Protecting a Vulnerable Subject
Launch library · evergreen read
Some subjects carry less power in an interview than others: through age, through distress, through unfamiliarity with how their words might be used once the sitting is over. Recognising that imbalance, and adjusting the approach to account for it, is a basic ethical obligation rather than an optional courtesy.
Protection can take several forms: slower pacing, clearer explanation of how the material will be used, a greater willingness to pause or stop entirely if distress appears. None of these measures need to compromise the honesty of the material gathered, and often they improve it by building genuine trust.
The instinct to gather compelling material can pull against this care, particularly when a vulnerable subject's account is also the most striking one available. Holding the line on care, even when it costs the interview something dramatic, is part of what separates ethical practice from simple extraction. Holding that line consistently is part of what separates careful practice from simple extraction.