitive ethical judgment. For these authors, vulnerability in social research should be understood as graduated, relational, and context-dependent, requiring prudence and professional responsibility rather than mere procedural compliance.

Rhodes and Carlsen (2018) extend this discussion by introducing the notion of the researcher’s own ethical vulnerability, emphasizing that research ethics cannot be reduced to formal protocols but emerges through encounters with others that are marked by asymmetries, emotions, and responsibilities. This relational perspective further reinforces the need for ethical frameworks capable of addressing the particularities of HSASS research, where knowledge is produced through direct engagement with individuals and complex social contexts.

From this standpoint, ethical review within the HSASS should be grounded in a pluralistic understanding of science that embraces values such as freedom, individual and collective autonomy, human rights, diversity, democracy, and social vulnerability (Alves & Teixeira, 2020). Ethical regulations must therefore take seriously the epistemological and methodological specificities of these fields, ensuring that research is conducted responsibly and ethically without imposing disproportionate constraints while still guaranteeing the effective protection of participants’ rights and well-being.

Conceptual Research Model

Drawing on the theoretical framework presented above and consistent with the methodological approach adopted, a conceptual model was developed to examine the relationship between research ethics and vulnerability within the Human, Social, and Applied Social Sciences (HSASS). The model integrates three interrelated analytical dimensions: (a) the ethical foundations underpinning research involving human participants; (b) participants’ potential vulnerabilities, understood as relational, contextual, and situational; and (c) the ethical safeguards implemented throughout the research process. As such, the model provides an analytical framework that moves beyond a purely regulatory understanding of research ethics by incorporating its practical, reflexive, and applied dimensions.

thumbnail of Chart 1
Chart 1
Components of the Conceptual Research Model

Chart 1 summarizes these three dimensions. The first dimension concerns the ethical principles and regulatory frameworks that underpin research ethics, particularly the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, as well as the regulations governing research involving human participants.

The second dimension addresses participant vulnerability, conceptualized not as a fixed characteristic or categorical condition but as a dynamic phenomenon emerging from interactions within the research setting. This dimension involves identifying circumstances in which individuals or groups may experience diminished capacity for decision-making, understanding, or resistance due to individual, social, institutional, or relational factors. Accordingly, the model emphasizes the need to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether research designs, methodological instruments, or power asymmetries between researchers and participants may intensify vulnerability and therefore require proportionate safeguards.

The third dimension encompasses ethical safeguards, understood as the set of practical measures designed to protect participants throughout the entire research process. These measures include the appropriate development and implementation of informed consent procedures and, where applicable, assent procedures; the protection of confidentiality, anonymity, and personal data; and the continuous assessment of risks and benefits, accompanied by strategies aimed at minimizing harm, discomfort, or undue exposure. Such safeguards are not treated as merely procedural requirements but as context-sensitive ethical practices requiring methodological judgment and professional responsibility.

This conceptual model directly informed the development of the data collection instrument by providing a framework for examining how Management faculty understand and apply ethical principles and regulations in their research, how they identify and interpret situations of participant vulnerability, and what strategies they employ to ensure ethical protection throughout the research process. The model therefore serves as an analytical framework linking theory, regulation, and practice, highlighting research ethics as a reflexive and relational commitment that is particularly relevant within the context of the Human, Social, and Applied Social Sciences.

RESEARCH METHOD

This study seeks to understand how Management faculty perceive vulnerability within their professional context and in relation to research ethics. To this end, we adopted a qualitative approach, which is particularly appropriate for examining complex, subjective, and socially constructed phenomena, as it enables an in-depth analysis of participants’ perceptions, meanings, and experiences (Demo, 2001). This approach privileges participants’ interpretations and the analysis of social micro-processes, allowing for a rich and context-sensitive understanding of the empirical reality under investigation (Martins, 2004).

The participants were faculty members in the field of Management, all of whom held doctoral degrees and had established research trajectories. Most were affiliated with graduate programmes and regularly engaged in research, supervision, and academic evaluation activities. This profile suggests prior familiarity with debates on research ethics, even if participants were not necessarily formal experts on the topic.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) holding a doctoral degree; (ii) teaching in Management programmes; (iii) conducting research on a regular basis; and (iv) having experience in submitting, reviewing, or conducting research involving human participants. Faculty members with no active research involvement or no recent experience in academic activities related to scientific production were excluded. These criteria were designed to ensure that participants would be able to reflect critically on vulnerability, research ethics, and the institutional practices associated with academic research.

thumbnail of Chart 2
Chart 2
Characteristics of Research Participants

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and one focus group, as shown in Chart 2. The semi-structured interviews followed an interview guide developed from a priori analytical categories derived from a systematic literature review on research ethics, vulnerability, and the specificities of the Human, Social, and Applied Social Sciences. The instrument was organized around thematic axes that guided the conversation while preserving flexibility for further elaboration, allowing new issues to emerge during the interviews (Guazi, 2021).

The interviews were conducted either in person or, when necessary, through video calls using Microsoft Teams. This strategy was appropriate for the purposes of the study, as it enabled an in-depth exploration of perceptions, experiences, and ethical dilemmas associated with a markedly subjective concept such as vulnerability.

In addition to the individual interviews, a focus group was conducted with four faculty members. Participants were selected to ensure homogeneity in relation to the characteristics of interest to the study: all held doctoral degrees, had academic experience, and were engaged in scientific research. The focus group was chosen because of its analytical potential for examining interaction among participants, making it possible to observe how ideas, arguments, and perceptions are collectively constructed, contested, and reinterpreted. As a qualitative technique, the focus group is characterized by high participant involvement, focused discussion around a delimited topic, and the production of rich data within a relatively short period and with reduced operational costs. It enabled the exploration of different perceptions of the phenomenon within a single research encounter, favouring the emergence of analytical categories and relevant theoretical insights, including for the formulation of interpretive categories. The session was moderated by a faculty member, with the support of undergraduate and graduate students, with the aim of encouraging equitable participation and ensuring that the discussion unfolded spontaneously, without undue prompting. The session lasted approximately one hour and forty minutes.

In total, 22 individual interviews were conducted with Management faculty affiliated with three types of universities: federal universities located in state capitals, federal universities located outside state capitals, and a state university located outside a state capital. Data collection ended when concepts, arguments, and perceptions began to recur, indicating theoretical and interpretive saturation; at this point, additional interviews no longer contributed substantively new elements to the analysis.

Throughout the process, participants were informed about the objectives of the study and provided free and informed consent to participate, which was recorded in audio form. Anonymity and confidentiality were strictly ensured at all stages, and no information that could identify participants was disclosed. The study followed the ethical recommendations applicable to research involving human participants and was approved by a Research Ethics Committee under CAAE No. 44966721.4.0000.5142.

The interviews and focus group were fully transcribed manually, with attention to preserving the fidelity of participants’ accounts, relevant pauses, and discursive nuances. The empirical material was analysed using content analysis, conducted in systematic stages. First, a preliminary analysis was carried out through an initial reading of the entire corpus in order to become familiar with the data. Next, units of meaning, paragraphs, and excerpts were coded and grouped into initial categories.

The categories were defined through an articulation between the theoretical framework and the empirical data, combining a priori and emergent categories. These initial categories were subsequently refined and consolidated into final categories based on thematic recurrence, interpretive density, and analytical relevance. The frequency with which themes appeared was also observed, not for statistical purposes, but as a means of supporting the interpretation of discursive patterns. The analysis was conducted manually, without the use of qualitative data analysis software. The excerpts were organized thematically in accordance with the study’s conceptual model and interpreted in light of the literature and the study’s objectives.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Concept of Vulnerability and Its Dimensions

Management faculty understand vulnerability as a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that manifests across multiple levels. It is not limited to economic aspects, but also encompasses social, political, and relational dimensions that may expose participants to harm (Chart 3).

thumbnail of Chart 3
Chart 3
Thematic grouping of excerpts, theoretical statements, and implications for theory

The findings indicate that Management faculty understand vulnerability as a complex, multifaceted, and relational phenomenon, moving away from essentialist or strictly individual conceptions. The excerpts reveal an understanding of vulnerability as produced through contextual and structural interactions involving social, economic, and political dimensions. This view converges with contemporary approaches that treat vulnerability as dynamic and situational rather than as a fixed attribute of particular groups. By emphasizing the notion of “layers” and the contextual production of vulnerability, the interviewees reinforce critiques of categorical models still present in ethical regulation, suggesting that vulnerability should be identified in a situated manner, attentive to the relationships and concrete conditions in which research takes place.

Another central finding concerns the association between vulnerability and power asymmetries. Participants emphasized that vulnerable populations are those situated in unequal contexts, where social, economic, and political forces are imbalanced, thereby reducing individuals’ capacity for resistance and self-determination. This interpretation broadens the ethical debate by shifting vulnerability from the strictly individual level to the structural level, bringing it closer to critical analyses of hierarchy, domination, and exclusion. In Management research, this perspective is particularly relevant, since studies are often conducted in organizational contexts marked by asymmetrical power relations, where participants may be exposed to institutional pressures, economic dependency, or symbolic risks that are frequently underestimated in formal ethical review processes.

The accounts also reveal uneven perceptions of vulnerability across fields of knowledge, with Management often perceived as a “lower-risk” field compared with the biomedical sciences or Psychology. This perception contributes to the marginalization of ethical debate within Management by associating risk and vulnerability primarily with physical or clinical harm. Such a view reinforces the hegemony of biomedical logic in research ethics and obscures less visible but equally significant forms of vulnerability, including threats to privacy, professional risks, institutional constraints, and emotional impacts. The findings therefore corroborate critiques of the uncritical transposition of biomedical models to the HSASS and highlight the need to broaden the concept of risk to include the social, symbolic, and organizational dimensions of research.

Finally, significant institutional tensions emerge regarding the work of Research Ethics Committees, especially with respect to the adequacy of their criteria for addressing the specificities of the HSASS. The interviewees pointed to difficulties in cross-field understanding, limited representation of the social sciences within RECs, and formal requirements perceived as disproportionate or unfeasible. In some cases, these requirements led researchers to abandon submissions or redesign methodological strategies in order to make their studies viable. These findings reveal that research ethics is not limited to the protection of participants; it also involves the researcher’s own vulnerability in relation to rigid institutional structures. This scenario reinforces the need to rethink the ethical review system through a more pluralistic, reflexive, and context-sensitive approach, capable of reconciling effective protection, scientific rigor, and the feasibility of research in the Human, Social, and Applied Social Sciences.

Risks for Researchers and Participants

In organizational settings, hierarchical power relations may create conditions under which consent is not entirely voluntary (Chart 4).

thumbnail of Chart 4
Chart 4
Thematic grouping of excerpts, theoretical statements, and implications for theory

The analysis of the participants’ accounts shows that, within Management, there remains a diffuse perception that research poses limited risks to participants, especially when compared with biomedical fields or Psychology. Although this view acknowledges the existence of psychological risks, it tends to downplay them and, in some cases, to question the relevance of the category “vulnerable population” in this field. Such a position reveals a restrictive understanding of risk and vulnerability, strongly anchored in notions of physical or clinical harm. This resonates with Traianou and Hammersley’s (2024) critique of biomedical hegemony in ethical regulation. By limiting vulnerability to risks perceived as “high” or “evident,” this perspective renders invisible subtler but significant forms of exposure to harm that are typical of organizational and social research.

At the same time, the interviewees’ accounts partially contradict this low-risk perception by identifying a diverse range of vulnerabilities that may emerge in Management research. Risks related to moral harassment, professional retaliation, dismissal, response manipulation, undue exposure of sensitive data, and institutional constraints appeared as recurring concerns. These findings reinforce an understanding of vulnerability as relational and contextual, as argued by Racine and Bracken-Roche (2018) and Findley et al. (2024), since such risks do not stem from participants’ intrinsic characteristics but from the power asymmetries and organizational dynamics in which research is embedded. In this sense, vulnerability is not absent from Management research; rather, it takes less visible forms that are more difficult to capture through regulatory instruments based on general risk classifications.

The accounts also show that the conduct of research itself may produce or intensify vulnerability, especially in qualitative studies involving sensitive narratives or traumatic experiences. Narrating and reliving experiences of violence or suffering may generate additional emotional harm, calling into question ethical approaches centred exclusively on formal consent. This finding speaks directly to literature that criticizes the reduction of research ethics to bureaucratic procedures and emphasizes the need for ongoing, situated ethical assessment throughout the research process (Santana & Lorenzo, 2008; Traianou & Hammersley, 2024). In this context, ethics ceases to be a preliminary moment of authorization and becomes an ongoing reflexive practice, attentive to participants’ reactions and concrete conditions.

Finally, the analysis broadens the debate by highlighting researchers’ own ethical vulnerability, an aspect frequently neglected by current regulations. Interviewees reported risks to physical integrity, harassment, threats, moral dilemmas, and emotional impacts resulting from immersion in sensitive contexts, as well as specific risks faced by researchers in training, such as master’s students, doctoral candidates, and undergraduate research fellows. This dimension resonates with the relational perspective proposed by Rhodes and Carlsen (2018), insofar as it recognizes that research ethics involves mutual responsibilities and asymmetries that cut across not only the researcher-participant relationship but also academic hierarchies. The findings therefore suggest the need for a broader conception of research ethics in the HSASS, one capable of protecting both participants and researchers while incorporating ethical training as a constitutive dimension of scientific practice.

Academic Training and Research Ethics

The interviewees revealed a significant gap in their exposure to the concept of vulnerability during their academic training, as the topic was rarely prioritized during undergraduate education (Chart 5).

thumbnail of Chart 5
Chart 5
Thematic grouping of excerpts, theoretical statements, and implications for theory

The findings reveal a structural gap in Management education regarding the incorporation of vulnerability as a central ethical concept, particularly at the undergraduate level. The systematic absence of this debate from academic curricula reflects a model of education historically shaped by technicist rationality, in which mastery of tools and procedures takes precedence over critical reflection on the human and social implications of research. This finding corroborates the diagnosis advanced by Silva et al. (2020), suggesting that academic training has prioritized operational competencies while devoting comparatively less attention to preparing researchers to navigate the complex ethical dilemmas that permeate teaching and research in the Human, Social, and Applied Social Sciences.

The results further indicate that, when research ethics was addressed during participants’ academic trajectories, it was typically approached in a fragmented and predominantly procedural manner, concentrated within research methodology and project-design courses. Such an approach reinforces an understanding of ethics as a formal requirement to be satisfied rather than as a substantive process of ethical reflection. As Silva et al. (2023) argue, autonomy in decision-making alone does not guarantee ethically responsible choices, since ethical judgment requires awareness of one’s own values, principles, and the consequences of one’s actions for others. The separation between ethics and vulnerability therefore contributes to academic practices that tend to normalize risks and underestimate the subjective and social impacts of research.

Another important finding concerns the understanding of ethics as a relational and situated practice that emerges throughout the research process itself. The analysis suggests that ethical reflection cannot be confined to the initial approval of a project or the formal acquisition of consent; rather, it must accompany the research process continuously. This perspective resonates with Carvalho and Gonçalves (2015), who argue that research ethics should be understood as an ongoing exercise in evaluating the implications of methodological choices and researcher-participant interactions. From this standpoint, vulnerability becomes a dynamic and contextual condition that emerges through the concrete relationships established during research and therefore requires sensitivity, prudence, and responsibility on the part of the researcher.

Finally, the findings highlight the central role of academic training and supervision in shaping researchers’ ethical judgment. Research ethics emerges as a pedagogical responsibility that extends beyond regulatory frameworks and Research Ethics Committees, requiring the active engagement of faculty members and supervisors in helping students navigate real ethical dilemmas encountered during research. This interpretation converges with Tagata’s (2008) argument that ethical education is cultivated through critical reflection, awareness of social responsibility, and the integration of scientific rigor with human sensitivity. The findings therefore reinforce the need to incorporate ethics and vulnerability as cross-cutting dimensions of academic training, recognizing that ethical commitment is the outcome of a continuous, relational, and formative process.

CONCLUSIONS

This study sought to address the following research question: How do Management faculty understand vulnerability in scientific research, and how do they identify its contexts and associated risks within the Human, Social, and Applied Social Sciences (HSASS)? The findings indicate that vulnerability is understood as a dynamic, relational, and situated phenomenon emerging from the social, institutional, and organizational interactions that characterize Management research. This understanding moves beyond strictly biomedical or categorical conceptions and recognizes that participants’ autonomy and consent may be shaped by power asymmetries, organizational hierarchies, institutional dependencies, and fears of retaliation, even in the absence of direct physical risks.

The empirical findings reveal, first, that Management faculty conceptualize vulnerability as a multifaceted phenomenon encompassing social, economic, political, and relational dimensions. This perspective reinforces the view that vulnerability should not be treated as a fixed individual attribute or as a condition restricted to specific groups. Rather, it is produced through particular social and organizational contexts, especially those marked by asymmetrical power relations. By emphasizing the contextual nature of vulnerability, participants highlighted the importance of situated ethical assessments capable of identifying symbolic, professional, and institutional risks that often remain invisible within formal ethical review processes.

Second, the findings reveal a recurring tension within Management research between the perception that organizational studies constitute a “low-risk” field and the recognition that significant forms of vulnerability nevertheless exist. Although some participants associated vulnerability primarily with physical or clinical harm, their own accounts pointed to substantial risks, including workplace harassment, identity disclosure, professional repercussions, institutional constraints, and emotional distress. The study further expands the debate by highlighting the vulnerability of researchers themselves, particularly in qualitative research and sensitive field settings, where physical, moral, emotional, and academic risks may arise. Particular challenges were also identified for researchers in training, including master’s students, doctoral candidates, and undergraduate research assistants.

From a theoretical perspective, the findings contribute to advancing debates on research ethics in Management by reinforcing a relational and situated understanding of vulnerability. By shifting the focus from individual attributes to structural and organizational conditions, the study brings research ethics into closer dialogue with critical organizational scholarship and analyses of power, hierarchy, and domination. This perspective broadens prevailing understandings of research ethics by recognizing that risks and harms may emerge from organizational dynamics and workplace relationships themselves, thereby requiring ethical approaches that are sensitive to the specificities of Management research.

The study also contributes to challenging the dominance of the biomedical paradigm in the ethical regulation of the HSASS by demonstrating the limitations of applying biomedical assumptions uncritically to organizational research. The findings show that vulnerability may be produced or intensified through research design, fieldwork practices, and researcher-participant interactions. Consequently, research ethics should be understood not as a procedural requirement satisfied at the point of ethical approval, but as an ongoing and reflexive practice embedded throughout the research process. In this respect, the study strengthens perspectives that advocate a substantive, contextual, and relational approach to ethics, one that remains attentive to the human relationships through which knowledge is produced.

The article’s original contribution lies in demonstrating, from the perspective of Management faculty, that vulnerability in organizational research is fundamentally relational, situational, and shaped by workplace power asymmetries. In doing so, it extends ethical debates beyond a narrow focus on biomedical risk. By bringing together participant vulnerability, researcher vulnerability, and institutional vulnerability within a single analytical framework, the study offers a novel perspective on research ethics in Management and contributes to strengthening both ethical research design and ethical review practices within the HSASS.

Like all research, this study has limitations. The primary limitation concerns the institutional and geographical scope of the sample, which may not capture the full diversity of perceptions regarding vulnerability across Management scholarship in different regions of Brazil. Moreover, although participants possessed substantial academic experience, their perspectives do not exhaust the range of practices and contexts present within the field. Future research could broaden the empirical scope by incorporating participants from different regions, career stages, and institutional settings, as well as by comparatively examining perceptions of vulnerability across different disciplines within the HSASS.

Finally, the findings point toward important directions for future research on ethics in Management scholarship. In particular, they highlight the need for greater attention to the ethical formation of researchers through the integration of ethics and vulnerability as cross-cutting themes within undergraduate and graduate education. Further research could also examine empirically how Research Ethics Committees engage with the specificities of the HSASS and explore issues of organizational vulnerability and researcher ethics in sensitive workplace settings. Such efforts may contribute to the development of a more pluralistic, reflexive, and context-sensitive approach to research ethics, one that is better aligned with the complexities of Management research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), the University of Brasília (UnB), and the Research Support Foundation of the Federal District (FAPDF) for their support and encouragement of this research.

References

  • RESEARCH DATA AVAILABILITY
    The data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available.
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USAGE
    ChatGPT was used to support language editing, grammar review, translation and reference formatting. The authors remain fully responsible for the content, interpretation, and conclusions presented in this article.
  • FUNDING
    This article is one of the outputs of the research project Ethics in Management Research, funded through the 2021 Universal Call of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). The undergraduate research scholarship was funded by the Research Support Foundation of the Federal District (FAPDF) through the University of Brasília’s Undergraduate Research Program (PIBIC-UnB).
  • REVIEWERS
    Rômulo Andrade de Souza Neto, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, Brazil. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1810-939X; Gabriela Gonçalves Silveira Fiates, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6533-7139
  • PEER REVIEW REPORT
    The peer review report is available at https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/97420

Edited by

  • EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
    Hélio Arthur Reis Irigaray, Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9580-7859
  • ASSOCIATE EDITOR
    Fabricio Stocker, Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6340-9127

Data availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available.

Publication Dates

  • Publication in this collection
    10 Aug 2026
  • Date of issue
    2026

History

  • Received
    24 Oct 2025
  • Accepted
    17 Mar 2026
Creative Common - by 4.0
Este é um artigo publicado em acesso aberto sob uma licença Creative Commons
location_on
Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas Rua Jornalista Orlando Dantas, 30 - sala 107, 22231-010 Rio de Janeiro/RJ Brasil, Tel.: (21) 3083-2731 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: cadernosebape@fgv.br
rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS
Reportar erro