Edinburgh Research Explorer

Conducting research with vulnerable populations

Citation for published version:

Gaitis, KK 2023, 'Conducting research with vulnerable populations: The case study by proxy method',
European Social Work Research, pp. 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1332/HXLX7075

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

10.1332/HXLX7075

Link:
Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer

Document Version:
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Published In:
European Social Work Research

General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)
and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and
abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Take down policy

The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer
content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please
contact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and
investigate your claim.

Download date: 27. May. 2024

 European Social Work Research • vol XX • no XX • 1–7 • © Authors 2023
Online ISSN 2755-1768 • https://doi.org/10.1332/HXLX7075
Accepted for publication 15 August 2023 • First published online 07 September 2023
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

research, policy and practice exchange

Conducting research with vulnerable populations:

the case study by proxy method
Konstantinos Kosmas Gaitis , kgaitis@ed.ac.uk
University of Edinburgh, UK

It can be difficult for researchers to access research participants from vulnerable populations.
Focusing on the single victim interviewee recruited for my human trafficking-related research,
this article will examine the method employed to conduct research with her, which I term ‘case
study by proxy’: a new hybrid qualitative methodological approach combining elements of the
case study and interview by proxy methods. This may prove to be a valuable methodological tool
for researchers studying vulnerable populations.

Key words human trafficking • vulnerability • qualitative research • case study • interviews

To cite this article: Gaitis, K.K. (2023) Conducting research with vulnerable populations: the case
study by proxy method, European Social Work Research, XX(XX): 1–7, DOI: 10.1332/HXLX7075

In my doctoral research undertaken at the University of Edinburgh, I critically assessed

how human trafficking is regulated across Britain, focusing on the UK’s National
Referral Mechanism (NRM): the support framework for trafficking victims. I
conducted discourse analysis of UK, Scottish and Northern Irish government policies,
carried out semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in England and Scotland,
and studied the case of a domestic sex-trafficking survivor, for whom I used the alias
‘Eve’. This article will discuss the complexities in accessing trafficking survivors for
interviews and the hybrid methodological approach employed to conduct research
with Eve that I term ‘case study by proxy’.This approach, grounded in the empirical
part of my study, has the potential to develop into a qualitative method that can
mitigate some of the issues surrounding research with trafficking survivors and other
vulnerable populations. This study was undertaken as part of my PhD in law at the
University of Edinburgh and draws on my thesis.
Conducting research with human participants is a challenging task.This challenge
multiplies when doing research with vulnerable populations (Langford and Bateman-
House, 2020). First, there are obstacles related to maintaining robust research ethics
throughout the study. Distinguishing between procedural ethics and ethics in practice,
the former refers to the approval process by the ethics committee of the researcher’s
institution and the latter to the ethics surrounding the empirical research (Guillemin
and Gillam, 2004). A key concern is the ‘power imbalance between researchers and
vulnerable groups as a researched population’ and the fact that qualitative research

1
Brought to you by University of Edinburgh | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/11/23 08:38 AM UTC
 Konstantinos Kosmas Gaitis

with vulnerable populations usually covers sensitive topics that may cause harm,
discomfort or distress to participants (Shaw et al, 2020: 279). Correspondingly, Antle
(2017) emphasises that researchers should be aware that some questions may be
sensitive for participants.
In my case, I sought and obtained full approval by the School of Law Research
Ethics and Integrity Committee at the University of Edinburgh before the interviews.
The ethics process helped me reflect early on the sensitive topics this research would
explore, with the principle of minimising harm for participants being paramount
for my research design (Mallia, 2018; Shaw et al, 2020; Drozdzewski and Dominey-
Howes, 2021). Key measures to minimise harm included: the use of participant
information sheets, informed consent forms and translators, if needed; full briefing
with interviewees before the interview; giving participants the right to withdraw
and retract their statements, even after the interview; holding interviews with victims
in the supportive environment of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) (van
Wijk and Harrison, 2013) or, if interviewing outside, having an NGO caseworker
together to safeguard the process; the implementation of specific protocols of research
if a victim experienced distress during the interview, as agreed after consultation
with relevant NGOs; the opportunity for debriefing processes for myself and the
interviewee by the NGO; and the possibility of conducting an interview by proxy,
using a caseworker as interviewer.
Second, there are obstacles around accessing participants and/or earning their
trust.The existence of several layers of gatekeepers should be considered carefully by
prospective researchers (McCauley-Elsom et al, 2009; Quinn, 2015). Van Wijk and
Harrison (2013) illustrate the importance of maintaining good relationships with
gatekeepers, as this may mitigate sampling and access issues (Flanagan and Hancock,
2010; Lyberg et al, 2014), while gatekeeping organisations constitute a ‘safe and
controlled environment’ for recruitment and research (van Wijk and Harrison, 2013:
578).Additional factors that may increase the unattainability of vulnerable populations
may be the illegal character of some of the activities they might be engaged with,
being ‘on the run’ from police, marginalisation and stigma (Goode, 2000).
The challenge of accessing trafficking victims for research was made more
difficult for an outsider researcher, such as myself. Insider research is conducted with
populations of which the researcher is a member (Kanuha, 2000). Contrastingly,
outsider researchers are unrelated to the population under study (Corbin Dwyer and
Buckle, 2009).Whether a researcher/interviewer possesses the insider or outsider status
usually depends on their gender, age, culture/ethnicity, class and shared experiences
with interviewees (Manohar et al, 2017). Both statuses present benefits and drawbacks.
Insider status may increase the researcher’s ‘legitimacy’, helping secure access and
achieve trust with participants (Corbin Dwyer and Buckle, 2009: 58–9). This is due
to the ‘trust surplus’ that exists between the researcher(s) and researched, based on the
common factors and experiences they share, which enhance their communication and
mutual understanding (Chhabra, 2020: 308). Still, insider status may lead to solipsism,
self-centredness, subjectivity and partiality (Fay, 1996; Cammett, 2013; Chhabra, 2020).
Contrastingly, outsider status may secure objectivity and critical-minded independence;
still, it may hinder access, trust and communication (Cammett, 2013; Manohar et al,
2017; Chhabra, 2020). Bishop (2008: 148) adds that outsiders may lack the ‘sensitive
and … responsible manner’ in conducting research compared to insiders.

2
Brought to you by University of Edinburgh | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/11/23 08:38 AM UTC
 Conducting research with vulnerable populations

In my case, I was an outsider not only towards the population I wanted to study but
also towards the gatekeeping practitioners/organisations. This transformed me to an
outsider on two levels, which significantly hindered my access to trafficking survivors.
To mitigate this, I spent time liaising with gatekeepers, interviewing several of them
not only to elicit crucial findings for my study but also to establish a strong bond
with them in order to gain access to victims. Through this, I managed to recruit a
domestic sex-trafficking survivor, for whom I use the alias ‘Eve’. Eve was trafficked in
England for ten years since early teenagerhood, until referred to the NRM, eventually
receiving a positive conclusive decision on her status as a victim approximately three
years before her interview.
From the start of our communication, Eve was keen to participate and have a
platform to share her experiences. This aligns with Gray’s (2015) observations when
interviewing young males in custody with a background of trauma on how his
participants started elaborating more freely on their lives only after he had informed
them that their discussions could revolve around whatever they wanted. This gave
them more control over the interview, making them more comfortable to contribute,
something that would not have been the case had a standardised and more restrictive
interview guide been used (Gray, 2015). Correspondingly, and in contrast with
the semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, my plan regarding interviewing
survivors was to employ more unstructured interviews in the form of narratives.These
are more suitable for interviewees who reflect on their life, helping researchers elicit
in-depth perspectives of how they experienced an event or time period, such as the
trafficking or support-receiving experience (Miller, 2000; Riessman, 2008).
This also corresponds with Peterson’s (2019) overarching notion: when someone
is willing to listen and give a platform to another person to share their experiences,
that person is – more often than not – going to honestly open up.This works for the
benefit not only of the listener – in this case, the researcher – but also of the sharing
individual’s ‘psyche’, as ‘people organise their brains with conversation’ (Peterson, 2019:
250).This may also prove to be a key research benefit for the studied population: giving
individuals the opportunity to open up about their experiences in a platform/setting
that is not strictly counselling or support-based, and therefore professionally focusing
on them as patients, but more research oriented, focusing on them as bearers of an
experience that is unknown and thus invaluable to the researcher (Gale, 1992). This
observation becomes important especially for vulnerable populations, who usually
already have several experiences of professional support settings. The change of the
talking platform to a more research-oriented, free-flowing one may be particularly
welcome by them and beneficial or even cathartic in a therapeutic sense (Gale, 1992).
However, the main challenge with Eve was planning the interview. Coordinating
three individuals’ schedules (Eve, myself and the identified former caseworker of Eve
who would safeguard the interview), Eve’s understandable unwillingness to travel
outside her remote area of residence and the fear of losing her if further delaying
the interview were my key concerns. Since I had the ethical clearance to hold an
interview by proxy, having predicted such obstacles with my supervisors in line with
Quinn’s (2015) advice to be flexible and anticipate the unexpected when researching
vulnerable populations, we proceeded with an interview between Eve and her former
caseworker, who resided much closer to her and was free to hold the interview on
Eve’s proposed dates.

3
Brought to you by University of Edinburgh | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/11/23 08:38 AM UTC
 Konstantinos Kosmas Gaitis

The interviewer’s background also helped me decide more comfortably in favour

of an interview by proxy. As Gomes et al (2016) explain, a key selection criterion for
proxy interviewers should be their knowledge of the researched topic to mitigate
the risk of negative impact on the study’s validity. Cammett (2013) adds the need for
interviewers to possess respect and openness, as well as an in-depth understanding of
the study. Therefore, the choice of Eve’s former caseworker as a proxy interviewer,
made primarily on the basis of practical impediments around planning the interview,
also fulfilled the aforementioned needs given the caseworker’s background in
supporting trafficking survivors and their personal, close and long-standing relationship
of trust with Eve, which ensured Eve’s safeguarding throughout the interview, as no
issues that could cause discomfort or distress to her would be discussed.The result was
a one-hour in-depth interview on Eve’s trafficking and support experience. I chose
to treat Eve’s interview as a case study, as it gave me the opportunity to conduct an
in-depth analysis of her single case, paying respect to her individual experience as a
domestic sex-trafficking victim in a historic trafficking case starting from childhood/
teenagerhood to adulthood and an NRM service user.This agrees with the nature of
the case study, which allows the researcher to dive into the unique, complex case of the
single unit and conduct an intensive examination to elicit crucial details (Stake, 1995).
Still, the use of a proxy interviewer did not come without limitations. Ideally, I would
have liked to personally conduct more interviews with Eve to establish a stronger
bond and further dissect topics, such as Eve’s traffickers’ profile or family background.
Additionally, achieving a fully research-minded/oriented setting over a counselling one
was not possible due to the use of Eve’s former caseworker as the proxy interviewer.
Having a social work background may benefit the researcher/interviewer in some
respects (for example, professional legitimacy and trauma understanding) but may
also hinder their relationship with the interviewee/social work client (Roesch-Marsh
et al, 2011). Still, the use of an interview guide containing questions prepared by me
and my supervisors that addressed certain points of interest, the interviewer’s long-
standing experience and knowledge of Eve’s case (Gomes et al, 2016), the established
relationship of trust they had with Eve, and the fact that they were no longer Eve’s
caseworker were factors that helped mitigate the limitations just outlined, striking a
crucial balance between maintaining a research-setting interview and safeguarding for
Eve’s needs as well as avoiding secondary traumatisation by asking questions that could
have brought discomfort to Eve (Antle, 2017). Additionally, the proxy interviewer,
based on their good understanding of my study (Cammett, 2013), asked their own
well-targeted, probing questions, which I personally would not have considered. A
good example was the interviewer’s focus on the word ‘rescue’ and the question,
“What do you think about the notion of rescue? You know, you’ve been rescued.
That’s it, isn’t it? You’ve been rescued?”, which led Eve to critically reflect on the
benefits received by the NRM.
Thus, Eve’s interview findings were powerful, her descriptions were detailed and
sometimes shocking when elaborating on her treatment by her traffickers or the
NRM, and her account reads so honest and natural, covering in good depth a wide
array of life periods. Despite not achieving an even more biographical level of detail,
Eve’s account provided insights that either confirmed or contradicted stakeholders’
interview findings, shed light on domestic survivors’ experience of the NRM, and
showcased Eve’s unique relationship with her traffickers, together with the impact the
NRM had on her psychological state and social reintegration. After all, what matters

4
Brought to you by University of Edinburgh | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/11/23 08:38 AM UTC
 Conducting research with vulnerable populations

in a case study is not whether findings can be generalised to a wider group (for
example, all victims) but whether they substantially help the research goals (Bryman,
2012). In other words, the key for a successful case study is not the generalisability
but the depth of its findings.
I conclude that when conducting research with vulnerable and thus hard-to-reach
populations, the researcher must anticipate a series of challenges in securing even
a single interview. Provided that it fits with the research goals of one’s study and
particularly when the researcher is aiming to gain deeper insight into the details of
a single case, the case study is therefore a good methodological option, as it relies on
a single unit. My experience with Eve showed that the case study can be employed
using a proxy interviewer, which then transforms this into what I term a ‘case study
by proxy’. This methodological approach, as it emerged grounded in my empirical
work, evidences promising potential as an innovation in the field of qualitative research
methodologies with vulnerable populations. Bearing in mind the aforementioned
limitations, this approach can work particularly well when recruiting an external
interviewer who is experienced in the research topic and trusted by the participant.
To assess the benefits and limitations of this approach in greater depth, and therefore
to evaluate its potential as a new methodology in the field, it would be well worth
it to employ it on a wider scale in interviews with more vulnerable participants
coming from various backgrounds. In conclusion, this approach may well satisfy the
need to produce helpful findings for the researcher while maintaining robust research
ethics by safeguarding the welfare of participants with respect to their rights and
individual needs.

ORCID iD
Konstantinos Kosmas Gaitis https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5210-8783

Funding
This work was supported by the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation in
Athens, Greece, under Grant F ZN 012-1/2017–2018. For the purpose of open access,
the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author
Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my doctoral supervisors, Professor Lesley McAra and Dr Steve
Kirkwood, from the University of Edinburgh for their invaluable advice and support.

Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

References
Antle, A.N. (2017) The ethics of doing research with vulnerable populations,
Interactions, 24(6): 74–7. doi: 10.1145/3137107
Bishop, R. (2008) Freeing ourselves from neocolonial domination in research: a Maori
approach to creating knowledge, in Y. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds) The Landscape of
Qualitative Research, London: Sage, pp 145–83.
Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, 4th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5
Brought to you by University of Edinburgh | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/11/23 08:38 AM UTC
 Konstantinos Kosmas Gaitis

Cammett, M. (2013) Using proxy interviewing to address sensitive topics, in L.

Mosley (ed) Interview Research in Political Science, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, pp 125–43.
Chhabra, G. (2020) Insider, outsider or an in-betweener? Epistemological reflections
of a legally blind researcher on conducting cross-national disability research,
Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 22(1): 307–17. doi: 10.16993/sjdr.696
Corbin Dwyer, S. and Buckle, J.L. (2009) The space between: on being an insider-
outsider in qualitative research, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1):
54–63. doi: 10.1177/160940690900800105
Drozdzewski, D. and Dominey-Howes, D. (2021) Researcher trauma: considering the
ethics, impacts and outcomes of research on researchers, in S. Henn, J. Miggelbrink
and K. Hörschelmann (eds) Research Ethics in Human Geography, London: Routledge,
pp 168–81.
Fay, B. (1996) Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science:A Multicultural Approach, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Flanagan, S.M. and Hancock, B. (2010) ‘Reaching the hard to reach’ – lessons learned
from the VCS (voluntary and community sector). A qualitative study, BMC Health
Services Research, 10: 92–100. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-92
Gale, J. (1992) When research interviews are more therapeutic than therapy interviews,
The Qualitative Report, 1(4): 1–4.
Gomes, I.M., Lacerda, M.R., Rodrigues, J.A.P., do Nascimento, J.D. and de Camargo,
T.B. (2016) Use of external interviewers in qualitative research: action plan,
Enfermeria Global, 44: 255–63.
Goode, S. (2000) Researching a hard-to-access and vulnerable population: some
considerations on researching drug and alcohol-using mothers, Sociological Research
Online, 5(1): 61–73. doi: 10.5153/sro.438
Gray, P. (2015) ‘I hate talking about it’: identifying and supporting traumatised young
people in custody, The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 54(5): 434–50. doi:
10.1111/hojo.12143
Guillemin, M. and Gillam, L. (2004) Ethics, reflexivity, and ‘ethically important moments’
in research, Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2): 261–80. doi: 10.1177/1077800403262360
Kanuha, V.K. (2000) ‘Being’ native versus ‘going native’: conducting social work
research as an insider, Social Work, 45(5): 439–47. doi: 10.1093/sw/45.5.439
Langford, A.T. and Bateman-House, A. (2020) Clinical trials for COVID-19:
populations most vulnerable to COVID-19 must be included, Health Affairs
Forefront, 12 June.
Lyberg, L., Stange, M., Harkness, J., Mohler, P., Pennell, B.E. and Japec, L. (2014) A
review of quality issues associated with studying hard-to-survey populations, in
R.Tourangeau (ed) Hard-to-Survey Populations, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp 82–108.
Mallia, P. (2018) WASP (write a scientific paper): ethics approval for a research study,
Early Human Development, 124: 46–8. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.04.022
Manohar, N., Liamputtong, P., Bhole, S. and Arora, A. (2017) Researcher positionality
in cross-cultural and sensitive research, in P. Liamputtong (ed) Handbook of Research
Methods in Health Social Sciences, Singapore: Springer, pp 1–15.
McCauley-Elsom, K., Gurvich, C., Lee, S., Elsom, S., O’Connor, M. and Kulkarni,
J. (2009) Vulnerable populations and multicentered research, International Journal of
Mental Health Nursing, 18: 108–15.

6
Brought to you by University of Edinburgh | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/11/23 08:38 AM UTC
 Conducting research with vulnerable populations

Miller, R.L. (2000) Researching Life Stories and Family Histories, London: Sage.
Peterson, J. (2019) 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, London: Penguin Books.
Quinn, C.R. (2015) General considerations for research with vulnerable populations:
ten lessons for success, Health & Justice, 3(1): 1–7.
Riessman, C.K. (2008) Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences, London: Sage.
Roesch-Marsh,A., Gadda,A. and Smith, D. (2011) It’s a tricky business! The impact of
identity work in negotiating research access, Qualitative Social Work, 11(3): 249–65.
doi: 10.1177/1473325011400486
Shaw, R.M., Howe, J., Beazer, J. and Carr, T. (2020) Ethics and positionality in
qualitative research with vulnerable and marginal groups, Qualitative Research, 20(3):
277–93. doi: 10.1177/1468794119841839
Stake, R.E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research, London: Sage.
Van Wijk, E. and Harrison,T. (2013) Managing ethical problems in qualitative research
involving vulnerable populations, using a pilot study, International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 12(1): 570–86. doi: 10.1177/160940691301200130

7
Brought to you by University of Edinburgh | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/11/23 08:38 AM UTC