Search results

Purpose: This research investigates the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on Portuguese and Brazilian consumers’ vulnerability in contrasting age groups. It seeks to establish the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and the pandemic’s impact on customer’s vulnerability to help companies design strategies to cope with this new market context and be prepared to address these vulnerabilities in a future international health crisis.

Design/Methodology/Approach: This study employs a quantitative research method to assess the different impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on consumer vulnerability. Based on Portuguese and Brazilian residents’ surveys, an age/country-segmented cross-cultural multi-group analysis was performed to understand the differences in vulnerability.

Findings: Outcomes proved how the pandemic aggravates distinctively the vulnerability dimensions of consumers living in Portugal and Brazil. Besides, results highlight significant differences in consumers’ vulnerability during the pandemic given their age group. A positive correlation between age and fear of COVID-19 was also verified.

Value: Results were obtained based on consumers’ perceptions and scores rather than postulated behaviors. The findings highlight the need for health prevention measures to avoid neglecting existing vulnerable groups, whilst verifying how COVID-19 has managed to proliferate consumers’ vulnerability. Suggestions are drawn for both firms and governments based on obtained results and existing literature. Exemplar business strategies to avoid these vulnerabilities are put forward and discussed. The potential business advantages of firms shaping their activity according to their customers’ current vulnerabilities, during international pandemics, are also pointed.

Research with vulnerable groups is crucial to get their input into public policy design that will directly impact on them. However, there are many methodological and ethical challenges involved in encouraging participation from groups with a wide range of intellectual, cognitive and physical capacities while ensuring that the rights and well-being of participants are protected. Rather than exploring ethical theories, this chapter is a case study describing the practical ethical considerations that were involved in designing and holding a series of focus groups with adult health and social care service users from vulnerable cohorts. It is based on a series of focus groups which the Institute of Public Health (IPH) held with specified cohorts as part of a policy development process on adult safeguarding for the Department of Health (DOH) in Ireland. The four cohorts were people with intellectual disability, cognitive impairments, significant mental health challenges and nursing home residents. This chapter does not describe the findings of the focus groups but outlines the ethical and methodological considerations that arose in designing and conducting this research, and the practical ethical safeguards employed to mitigate risk and comply with Irish and EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation governing health research. It outlines the ethical issues around protecting confidentiality and using incentives to encourage participation, how individuals' capacity to give informed consent was maximized, the risk-assessment and mitigation procedures used to prevent harms arising and the measures put in place to provide follow-up emotional support to participants.

This chapter is set within global public sector reform processes, as policing is part of public service delivery. It explores the question of who is “vulnerable”, how vulnerability is assessed, and why? It considers the measurement of vulnerability, and how this influences policing practice and the role of the Police in contemporary policing.

The research is qualitative in nature and reliant on interview and documentary source data. It draws on concepts such as resilience, co-production, professionalisation and training as organising themes in which to make sense of how we reimagine the management of Vulnerability and the demands they place at the “core, the heart and the centre” of policing today.

Police management in the UK are attempting to stay true to the Peelian Principle of police efficiency alongside balancing the changing remit of what they have to contend with on a day-to-day basis – this is the paradox. Both Vulnerability and Risk are demonstrated to be increasingly interconnected alongside the developments of public health policing in the UK and elsewhere. Collectively, these concepts help to examine an increasingly complex landscape for the police to manoeuvre within, as they respond to a myriad of competing demands on services.

Vulnerability is the core, the heart and the centre of meaningful human experiences. With increasing pressures on resources, political scrutiny and changing roles and responsibilities, the police as an organisation (both in the UK and internationally) are increasingly responding to competing demands for their service. These demands are represented in this chapter as a paradox of change.

This chapter examines the term Vulnerability and interrogates the assumptions held about it as a concept often mutually agreed upon but not mutually understood. Policy and practice emerging out of a drive to identify those deemed vulnerable is common to all aspects of work across multiple state agencies such as schools, care and social work sectors but across these professions, those regarded as vulnerable are often grouped together without an in-depth analysis of cause. Identity Politics provides a lens from which to examine these issues and to begin to address some of the ways individuals may be regarded as vulnerable. Emerging from this, an analysis of different aspects of identity gives rise to modes of vulnerability and what this might mean for professionals engaged with individuals whose needs are multiple and complex. The political context for an examination of how vulnerability is understood and addressed across state sectors is introduced.

The UK government’s attempt to “prevent” terrorism and extremism in the university sector is rightly seen as an intolerant threat to academic freedom. However, this development has not come from a “right wing” authoritarian impulse, but rather, replicates many of the discussions already taking place in universities about the need to protect “vulnerable” students from offensive and dangerous ideas. Historically, the threat to academic freedom came from outside the university, from pressures exerted from governments, from religious institutions who oversaw a particular institution or from the demands of business. Alternatively it has been seen as something that is a particular problem in non-Western countries that do not have democracy. While some of these problems and pressures remain, there is a more dangerous threat to academic freedom that comes from within universities, a triumvirate of a relativistic academic culture, a new body of identity-based student activists and a therapeutically oriented university management, all three of which have helped to construct universities as safe spaces for the newly conceptualized “vulnerable student.” With reference to the idea of vulnerability, this chapter attempts to chart and explain these modern developments.

Since the late 1980s, social theorists championed for the birth of a new era, in which societies were increasingly exposed to growing global risks. The presence of increasing risks including natural disasters, technological errors, terrorist attacks, nuclear wars and environmental degradation suggests that human beings are becoming increasingly vulnerable. Therefore, an understanding of vulnerability is crucial. Vulnerability is often considered as the potential to suffer from physical attacks. This approach, however, has limited capacity to explain many forms of suffering including not only physical aspects, but also mental, social, economic, political and social dimensions. This chapter draws on the vulnerability literature to present an overarching framework for the book. It starts with an outline of the concept origins, then discusses its relationship with the risk society thesis before forming conceptualisation. The chapter then points out the key similarities and differences between vulnerability and other concepts such as risk, disaster, poverty, security and resilience. The authors rework an existing “security” framework to develop a new definition of the concept of vulnerability. Finally, the authors look into the root causes and the formation of vulnerability within social systems.

Anti-bullying legislation has been adopted in every state to prevent the victimization of youth, but the focus on deterring and criminalizing individual behavior can obscure the contextual factors that contribute to aggression. This theoretical paper engages sociological literature to understand the impact of recent anti-bullying legislation on students’ experiences.

We discuss stigma and account-making theory to theorize the ways students become particularly vulnerable to victimization and may or may not be sufficiently protected under the law. We also engage criminological theories to understand how punishment may not be sufficient for preventing aggressive behavior but may instead lead students to employ strategies to avoid being caught or punished for their behaviors.

We argue that the majority of current anti-bullying definitions and protocols in use are ambiguous and insufficient in protecting vulnerable groups of students, particularly students with disabilities, overweight students, and LGBT +  students.

Our findings suggest that schools should seek to understand and alter the school-wide cultures and norms that permit aggressive behavior in the first place, in turn creating more inclusive school environments.

Reusing existing data sets of health information for public health or medical research has much to recommend it. Much data repurposing in medical or public health research or practice involves information that has been stripped of individual identifiers but some does not. In some cases, there may have been consent to the reuse but in other cases consent may be absent and people may be entirely unaware of how the data about them are being used. Data sets are also being combined and may contain information with very different sources, consent histories, and individual identifiers. Much of the ethical and policy discussion about the permissibility of data reuse has centered on two questions: for identifiable data, the scope of the original consent and whether the reuse is permissible in light of that scope, and for de-identified data, whether there are unacceptable risks that the data will be reidentified in a manner that is harmful to any data subjects. Prioritizing these questions rests on a picture of the ethics of data use as primarily about respecting the choices of the data subject. We contend that this picture is mistaken; data repurposing, especially when data sets are combined, raises novel questions about the impacts of research on groups and their implications for individuals regarded as falling within these groups. These impacts suggest that the controversies about de-identification or reconsent for reuse are to some extent beside the point. Serious ethical questions are also raised by the inferences that may be drawn about individuals from the research and resulting risks of stigmatization. These risks may arise even when individuals were not part of the original data set being repurposed. Data reuse, repurposing, and recombination may have damaging effects on others not included within the original data sets. These issues of justice for individuals who might be regarded as indirect subjects of research are not even raised by approaches that consider only the implications for or agreement of the original data subject. This chapter argues that health information should be available for reuse, information should be available for use, but in a way that does not yield unexpected surprises, produce direct harm to individuals, or violate warranted trust.