Uncharted Terrains: New Directions in Border Research Methodology, Ethics, and Practice

Chapter One. Vulnerable Immigrant "Subjects" : Definitions, Disparate Power, Dilemmas, and Desired Benefits

25 chapter one Vulnerable Immigrant “Subjects” Definitions, Disparate Power, Dilemmas, and Desired Benefits Jessie K. Finch and Celestino Fernández Over the past few decades, there has been a growing interest in and concern with unauthorized immigration as a topic of research in several disciplines , including but not limited to sociology, political science, economics, psychology, anthropology, history, law, Mexican American studies, and women’s studies. As political, cultural, and economic interests continue to focus on and expand the topic of immigration, research in this area will continue to raise questions of methodology and ethics. A growing focus on research involving human “subjects” specifically calls forth concerns about the vulnerability of immigrants, particularly poor, unauthorized immigrants , who participate in research projects. We refer to the humans involved in research from this point on not as “subjects,” as the official codes of ethics refer to them, but primarily as “participants,” assuming and encouraging the active participation of those people who assist researchers in their study of human phenomena. Whereas other methods not involving human participants directly (archival studies, statistical analysis, literature reviews, content analysis, etc.) may not have as many substantial ethical implications for these immigrant populations, instances of abuse of research participants have raised the subject of vulnerability. Although it is vital, and unquestionably good research methodology, that scholars should apply the same ethical principles to all human participants in order to maintain quality in research and in order to keep expediency from 26 • The Big Picture taking precedence over ethical concerns, unfortunately this has not always been the reality. These ethical issues have been insufficiently studied, possibly due to the multidisciplinary nature and methodological diversity of research on immigrant populations. Therefore, in this chapter, we seek to answer the call of Van Liempt and Bilger (2009), who contend that due to the “growing power and legal marginalization of ever-larger immigrant populations and increasing overlap of research and policy agendas,” it is time, now more than ever, to expand our understanding of the vulnerability issue (Van Liempt and Bilger 2009: 1). Specifically, we will examine the varying definitions of vulnerability, both historically and contextually, based on disparate power in research relationships, how vulnerability presents dilemmas for researchers, and how researchers can be sensitive to this topic while still achieving the desired benefits of the research. These factors all interrelate and should make the issue of vulnerability a concern and top priority of immigration researchers who are utilizing human participants , particularly those studying unauthorized immigrants as well as other highly vulnerable immigrant groups such as migrant (forced) sex workers, smuggled children, refugees, and asylum seekers. Specifically, these populations tend to be of greatest importance around the southwestern U.S. border region. A Definition of Vulnerable Based on a History of Research Ethics Based on historical accounts of abuses, there have been growing efforts in the social and medical sciences to protect human participants. Famous cases of abuse in biomedical contexts tend to be better known and more egregious. Examples include the Nazi experimentation on Jewish prisoners during the Holocaust; the Willowbrook State Hospital incident, in which mentally handicapped children at a New York state hospital were intentionally infected with hepatitis as a condition of being admitted; the Tuskegee case, in which the U.S. Public Health Service continued a study for 40 years of poor, poorly educated African American males with syphilis who were denied medical care for this disease after they had been diagnosed in order to conduct autopsies to determine the full effects of the disease,1 and the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital study, in which patients were implanted with cancer cells without their knowledge or consent (Jonsen 1999: 108–9). Additionally, in September 2010, it was brought to light that from 1946 to 1948, American public health officials intentionally, Vulnerable Immigrant “Subjects” • 27 but without the participants’ knowledge, infected about 700 Guatemalans with syphilis and gonorrhea in order to test the effectiveness of penicillin. Both Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, and Hilary Clinton, secretary of state, issued apologies to Guatemala, and President Barack Obama issued a renewed call for the protection of human subjects (McNeil 2010). In the social sciences, there are also well-known examples of maltreatment of human participants, such as Laud Humphrey’s Tearoom Trade, in which the author deceived over 100 participants in public homosexual encounters in numerous ways, including observing said acts, obtaining private information about participants, following...