Content uploaded by Freda Hui
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Freda Hui on May 30, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
International Journal of
Market Research
2023, Vol. 65(2-3) 237–258
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14707853221137467
journals.sagepub.com/home/mre
Researching vulnerable participants:
The role of critical reflexivity in
overcoming methodological
challenges
Mona Nikidehaghani, Freda Hui-Truscottand Corinne Cortese
University of Wollongong, Australia
Abstract
In this paper, we critically reflect on the methodological challenges encountered during a qualitative
research project that examined the effectiveness of the Australian National Disability Insurance
Scheme (NDIS). We draw on Lewis and Mehmet’s (2021) approach that combines aspects of
autoethnography and reflexivity to focus on three key areas, inclusive research, informed consent,
and recruitment, which we have considered in terms of mistrust and the roles of the gatekeeper.
This paper contributes to our understanding of researching vulnerable and marginalised populations
and highlights learnings for marketers as they seek to identify how to adequately capture the voices
of the often voiceless. Key implications include acknowledging vulnerability as a multi-dimensional
concept, adopting a continual reflective approach, selecting appropriate channels of communi-
cation, and considering team dynamics before and during research implementation. By showcasing
our learning experiences, we guide other market researchers who are interested in exploring
similarly marginalised or vulnerable groups.
Keywords
reflexivity, vulnerable populations, NDIS, intersectionality, disability
Introduction
Vulnerability and marginalisation have been the focus of debate in several disciplines, including
marketing (Mackenzie et al., 2014). Despite multiple articulations of vulnerability (Baker et al.,
2005), the term ‘vulnerable population’is yet to be clearly defined in marketing research as there is
no consensus about what constitutes vulnerability (Hill & Sharma, 2020). Individual characteristics,
social stereotypes, business and environmental forces (Hill & Sharma, 2020: p. 551) can all impact
Corresponding author:
Freda Hui-Truscott, School of Business, Faculty of Business and Law, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue,
Wollongong, NSW 2522.
Email: fredah@uow.edu.au
vulnerability and “shape the experience of it”(Shultz & Holbrook, 2009: p. 124). For the purposes
of this work, we recognise vulnerability as a state of powerlessness that may arise from the in-
teractions of individuals and populations with external conditions (Baker et al., 2005: p. 134, italics
in original). People may encounter various lived experiences that contribute to their marginalisation.
In recent years, marginalised populations such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
(Lewis et al., 2021), victims of sexual violence (Fischer, 2015), ethnic minorities (Webber, 2010)
and refugees (Kabadayi, 2019) have been the topic of market research. However, researchers are yet
to adequately include the voices of vulnerable populations in marketing research (Ong et al., 2020,
2021). It has been suggested that qualitative research can promote social justice by giving voice to
the voiceless (Johnson & Parry, 2016). Including marginalised people in qualitative marketing
research can shed light on their experiences (Zhou et al., 2021) and provide a better understanding of
the factors that contribute to vulnerabilities (Hills & Sullivan, 2006;Small et al., 2020). Ultimately,
this may improve the effectiveness of marketing efforts and their impact on vulnerability and
vulnerable populations (Shultz & Holbrook, 2009). However, as discussed by Hill (1995), the
vulnerability of the research population can impact each stage of the research project, from the
formulation of research aims and questions to the research approach and ethical considerations. For
instance, research that problematises homelessness from the perspective of “personal weakness”
misrepresents the issue by not including important variables such as the decrease in low-cost
housing in the study design (Hill, 1995: p. 144). As such, to avoid misrepresenting the voices of
marginalised populations, marketing scholars must discuss effective ways to conduct respectful
research that investigates issues related to marginalised people (Lewis & Reynolds, 2021).
This paper contributes to our understanding of researching vulnerable and marginalised pop-
ulations and highlights learnings for marketers as they seek to identify how to adequately capture the
voices of the often voiceless in relation to public policies and programs that impact their lives. The
observations in this study are based on a collaborative project that we undertook with the St Vincent
de Paul Society (SVDP) to examine the effectiveness of the Australian National Disability Insurance
Scheme (NDIS) for people with disabilities from low socio-economic backgrounds residing in
Illawarra, New South Wales. The introduction of the Australian NDIS in 2013 revolutionised the
allocations of public funding for people with disabilities (Kendrick et al., 2017). After series of
trials, the NDIS was progressively rolled out in Australia from 1 July 2016
1
(Cortese et al., 2021).
By 2017, the NDIS was still in its infancy and its effectiveness and accessibility, particularly for
people with disabilities from low socio-economic background, was yet to be fully understood
(Cortese et al., 2021). As such, we collaborated with the SDVP on an exploratory research to explore
the views of people with disabilities from low socio-economic backgrounds towards the NDIS and
examine the effectiveness of the program from their perspectives. The SVDP is a lay Catholic
charitable organisation that provides a range of financial and non-financial assistance to those in
need (St Vincent de Paul Society, 2017). It began its operation in Australia in the 1850s (Pedemont,
1993) and currently provides a range of support services to people experiencing some form of
disadvantage. Its programs are designed to promote social justice and raise awareness about the
causes of poverty and inequality. Our partnership with SVDP in this project enabled us to reach this
important cohort –dubbed ‘hard to reach’because of difficulties faced when trying to engage this
segment of the population (NDIA, 2017: p. 59).
In this paper, we critically reflect on our research journey, how we started, how we collaborated
with the partner organisation, how we altered our methodological approach, and how we eventually
represented our participants’views. In particular, we reflect on the ways in which we deconstructed
our values and opinions to avoid misrepresenting the views and voices of marginalised people
(Hickson, 2016). By showcasing our learning experiences, we guide other market researchers who
238 International Journal of Market Research 65(2-3)
are interested in exploring similarly marginalised or vulnerable groups or who, like us, find
themselves doing so as they go along in their research journey.
In this paper, we draw on Lewis and Mehmet’s (2021) approach that combines aspects of
autoethnography and reflexivity to critically reflect on the research process and re-analyse our
experiences. Autoethnography is an approach that uses researchers’personal experiences to analyse
and interpret practices (Adams et al., 2015: p.1). Primary data for this paper is the research team’s
notes as recorded in the research team’s personal journal and transcripts of the recordings. By using
this data, we examine our research practice and re-analyse our decisions to offer alternate ways of
researching vulnerable populations.
In the following sections, we first review existing literature related to researching people with
disabilities. We use this to critically reflect on our responses to challenges identified by other
scholars as well as other issues we faced during our research. We then discuss our approach and data
collection. This is followed by our reflection on our research journey and a discussion on the
implications for marketing research. The paper ends with some concluding comments.
Research involving people with disabilities
Extant literature identifies multiple methodological challenges for qualitative researchers exploring
issues related to marginalised people (see for example, von Benzon et al., 2017;Liamputtong,
2007). This includes barriers to data collection, fieldwork and ethical considerations (Thummapol
et al., 2019). Specifically, researchers investigating issues relating to people with disabilities face
formidable methodological challenges, including participants recruitment (Nicholson et al., 2013),
ethical considerations such as gathering informed consent (Sigstad & Garrels, 2018), and for-
mulating research that improves the lives of people with disabilities (Hollomotz, 2017).In this
section we review the main challenges when researching issues related to people with disabilities as
identified in the literature.
Inclusive research
The importance of inclusive consumer-driven research is widely recognised in the field of healthcare
research (Boote et al., 2002). Similarly, conducting inclusive research which involves the voices of
people with disabilities has been part of disability research since the 1970s. Along with the rise of
disability movements, disability scholars have stressed that people with disabilities should not be the
object of studies but also should be active participants in research (Barnes, 1996;Oliver, 1992). It is
discussed extensively that involving people with disabilities in research about their lives can
potentially reveal issues not visible to researchers (Isaacson, 2021). Inclusive research which
involves voices of people with disabilities can be emancipatory (Zarb, 1992). It can inform policies
for people with disabilities (Nguyen et al., 2015), contribute to the evaluation of programs (Treloar,
2021;Cortese et al., 2021) as well as impact the social and economic status of people with dis-
abilities (Guerrero-Arias et al., 2020). With the widespread emphasis on undertaking inclusive
research for people with disabilities, researchers have drawn on technological support, such as
digital storytelling (Manning, 2010), and photovoice (Akkerman et al., 2014). This initiative has
seen people with disabilities contribute to research projects in different forms, for example as
participants (Cleaver et al., 2010), advisors (Nind & Vinha, 2014), co-researchers (Bigby &
Frawley, 2010), and as members of ethics committees (McDonald & Kidney, 2012).
Despite recent initiatives to meaningfully include people with disabilities in research projects,
researchers often face methodological challenges when attempting to design inclusive research
Nikidehaghani et al. 239
programs (Sigstad, 2014;Maes et al., 2021). For instance, when people with disability act in
advisory roles, their expertise might be limited to issues relating to their experiences and not
necessarily applicable to other people with different circumstances (Nind, 2011).
There are multiple perspectives on the research-related ethical consideration and risks for this
vulnerable group as well as how best to address those risks (Goldsmith & Skirton, 2015). In the
following section we review main ethical considerations when researching vulnerable population.
Informed consent
In the context of research, informed consent refers to the participants’choice which is “based on
sufficient information and adequate understanding of both the proposed research and the impli-
cations of participating in it”(The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australian
Governments, 2018). Despite its importance, there is no general agreement regarding the threshold
of sufficient understanding for consent to be valid (Sreenivasan, 2003;Xu et al., 2020). The in-
tention of collecting informed consent is to inform participants of their “rights, responsibilities and
any risks prior to their participation in the study”(Perrault & Keating, 2017: p. 50). Hugman et al.
(2011) argues that when researching issues related to vulnerable communities, the process of
collecting informed consent should be achieved through a “relational approach”which includes a
process of groups meeting and discussing the implications of the research in particular “what is
offered back to participants in ways that are meaningful to them”(p.1284).
Ethical issues in regards to obtaining informed consent and participant recruitment are chal-
lenging for both qualitative and quantitative research approaches when investigating experiences of
people with disabilities (Carey & Griffiths, 2017;Goldsmith & Skirton, 2015). Historically, people
with learning difficulties have not been considered as being able to make decisions for themselves
nor to fully understand information presented to them (Brook & Bowler, 1995). These perceptions
have changed and people with intellectual disabilities have been recognised as individuals with
“reliable information”who hold “valid opinions”and a “right to express them”(Stalker, 1998: p. 5).
It is in this way that researchers have initiated innovative procedures to gather informed consent
from people with disabilities, in particular those with intellectual disabilities. Methods such as
simplifying information by presenting them in separate forms or delivering information in video-
format with illustrative scenes and voice-over summary (Dunn et al., 2006) as well as delivering
information over time with the understanding reached in “the doing”(Brooks & Davies, 2008:p.
130) have been applied to gain informed consent from these vulnerable groups.
The literature on research with people with intellectual disabilities addresses the issue of in-
formed consent by improving the quality of information and encouraging participants to express
views. For example, Cameron and Murphy (2007) used illustrated summary letters and explained
them verbally and visually to the potential participants in the presence of the participant’s carers who
consented to participate. Researchers such as Kellett and Nind (2001) and Knox et al. (2000)
addressed issues of informed consent by including carers, advocates or family members who
understand the participant and could recognise when they were uncomfortable or distressed.
However Cameron and Murphy (2007) warn that support workers could use gentle persuasion and
influence client choice and threaten the voluntary nature of the decision. They recommend col-
lecting and reporting non-participation data to demonstrate the effectiveness of consent procedures.
240 International Journal of Market Research 65(2-3)
Recruitment
People with disabilities remain a “hard to recruit”population (Banas et al., 2019: p. 1058). Despite
the prevalence of disability thorough societies, people with disabilities are not clustered within a
particular community. In addition, traditional sampling methods are ineffective due to the het-
erogeneous nature of disabilities as well as variable locations and other vulnerabilities (Ellard-Gray
et al., 2015). For instance, it may be necessary to make connections with multiple organisations and
intermediaries to contact people with disabilities (Lennox et al., 2005). Written recruitment ma-
terials could also render the research inaccessible for some groups such as people with reading
disabilities or visual impairments (Banas et al., 2019). Recruiting people with disabilities in research
projects often occurs through contacting their carers (Nicholson et al., 2013). However, carers or
paid workers may not have the capacity to commit to the research project. For example, they might
be too busy and burned out, such that they are unwilling to take on the additional load of par-
ticipating in research (Tuffrey-Wijne et al., 2008). Moreover, financial difficulty experienced by
people with disabilities (Cortese et al., 2021) hinders access to digital devices and reliable internet
connections and thus may impede recruitment via digital media (Banas et al., 2019).
Mistrust. Mistrust of the research process may be a barrier to recruiting people with disabilities
(Bonevski et al., 2014). Historically, people with disabilities have been stigmatised and subjected to
discrimination and subordination (Goodley, 2014;Soldatic & Pini, 2009). The historical mis-
treatment of people with disabilities by those who assessed their level of disabilities and eligibility
for financial support (Nikidehaghani & Hui, 2017) as well as capacity to participate in different
aspects of society (Nikidehaghani et al., 2021;Soldatic & Pini, 2009) can affect willingness to
participate in research (Banas et al., 2019). Due to the history of objectification of people with
disabilities for research purposes and past cases where trust was broken (McDonald et al., 2015),
people with disabilities might feel exploited simply by being asked to participate. In the absence of
an existing relationship with the researcher, they could see the researchers as another outsider
“profiting”from their disability (Banas et al., 2019: p.1060).
Mistrust is also intensified by intersectionality (Ellard-Gray et al., 2015). Disability is multi-
dimensional, and people with disabilities hold multiple positionalities (Goodley, 2016). They have
multiple roles and identities and belong to more than one group, which means their disability is not
in isolation from their “gender, religion, income, age, cultural and social back grounds”(Goethals
et al., 2015: p. 77) and they experience multiple oppressions and discriminations (Guerrero-Arias
et al., 2020). As such, they may share mistrust common to other vulnerable people and minorities
such as, indigenous populations, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning,
Asexual, Ally + Other Identities (LGBTQA+), financially distressed populations, and immigrants.
The role of the gatekeeper. Recruiting vulnerable populations is often done through gatekeepers
(Clark, 2011). Similarly, when researching people with disabilities, access is attained through
gatekeepers such as families and carers or support providers (Lennox et al., 2005). Gatekeepers can
facilitate a safe and informative recruitment process. However, using gatekeepers requires that re-
searchers gain the trust of the gatekeeper (Emmel et al., 2007;Bonevski et al., 2014). The gatekeepers
must be convinced of the benefits of the research and that people in their care will be protected
throughout the research process (Clark, 2011). Notably, gatekeepers can prevent access to potential
participants (Stalker, 1998). For example, caregivers might perceive the research as an additional
burden on their caregiving responsibilities (Lennox et al., 2005) in particular if they are suspicious of
theresearchorholdnegativeassumptionsaboutacademicresearch(Banas et al., 2019). Advocacy
Nikidehaghani et al. 241
groups may also reject some research opportunities due to being overwhelmed by too many re-
searchers approaching them or not being convinced of the benefits of the research (Williams, 2020).
Disability service providers may lack the resources to fulfil their obligations in the research process
(Crook et al., 2016). In addition, partnership with larger organisations could be challenging as the
researcher must navigate tiers of management before gaining approval for the recruitment process
(Lennox et al., 2005). Furthermore, once the relationship with the gatekeeper is secure and the
recruitment process is established, careful formation and nurturing of the direct relationship with
research participants is important so that individuals feel respected and so that the trust between the
research team and the gatekeeper is maintained.
In the subsequent sections, we explain our approach and then present our critical reflections on
the above-mentioned challenges and the issues that we faced during a research focusing on the
effectiveness of the NDIS for people with disabilities. By reflecting on the process to overcome
those challenges and our research experience, we provide some practical recommendations for other
scholars investigating issues related to marginalised people.
Reflexivity and autoethnography
We used reflexivity to guide the formation, implementation, and completion of our research project.
Reflexivity is a key aspect of qualitative research (Berger, 2015;Sherry Jr. & Schouten, 2002)and
has been discussed across a range of disciplines such as sociology (Mauthner & Doucet, 2003)and
social work (D’Cruz et al., 2007). In the marketing discipline, theories on reflexivity have mostly
focused on researchers’reflexivity (Bettany & Woodruffe-Burton, 2009;Thompson et al., 1998).
However, recently marketing scholars have discussed participants’reflexivity (Kariippanon et al.,
2020) a process that recognises participants as reflexive actors and encourages them to reflect on
their assumptions and actions throughout the research process (Beckett & Nayak, 2008). More
recent work on reflexivity has initiated a debate about a reflective process that occurs in a collective
setting among multiple actors (Kariippanon et al., 2020).
Researchers’reflexivity, which is the focus of this paper, involves the researcher in a continual
internal dialogue of their positions and subjectivities in the research (Kariippanon et al., 2020)and
questioning the basis of their thinking and assumptions (Takhar & Chitakunye, 2012). Reflexivity
entails acknowledging the power embedded within the multiple aspects of the research process
(Pillow, 2003). It encourages recognising the role of the researcher in the production of knowledge
(Tadajewski & Brownlie, 2009) and addresses the power imbalance between the researcher and
researched (Bettany & Woodruffe-Burton, 2007). When researchers are reflexive, they engage in the
process of self-evaluation of their positions and authorities as an interpreter and author (Alvesson &
Sk¨
oldberg, 2017).
A critical aspect of reflexivity is to understand that research is theory-laden (Berger, 2015). More
importantly, researchers’identity and philosophical beliefs explicitly and implicitly shape the
selection and application of theoretical and methodological strategies (Mauthner & Doucet, 2003).
Researchers are implicated in the research process and their epistemological assumptions,
knowledge and personal experiences inevitably will impact the interpretation. For example, the
researcher’s ethnicity, social class, gender, race, and even project expectations will influence the
research process and outcomes (Pillow, 2010;Takhar & Chitakunye, 2012). In this way, critical
reflexivity requires researchers to be clear about their ontological and epistemological positions to
themselves and participants (Mauthner & Doucet, 2003). Qualitative researchers, in particular, must
reflect on their biases, identities, motives and cultural expectations in conducting the research and
242 International Journal of Market Research 65(2-3)
interpreting the data (Berger, 2015). The decision to report and highlight certain findings can reflect
the researcher’s beliefs and biases (Alvesson & Sk ¨
oldberg, 2017).
In the section that follows, we reflect on how the research team’s background, values and
expectations of research impacted the research design and influenced the direction of the research.
To do so, we present an autoethnographic account of our experiences (Lewis & Mehmet, 2021).
Autoethnography enables us to reconsider how “we think, do research and maintain relationships”
(p. 8). Autoethnography engages the reader with the narrative and offers alternatives to dominant
research practices (Ellis et al., 2011). It is an approach that forefronts personal experiences, re-
searcher’s insider knowledge of cultural practices and social issues, relationships with self and
others, complex meaning and reflexivity (Adams et al., 2015). The stories and experiences collected
during the research process were not merely participants’stories. As discussed earlier, qualitative
researchers’biases, social and cultural experiences impact the interpretation and must be included as
part of the data. As such, we draw on research team notes and recordings during the research process
as researchers’self-observation of a phenomenon (Davies, 2012). We then apply reflexivity to re-
analyse our experiences and offer alternate ways of researching vulnerable populations.
Data generation and collection
Primary data for this study include researchers’notes as recorded in their journals, recordings of the
research team meetings and transcripts of the sessions with the research participants. Data was
collected in three stages; project preparation, project implementation, post-project reflection
(Table 1).
The first stage of data collection occurred in 2017, during which we identified elements relevant
this work. This included: the research team’s motivation to conduct the project, research objectives
and methodology, approaching the gatekeeper, the process to apply for funding and ethics clearance
(2017/466).
Table 1. Data Collection.
Stage Data Explanation
Stage 1: Project
preparation (2017)
- Written notes Research team identified elements relevant this work:
- Motivation to conduct the project,
- Research objectives
- Research methodology
- How to approach the gatekeeper,
- Funding application - Ethics clearance.
Stage 2: Project
implementation (2018)
- Transcripts of the
interview
- Recordings of research
team meetings
- Written notes
- Research team emails
The research team met weekly to discuss the process
and kept notes about the focus areas identified in
stage 1 and other aspects experienced by the
research team during the field work and
interpretation.
A“Google Doc”was used to allow all research team
members to make notes. This aided the reflective
stage by facilitating the collation of thoughts,
concerns and suggestions about specific parts of the
project, including ethical and procedural matters.
Stage 3: Post-project
reflection (2020)
Data developed in stages
1 and 2
Research team drew on reflexivity to reanalyse their
approach during the research.
Nikidehaghani et al. 243
The project commenced in 2018. During stage 2, the research team kept notes about the focus
areas identified in stage 1 and other aspects experienced by the research team during the field work
and interpretation. This comprised transcripts of the interview recordings, written notes and research
team’s emails about collaboration with the gatekeeper, adherence to ethics requirements, as well as a
shift in our approach.
At stage 3 research team shared notes and information gathered in pervious stages. We drew on
reflexivity to reanalyse our approach to overcome the challenges we experienced (Bettany &
Woodruffe-Burton, 2009). In our reflexive approach we followed Lewis and Mehmet (2021) and
identified aspects of our experiences relevant to the objectives of this study. In this way, our re-
flections were reduced to “manageable portions”(p. 290) before interpreting them.
Reflection as a process of analysis
Research team biases and motivation to conduct the research project
The team comprises of three female scholars, each from a different cultural and ethnic background,
and at different stages of their careers. We have an established track record of working together;
before commencing this project we had successfully completed multiple research endeavours
together focusing on a range of disability-related issues. Through our research experiences, we have
formed a cohesive team; we understand each others’capabilities and shortfalls and we can aid each
other in overcoming personal and professional limitations. In the remainder of this section, we
discuss our background and motivation to complete this research project.
Researcher 1’s story. Research is not separated from the researcher (Saldaña, 2014). The researcher’s
ontological assumption and their position about the social and political context of the research topic
will impact the research process (Carson et al., 2001). This was the case for me. I migrated to
Australia in 2012 as an international student. Being part of a religious minority in my home country,
I endured years of marginalisation and social and economic discrimination. Once I moved to
Australia, my vulnerability was intensified by economic factors and my ethnicity. Feeling connected
to vulnerable populations and experiencing years of inequalities, I developed a critical realism
perspective (Easton, 2002). As such, in my PhD candidature I investigated the power of arbitrary
norms of society in forming the behaviour of people with disabilities throughout the history of
disability welfare benefits in Australia from 1908 to 2016 (Nikidehaghani, 2017).
In July 2017, I finalised my PhD thesis. My dissertation demonstrated a long history of stig-
matisation of people with disabilities and a politicised and underfunded disability welfare system in
Australia. Coinciding with the submission of my PhD, the Australian Government announced the
roll-out of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in the Illawarra Shoalhaven region
(NSW Government, 2015). Underlying the creation of NDIS was the ideal of recognising the social
rights of people with disabilities and increasing social inclusion and participation among people
with disabilities and their families and carers. Moving away from a block- or service-focused
funding model, the aim of the NDIS is to provide individually tailored support packages. The NDIS
is “a social insurance scheme, not a welfare system”(NDIS, n.d.-b) and intends to empower people
with disabilities with the ability to self-direct disability-related funding. Central to the NDIS is the
notion of choice and control. Choice and control give participants the “flexibility to ensure they can
choose how to spend their funds to live the life they want”(NDIS, n.d.-a: , p.1). The introduction of
the NDIS in my residential area gave me hope that people with disabilities can finally enjoy choice
and control over the type of support they need. This motivated me to discuss a potential research
244 International Journal of Market Research 65(2-3)
project focusing on the effectiveness of the NDIS for people with disabilities residing in the Ill-
awarra region with Researcher 2 and Researcher 3 (Hui et al., 2018).
Researcher 2’s story. I have been a member of the SVDP since 2010 preparing statistics for the
Wollongong conference. As a volunteer in the Wollongong conference, I visit the clients of SVDP in
their homes to enable SVDP to provide the best possible assistance in response to their call for help
such as urgent financial assistance, food or food vouchers, clothing, advocacy, and providing
referral information on a fortnightly basis.
Prior to this project, I had conducted research in the disability area with Researcher 1 and
Researcher 3 (Nikidehaghani et al., 2017;Nikidehaghani and Hui, 2017). My activities at SDVP
prompted me to undertake research on this group of disadvantaged people with disabilities. Among
the clients of SVDP, over 25% rely on the Disability Support Pension from Australian Government.
Most of them require financial assistance and show a lack of financial knowledge. Initially I wanted
to examine the effectiveness of the NDIS on people with disabilities who are socio-economically
disadvantaged and to find out the types of assistance required through SVDP’s clients. To do that, I
felt it important to interview people who had sought and received assistance from SVDP. This group
of people are characterised as ‘hard-to-reach’by the NDIS. I hoped that the research project will
increase public awareness of the hardship faced by those who have disabilities.
Researcher 3’s story. My motivation for joining this research project was personal: my father has
been an amputee since the age of 30, years before I was born. He worked every day of his life until
he retired at age 70. He has never claimed a disability benefit; I doubt he would know how. He is not
from a low socio-economic background but the literacy required to access the NDIS would certainly
be beyond him.
Before this project, I had collaborated with Researcher 2 and Researcher 1 on a historical study of
disability welfare provision in Australia. It was interesting to transpose that context against what
appeared to be a market-based model of disability service provision. Neoliberal solutions to social
problems is my particular area of research interest, and which I have considered in the context of
climate change (Andrew & Cortese, 2011), carbon accounting standard setting (Andrew and
Cortese, 2013), and transparency reporting initiatives (Cortese & Andrew, 2020). Drawing on
Researcher 2’s connections at SVDP enabled us to collect empirical data with a particularly
marginalised segment of the population –people with disabilities who are also considered to be
from low socio-economic backgrounds.
Conducting research
In this section, we map our research journey. We start by discussing how we collaborated with the
gatekeeper, recruited participants, gained informed consent and participant’s trust. We then discuss
how, after completing a few interviews, we noticed a problem in our research design. By reflecting
on the actions we took to overcome the issue, we discuss the outcomes of our approach.
Accessing participants: Collaboration with the gatekeeper. Considering that the emphasis of the NDIS is
on introducing an individualised funding method, our research team intended to understand the
effectiveness of the NDIS for people with disabilities from a low socio-economic background.
Drawing on Researcher 2’s connection with the SVDP, we decided that collaborating with the
SVDP will give access to this particular cohort.
Nikidehaghani et al. 245
In Australia, SVDP is led by the National Council, which convenes three times a year as a forum
for State or Territory Councils to report on their activities, discuss matters of common concern and
make decisions on action to be taken. On a more local level, Councils are formed to provide a link
between grass roots groups within the Society. The role of SVDP local Conferences and their
members is to provide grassroots support by visiting people in their homes and by providing fi-
nancial assistance to people in need. The Wollongong based conferences comprises 82 members and
provided assistance to over 3000 people during 2018. More specifically, it assisted 110 people with a
disability during that time who were potentially eligible to apply for NDIS support.
Given the experience and local knowledge of the members of the Wollongong Conference, it was
an important link to individuals in the local community who are in need, living with a disability, and
who may be eligible for support under the NDIS. As such, the SVDP (Wollongong Conference) was
a point of contact for identifying people in the Wollongong community who may have had some
experience with the NDIS. Gaining approval from an organisation to research their clients or access
its data is a complex process (De Laine, 2000). It requires a formal process of gaining entry to the
organisation as well as forming an informal relationship between the researcher and the gatekeepers
(Singh and Wassenaar, 2016).
As a SVDP Wollongong conference member, Researcher 2 has been home visiting people living
with a disability who sought help from the Society. She expressed her concern at a weekly
conference meeting about the impact of NDIS on those with low socio-economic status and
considered ways in which the lives of people with disabilities could be assisted. She suggested that a
collaborative research project would be worthwhile to investigate the effectiveness of the NDIS in
the Illawarra region. Clark (2011) explains one reason for gatekeepers to engage with the research
process is that they perceive the research would allow them to fulfil their purpose and interest with
greater effect.
Researcher 2’s research proposal was in line with the objectives of the SVDP and would assist the
organisation to better advocate for social justice. With the support of other conference members, the
Wollongong Central Council of SVDP was contacted regarding the possibility of a research
collaboration. Meetings were arranged to discuss a possible research collaboration with the Deputy
Executive Office of Wollongong Central Council and the Membership Engagement and Devel-
opment Officer.
As the gatekeeper, SVDP works directly with local people who experience disadvantage. They
requested that each of the participants in the research should receive a $75 food voucher in ac-
knowledgement of their time. This amount was challenged by the University Ethics committee and
in the research grant application committee. We communicated this with the gatekeepers and given
the potential benefits of the project for SDVP, they agreed to reduce the amount to $35. We also had
to discuss the circumstances of the potential research participants with the Faculty and University
Ethics committee and explain that the amount was not a payment to the gatekeepers (Corra and
Willer, 2002) or for purchasing the view of the participants.
Gatekeepers might block access due to the potential risk of researcher for the organisation or their
clients (Amundsen et al., 2017). While SVDP acknowledged the benefits of the project for the
organisation and their clients, they were concerned about the risks for the organisation. As such, the
research team undertook training sessions to become familiar with the SVDP procedures, risks and
safety issues that could arise during the interviews. To protect SVDP client’s details, all interviews
and visits were arranged by SVDP. Although the majority of the interviews were conducted in one of
the SVDP offices, some were conducted at the participants’residences due to their particular
disabilities.
246 International Journal of Market Research 65(2-3)
Recruitment. The recruitment process began with the SVDP as the point of contact for identifying
potential participants. These potential participants were selected from the database of SVDP who
were receiving disability support pension and were who were under the age of 65. A list of 103
potential interviewees was compiled. Invitations were sent to each potential participant with an
information pack (information sheet and a consent form). Many clients in the sample lived in
temporary accommodation and we had some doubt about whether or not the information would be
received by many of the intended recipients. Therefore SVDP staff members made follow up calls to
invite clients to an interview. This also highlights another of the difficulties in contacting this cohort
of vulnerable people. If their clients agreed to conduct the interview, SVDP representatives would
arrange a date and time for the interview. Follow up calls were also arranged 2 weeks before the
interview day to remind their clients. Given the sensitivity of these clients and respect for con-
fidentiality, all written and phone communication was via a SVDP representative.
Informed consent. Due to the low levels of literacy among most of the potential participants, both the
researchers and SVDP representatives had to explore the development of a more user-friendly
information sheet and consent from. As a result, a simplified version of the information pack with
the essential information were sent to the potential participants to facilitate understandability. For
example, a simple Yes or No reply slip as to further contact was attached with a stamped self-
addressed envelope for return mail. Before we conducted the interview, we also verbally explained
the procedures and consent form once again before commencing the interview.
Further, many of SDVP clients are from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) back-
grounds and may feel an element of mistrust towards researchers prying into their private lives. As
noted, both Researcher 2 and Researcher 1 come from other ethnic backgrounds and have en-
countered problems with language and becoming part of the Australia culture. This has enabled us
to have compassion for and gain trust of those people for whom English is not their first language or
who might have felt culturally marginalised.
Overcoming mistrust. One common barrier to community-academic collaborations is that non–
university partners and research participants tend to be wary about academic researchers. There are
no straight forward solutions to reduce scepticism and mistrust other than to establish strong
relationships by continually communicating the objectives of the research (LeGris et al., 2000).
Trusting relationships with participants is a pre-requisite for researchers to be considered as
insider-researchers (Gregory & Ruby, 2011). Without a trusting relationship, participants are more
likely to provide standard answers to bring the interviews to an end and satisfy the researchers
(Cortazzi & Jin, 2006). Establishing trusting relationships would be more likely to provide an
opportunity to co-construct meaning for stories from the people with a disability. The presence of a
representative from SVDP during the interview was therefore necessary to overcome the barrier of
mistrust from the participants. All the interviews were conducted by a representative of SVDP with
an academic researcher. Researcher 2 was able to act as both an insider-researcher as a member of
SVDP and an outsider-researcher in this research project. Although not all of the researchers are
insider-researchers who share with the participants the same background as working with people
with a disability, the experience of home visits provide the skills considered to be more than an
outsider-researcher (Banas et al., 2019). However, we noted that Researcher 2’s involvement in the
project could have contributed to participants’resistance to engaging with the research process as
they could fear that their responses might jeopardize the services they were receiving from SDVP.
To overcome this potential resistance, before commencing the interviews, Researcher 2 explained
Nikidehaghani et al. 247
the aim of the project and that the research was independent of the SDVP services and all in-
formation would be kept confidential.
Limitations experienced
We began slowly with our first day of interviewing and spoke to just three participants. The research
team had a debriefing session following this first day to review our process and approach, our
questions, and the responses. Our research was based on the assumption that the NDIS would have
addressed the limitations of previous disability services. Accordingly, we had intended to examine
the effectiveness of the NDIS and explore ways in which we could help our participants make better
use of their NDIS funding. However, the people we had interviewed stated they had never heard of
the NDIS or decided not to access it. Importantly, the lack of participants’awareness and un-
derstanding of the NDIS was not noted by the SVDP. When Researcher 2 discussed the project with
the SVDP, they were under the assumption that their clients had applied for the NDIS since they
would have met the eligibility criteria. As such, they were interested in a project that could assist
their clients to better utilise their NDIS funding.
Action and outcome: Reflecting on our assumption. As a team, we were at a crossroads in our research
project and needed to make a decision. We could focus on people who were already accessing the
NDIS or we could investigate the reasons why the NDIS was ineffective or being accessed by people
who could potentially benefit from it. A change in sample would permit us to capture the level of
effectiveness of the national program for certain participants, but it would mean abandoning the
commitments to participants who had already agreed to interviews with us. As a team, we reflected
on our research approach and assumptions. Our reflections centred on the realisation that we had
been presented with an opportunity to observe the intersectionality of vulnerability. We concluded
that “we had a chance to give a voice to this marginalised cohort of the population who were
essentially left out of the NDIS”.
Bettany and Woodruffe-Burton’s (2009: p. 671) framework of possible reflexivities in marketing
research explains that a “perspectival reflexivity”involves questioning the ontological assumptions
of the research and mobilises multiple voices and perspectives within the research. As we reviewed
our early interviews, we noted that, it was not that our participants were ineligible for NDIS support.
They simply could not imagine why or even how they would apply: “What is the benefitin
applying?”…“I need assistance with necessities, food, electricity bills and things like that”. When it
is the most basic of needs that consume daily thoughts, navigating the complexities of a scheme like
the NDIS to access much more detailed supports may seem superfluous
2
. This caused us to reflect on
our assumption that the NDIS was an emancipatory program for people with disabilities from a low
socio-economic background.
Reflecting on our experiences helped us to change our perspectives about the NDIS and its
effectiveness for our cohort. For example, Researcher 2’s many years of face-to-face meetings with
disadvantaged people and their circumstances has given her an intimate insight into their problems
and the difficulties they face in day-to-day living. Researcher 2 explained to the research team that
SVDP clients are in need of basic human needs such as shelter and food: “we often visit people who
live in temporary accommodations and are just happy to have a roof over their head”. Researcher 1
reflected on her personal experiences and findings of her PhD that disability policies do not
necessarily reflect the needs or views of people with disabilities. This promoted discussion that the
vulnerability of people with disabilities from a low socio-economic background was not included in
the design of the NDIS and they were falling through the cracks. As Researcher 3 drew on her
248 International Journal of Market Research 65(2-3)
research experiences of neoliberalisation of the public sector, the market, as it so often does,
included those with the capacity to participate in the NDIS program and excluded, or marginalised,
those without the requisite competence to navigate it.
Ultimately, the decision to include voices of this group of vulnerable people was not difficult. We
could still achieve the aim of the research by demonstrating that the NDIS was not effectively
addressing the needs of our participants. As such, with renewed energy we turned our attention to
understanding our participants’life experiences and their needs to see where they were positioned in
terms of the NDIS. Critical reflexivity encourages researchers to question assumptions and world
views that have underpinned the research process and consider mobilising alternate perspectives
(Thompson, 2002). In marketing research, engaging in continual self-reflection can lead to a more
collaborative research approach that contributes to addressing the power imbalance inherent within
the research encounter (Bettany & Woodruffe-Burton, 2009). Similarly, once we reflected on our
assumption about the NDIS, we were better equipped to capture the views of the participants. We
also noted that participants were more willing to engage with the research process. They did not feel
as if they were being researched and started to share their daily challenges and needs. Notably, the
presence of Researcher 2 during the interviews was crucial for facilitating the discussions. Her
experiences of home visits enabled us to build trust with the participants and motivated them to
share their life stories, and reasons for not accessing the NDIS or utilising their NDIS funding.
Lessons learned and implications for future marketing research
A continual reflexivity approach enabled us to question our perspectives towards the NDIS (Bettany
& Woodruffe-Burton, 2009). Our cultural backgrounds, experience across many different research
projects, and personal experiences of marginalisation, assisted in making the decision to abandon
our presumed objectivity towards the NDIS to better capture the voices of our participants. However
on reflection, had we integrated considerations of intersectionality of our participants’vulnerability
from the outset of our project, we may have begun our research journey on a very different path. Our
participants’lack of awareness of the NDIS was even hidden from the gatekeeper that we enlisted to
collaborate with us on our research project. Therefore some key lessons from our experience are to
reflect on the basis of research assumption to better plan the research process, to be agile early on in
the research process, and to be willing to change direction if necessary. Another solution is to
include on the research team a person undergoing the precise experiences that the research seeks to
investigate. However, as discussed by Bigby et al. (2014) this is not always practicable, particularly
when researching issues related to those who are powerless. We attempted to overcome this
limitation by ongoing reflection on our biases as well as constant collaboration with the gatekeeper.
Noteworthy, for academic researchers, any shift in research design must also be reflected in the
ethics process. If required, academics should consult with the ethics committee to ensure any
approvals maintain relevance, as was the case with our research. However, if an adjustment to ethics
approvals is necessary, it should be completed prior to research recommencing.
Research involving issues about vulnerable communities calls for careful consideration of the
research project to minimise risks for both the researcher and the researched (Dickson-Swift et al.,
2007). Reflecting on our experiences, the introductory training session organised by SDVP assisted
us in better preparing for the risks associated with the research, in particular for conducting in-
terviews at the participants’residences. Further, Researcher 1’s experiences of hardship and Re-
searcher 2’s experiences of home visits and prior interactions with the participants, as well as the
presence of a representative from SDVP, enabled us to minimise vulnerabilities and risks expe-
rienced by researchers. Nonetheless, as argued by Downey et al. (2007) and Jafari et al. (2013) it is
Nikidehaghani et al. 249
pivotal for marketing researchers to consider the impacts of research on the researchers and
formulate strategies and guidelines to address researcher well-being.
The closeness of our research group meant that we were constantly reflecting on what we were
observing, what was going right (and wrong), and what the possibilities for change might be. These
conversations were supplemented by our detailed weekly reflection meetings where we considered
at length our conceptualisations of vulnerability vis- `
a-vis those held by our participants. We noticed
some of the participants we interviewed had decided not to access the NDIS because “I do not need
it”, and “I did not want to waste resources”. It became apparent that despite their circumstances,
some did not consider themselves vulnerable or in need of assistance under the Scheme. Hence, it is
critical that marketing researchers not be rigid in their definitions of vulnerability because vul-
nerability is multi-dimensional, and people can be vulnerable at some point in their lives. Those who
we consider vulnerable may not see themselves in that way.
Researcher reflexivity can potentially lead to emancipatory marketing research (Gordon &
Gurrieri, 2014;Olesen, 2000). It not only enables marketing researchers to critique the status quo,
rather facilitates the formulation of guidelines for actions (Bettany & Woodruffe-Burton, 2009).
Similarly, reflexivity enabled us to comprehend and address the limitations of the NDIS for
vulnerable people with disabilities as well as formulate recommendations to overcome the issues.
While, traditionally, academics are expected to share knowledge through journal publications,
when researching vulnerable populations, it is important to consider alternate dissemination
channels. After the collation of data, a preliminary report was provided to SVDP for comment. They
approved the overall findings of the report. As part of the agreement of the research project, we had a
public launch of the finished report. We invited the media, local politicians, and NDIS-related
organisations to increase public awareness of the difficulties faced by people with disability, and
especially those also with low socio-economic status. After our discussions with the SVDP, it was
arranged by SVDP that all the participants should be invited to the public launch. To protect
participants’privacy, no name tags were required at the launch. The launch demonstrated that
participants were partners in the research (Becker et al., 2004) and provided an opportunity for
participants to publically express their views and connect with NDIS service providers.
We also shared our findings at an industry conference where multiple service providers and
policymakers were present. After completing the research, SVDP became an NDIS coordinator in
the Illawarra region: This work has ensured that more people from lower socio-economic back-
grounds with disabilities in the Illawarra have awareness of, and access to, the NDIS”(Deputy
Executive Officer, SDVP). This project also influenced national discussions on the effectiveness of
the NDIS. For instance, the Queensland Productivity Commission (2021), the Australian Human
Rights Commission report 2021 “Keeping kids safe & well: Your voices”, and the Children and
Young People with Disability Australia (national peak body) drew on this project when recom-
mending improvements to community awareness of the NDIS.
Concluding comments
Critical reflection plays an important role when investigating marginalised populations. Our aim in
this paper was to highlight the importance of reflexivity when researching vulnerable communities.
As shown in the paper, it was only due to the reflective component in our research process, during
which we deconstructed our biases, that we were able to adequately capture the needs of our
participants.
Importantly, our experiences taught us that those we consider ‘vulnerable’may not consider
themselves as such. It is the responsibility of the researcher to understand the nuances of each
250 International Journal of Market Research 65(2-3)
situation and to integrate the voice of participants when scoping and implementing a research
strategy. At the same time, it is unrealistic to assume that marketing researchers hold all knowledge
about a specific segment of the population and must thoughtful throughout their research journey
and reflect on their own biases by engaging in a purposeful dialogic process.
Researchers need to consider four key pragmatic inclusions: (1) plan to incorporate critical
reflexivity, as you would any other methodological practice. Ensure it is embedded throughout the
research journey, not just at the end; (2) use technologies to collate reflective insights. Centralise
where researchers make notes and ensure the tool used allows modes of reflection beyond written
text. That way, researchers can upload images or short videos; (3) conduct formal reflective in-
terviews with the research team. To do this, either have a lead researcher within the group or use an
external interviewer to ask reflective questions. This ensures the team is addressing any biases,
enables challenging of assumptions, and allows documenting of situational factors or probing of
ethical concerns prior to proceeding to the next stage of research; and (4) document the interviews
and include them as part of your research write-up. This will allow the reader and the research team
to better understand the reasons and factors that impacted research questions and findings. These
practical points are of particular importance since as shown in this paper, situational context will
often require researchers to pivot to meet the needs of those at the centre of research.
A research process rarely goes to plan, and remaining focused on a mutually beneficial outcome,
while maintaining agility and adaptability is vital. Finally, researchers must go beyond their tra-
ditional channels of communication and engage the media and vested stakeholders to champion the
needs of those they research. Such endeavours provide the opportunity to reshape practice and
policy.
Acknowledgments
We are immensely grateful to the participants and the St Vincent de Paul Society for their support of the research
project. We are also indebted to the insightful comments of the guest editors and two anonymous reviewers.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Mona Nikidehaghani https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7905-288X
Freda Hui-Truscott https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8339-9333
Corinne Cortese https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8406-4842
Notes
1. The Australian Government introduced the NDIS on 1 July 2013. After a trial phase known as the NDIS
Launch, it began to be progressively rolled out across Australia from July 2016. The staged national
geographical roll-out of the scheme was completed on 1 July 2020 (NDIS, 2020).
2. Overall 31% of the sample were unaware of the NDIS, 41% had heard of it but decided not to apply, 19%
were on the NDIS and 9% had applied but rejected.
Nikidehaghani et al. 251
References
Adams, T. E., Ellis, C., & Jones, S. H. (2015). Autoethnography. The International Encyclopedia of Com-
munication Research Methods,1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0011
Akkerman, A., Janssen, C. G., Kef, S., & Meininger, H. P. (2014). Perspectives of employees with intellectual
disabilities on themes relevant to their job satisfaction. An explorative study using photovoice. Journal of
Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities,27(6), 542–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12092
Alvesson, M., & Sk¨
oldberg, K. (2017) Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. Sage.
Amundsen, D. L., Msoroka, M. S., & Findsen, B. (2017). “It’sa case of access.”The problematics of accessing
research participants. Waikato Journal of Education,22(4), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v22i4.425
Andrew, J., & Cortese, C. (2011). Accounting for climate change and the self-regulation of carbon disclosures.
Accounting Forum,35(3), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2011.06.006
Andrew, J., & Cortese, C. (2013). Free market environmentalism and the neoliberal project: The case of the
climate disclosure standards board. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,24(6), 397–409. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cpa.2013.05.010
Baker, S. M., Gentry, J. W., & Rittenburg, T. L. (2005). Building understanding of the domain of consumer
vulnerability. Journal of Macromarketing,25(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146705280622
Banas, J. R., Magasi, S., The, K., & Victorson, D. E. (2019). Recruiting and retaining people with disabilities
for qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research,29(7), 1056–1064. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1049732319833361
Barnes, C. (1996). Disability and the myth of the independent researcher. Disability & Society,11(1), 107–112.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599650023362
Becker, H., Roberts, G., Morrison, J., & Silver, J., (2004). Recruiting people with disabilities as research
participants: Challenges and strategies to address them. Mental Retardation,42(6), 471–475.
Beckett, A., & Nayak, A. (2008). The reflexive consumer. Marketing Theory,8(3), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1470593108093558
Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research.
Qualitative Research,15(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
Bettany, S., & Woodruffe-Burton, H. (2009). Working the limits of method: The possibilities of critical re-
flexive practice in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Marketing Management,25(7–8),
661–679. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725709x471550
Bettany, S. & Woodruffe-Burton, H. (2007). Progressing a taxonomy of possible reflexivities: Guidelines for
reflexive practice in consumer research. Advances in Consumer Research,34, 703.
Bigby, C., & Frawley, P. (2010). Reflections on doing inclusive research in the “making life good in the
community”study. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability,35(2), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.
3109/13668251003716425
Bigby, C., Frawley, P., & Ramcharan, P. (2014). Conceptualizing inclusive research with people with in-
tellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities,27(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jar.12083
Bonevski, B., Randell, M., Paul, C., Chapman, K., Twyman, L., Bryant, J., Brozek, I., & Hughes, C. (2014).
Reaching the hard-to-reach: A systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research
with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology,14(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/
10.1186/1471-2288-14-42
Boote, J., Telford, R., & Cooper, C., (2002). Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research
agenda. Health Policy,61(2), 213–236.
252 International Journal of Market Research 65(2-3)
Brook, S. L., & Bowler, D. (1995). Community adjustment of mobile people with learning difficulties after total
hospital closure: A preliminary report. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,39(3), 177–185. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.1995.tb00498.x
Brooks, M., & Davies, S. (2008). Pathways to participatory research in developing a tool to measure feelings.
British Journal of Learning Disabilities,36(2), 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2007.
00476.x
Cameron, L. & Murphy, J. (2007). Obtaining consent to participate in research: The issues involved in in-
cluding people with a range of learning and communication disabilities. British Journal of Learning
Disabilities,35(2), 113-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2006.00404.x.
Carey, E., & Griffiths, C. (2017). Recruitment and consent of adults with intellectual disabilities in a classic
grounded theory research study: Ethical and methodological considerations. Disability & Society,32(2),
193–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1281793
Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative marketing research. Sage.
Clark, T. (2011). Gaining and maintaining access: Exploring the mechanisms that support and challenge the
relationship between gatekeepers and researchers. Qualitative Social Work,10(4), 485–502. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1473325009358228
Cleaver, S., Ouellette-Kuntz, H., & Sakar, A. (2010). Participation in intellectual disability research: A review
of 20 years of studies. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,54(3), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01256.x
Corra, M., & Willer, D. (2002). The gatekeeper. Sociological Theory,20(2), 180–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1467-9558.00158
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (2006). Asking questions, sharing stories and identity construction: Sociocultural issues
in narrative research. In Trahar (Ed.), Narrative research on learning: Comparative and international
perspectives (pp. 27-46). Symposium Books.
Cortese, C., & Andrew, J. (2020). Extracting transparency: The process of regulating disclosures for the
resources industry. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,33(2), 472–495. https://doi.org/10.
1108/aaaj-11-2017-3226
Cortese, C., Truscott, F., Nikidehaghani, M., & Chapple, S. (2021). Hard-to-reach: The NDIS, disability, and
socio-economic disadvantage. Disability & Society,36(6), 883–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.
2020.1782173
Crook, B., Tomlins, R., Bancroft, A., & Ogi, L. (2016). ‘So often they do not get recruited’: Exploring service
user and staff perspectives on participation in learning disability research and the barriers that inhibit it.
British Journal of Learning Disabilities,44(2), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12120
Davies, C. A. (2012). Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching selves and others. Routledge.
D’Cruz, H., Gillingham, P., & Melendez, S. (2007). Reflexivity, its meanings and relevance for social work: A
critical review of the literature. The British Journal of Social Work,37(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/
bjsw/bcl001
De Laine, M. (2000). Fieldwork, participation and practice: Ethics and dilemmas in qualitative research. Sage.
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2007). Doing sensitive research: What
challenges do qualitative researchers face? Qualitative Research,7(3), 327–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1468794107078515
Downey, H., Hamilton, K., & Catterall, M. (2007). Researching vulnerability: What about the researcher?
European Journal of Marketing.
Dunn, A., Kroese, B. S., Kroese, B. S., Thomas, G., McGarry, A., & Drew, P. (2006). ‘Are you allowed to say
that?’using video materials to provide accessible information about psychology services. British Journal
of Learning Disabilities,34(4), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2005.00373.x
Nikidehaghani et al. 253
Easton, G. (2002). Marketing: A critical realist approach. Journal of Business Research,55(2), 103–109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0148-2963(00)00145-4
Ellard-Gray, A., Jeffrey, N. K., Choubak, M., & Crann, S. E. (2015). Finding the hidden participant: Solutions
for recruiting hidden, hard-to-reach, and vulnerable populations. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods,14(5), 1609406915621420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621420
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social research/
Historische Sozialforschung, 273–290.
Emmel, N., Hughes, K., Greenhalgh, J., & Sales, A. (2007). Accessing socially excluded people—trust and the
gatekeeper in the researcher-participant relationship. Sociological Research Online,12(2), 43–55. https://
doi.org/10.5153/sro.1512
Fischer, E. (2015). Towards more marketing research on gender inequality. Journal of Marketing Management,
31(15–16), 1718–1722. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2015.1078397
Goethals, T., De Schauwer, E., & Van Hove, G. (2015). Weaving intersectionality into disability studies
research: Inclusion, reflexivity and anti-essentialism. DiGeSt. Journal of Diversity Gender Studies,2(1–
2), 75–94.
Goldsmith, L., & Skirton, H. (2015). Research involving people with a learning disability –Methodological
challenges and ethical considerations. Journal of Research in Nursing,20(6), 435–446. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1744987115591867
Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. Routledge.
Goodley, D. (2016). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. Sage.
Gordon, R., & Gurrieri, L. (2014). Towards a reflexive turn: Social marketing assemblages. Journal of Social
Marketing,4(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsocm-02-2014-0015
Gregory, E., & Ruby, M. (2011). The ‘insider/outsider’dilemma of ethnography: Working with young children
and their families in cross-cultural contexts. Journal of Early Childhood Research,9(2), 162-174.
Guerrero-Arias, B. E., Agudelo-Orozco, A., & Pava-Ripoll, N. A. (2020). Intersectional identity chronotopes:
Expanding the disability experience. Disability & Society,35(10), 1660–1681. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09687599.2020.1719041
Hickson, H. (2016). Becoming a critical narrativist: Using critical reflection and narrative inquiry as research
methodology. Qualitative Social Work,15(3), 380–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325015617344
Hill, R. P. (1995). Researching sensitive topics in marketing: The special case of vulnerable populations.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,14(1), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569501400113
Hill, R. P., & Sharma, E. (2020). Consumer vulnerability. Journal of Consumer Psychology,30(3), 551–570.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1161
Hills, D., & Sullivan, F. (2006) Measuring public value 2: Practical approaches. Work Foundation London.
Hollomotz, A. (2017). Successful interviews with people with intellectual disability. Qualitative Research,
18(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117713810
Hugman, R., Pittaway, E., & Bartolomei, L. (2011). When ‘do No harm’is not enough: The ethics of research
with refugees and other vulnerable groups. The British Journal of Social Work,41(7), 1271–1287. https://
doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr013
Hui, F., Cortese, C., Nikidehaghani, M., Chapple, S., & McCombie, K. (2018). Hard to Reach: Examining the
national disability insurance scheme experience –a case study of Wollongong. University of Wollongong.
business.uow.edu.au/research/crop/ndis-research.
Isaacson, L. (2021). Why people with disabilities must Be included in research. International Journal of
Market Research,63(5), 537–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/14707853211041807
Jafari, A., Dunnett, S., Hamilton, K., & Downey, H. (2013). Exploring researcher vulnerability: Contexts,
complications, and conceptualisation. Journal of Marketing Management,29(9–10), 1182–1200. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2013.798677
254 International Journal of Market Research 65(2-3)
Johnson, C. W., & Parry, D. C. (2016). Fostering social justice through qualitative inquiry: A methodological
guide. Routledge.
Kariippanon, K., Gordon, R., Jayasinghe, L., & Gurruwiwi, G. (2020). Collective reflexivity in social
marketing through ethnographic film-making: The Yolngu story of tobacco in Yirrkala, Australia.
Marketing Theory,20(1), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593119870215
Kellett, M. & Nind, M. (2001). Ethics in quasi-experimental research on people with severe learning dis-
abilities: Dilemmas and compromises. British Journal of Learning Disabilities,29(2), 51-55. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1468-3156.2001.00096.x.
Kendrick, M., Ward, M., & Chenoweth, L. (2017). Australia’s national disability insurance scheme: Looking
back to shape the future. Disability & Society,32(9), 1333–1350. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.
1322493
Knox, M., Mok, M. & Parmenter, T. R. (2000). Working with the experts: Collaborative research with people
with an intellectual disability. Disability & Society,15(1), 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09687590025766.
LeGris, J., Weir, R., Browne, G., Gafni, A., Stewart, L., & Easton, S. (2000). Developing a model of col-
laborative research: the complexities and challenges of implementation. International Journal of Nursing
Studies,37(1), 65-79.
Lennox, N., Taylor, M., Rey-Conde, T., Bain, C., Purdie, D. M., & Boyle, F. (2005). Beating the barriers:
Recruitment of people with intellectual disability to participate in research. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research,49(4), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00618.x
Lewis, C., & Mehmet, M. (2021). An autoethnographic exploration of rural travel with a food intolerance.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,47, 289–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.
011
Lewis, C., Prayag, G., & Pour, S. (2021). Linking travel motives to identity and travel behavior of the
Australian LGBT market during COVID-19. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,38(7), 725–741.
Lewis, C., & Reynolds, N. (2021). Considerations for conducting sensitive research with the LGBTQIA+
communities. International Journal of Market Research,63(5), 544–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/
14707853211030488
Liamputtong, P. (2007). Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. Sage.
Mackenzie, C., Rogers, W., & Dodds, S. (2014). What is vulnerability and why does it matter for moral theory.
In C Mackenzie, W Rogers & S Dodds (Eds.), Vulnerability: New essays in ethics feminist philosophy (pp.
1–29). Oxford University Press.Introductionpp.
Maes, B., Nijs, S., Vandesande, S., Van keer, I., Arthur-Kelly, M., Dind, J., Goldbart, J., Petitpierre, G., & Van
der Putten, A. (2021). Looking back, looking forward: Methodological challenges and future directions in
research on persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in
Intellectual Disabilities,34(1), 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12803
Manning, C. (2010). ‘My memory’s back!’Inclusive learning disability research using ethics, oral history and
digital storytelling. British Journal of Learning Disabilities,38(3), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1468-3156.2009.00567.x
Mauthner, N. S., & Doucet, A. (2003). Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data
analysis. Sociology,37(3), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385030373002
McDonald, K. E., & Kidney, C. A. (2012). What is right? Ethics in intellectual disabilities research. Journal of
Policy Practice in Intellectual Disabilities,9(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-1130.2011.00319.x
McDonald, K. E., Schwartz, N. M., Gibbons, C. M., & Olick, R. S. (2015). “You can’t be cold and scientific”
Community views on ethical issues in intellectual disability research. Journal of Empirical Research on
Human Research Ethics,10(2), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264615575512
Nind, M. (2011). Participatory data analysis: a step too far? 11(4), 349–363.
Nikidehaghani et al. 255
NDIA (2017). NDIA Annual Report 2016-17. NDIA. https://www.ndis.gov.au/about-us/publications/annual-
report/annual-report-2016-17.
NDIS (2020). Delivering the NDIS: Roll-out complete across Australia as Christmas and Cocos Islands join
world-leading scheme.https://www.ndis.gov.au/news/4889-delivering-ndis-roll-out-complete-across-
australia-christmas-and-cocos-islands-join-world-leading-scheme
NDIS (n.d.-a). Fact sheet - choice and control. https://www.ndis.gov.au/people-disability/fact-sheets-and-
publications
NDIS (n.d.-b). Operational guidelines. https://www.ndis.gov.au/Operational-Guidelines
Nguyen, X. T., Mitchell, C., de Lange, N., & Fritsch, K. (2015). Engaging girls with disabilities in Vietnam:
Making their voices count. Disability & Society,30(5), 773–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2015.
1051515
Nicholson, L., Colyer, M., & Cooper, S.-A. (2013). Recruitment to intellectual disability research: A qualitative
study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,57(7), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.
2012.01573.x
Nikidehaghani, M. (2017). A genealogy of accounting and pastoral power in the Australian disability welfare
program (1908–2016). University of Wollongong.
Nikidehaghani, M., Cortese, C., & Hui-Truscott, F. (2021). Accounting and pastoral power in Australian
disability welfare reform. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,80, 102098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.
2019.102098.
Nikidehaghani, M., & Hui, F. (2017). Accounting and accountability for disability benefits in Australia (1909–
1961). Accounting History,22(3), 348–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1032373216664369
Nikidehaghani, M., Hui, F., & Cortese, C. (2017) Accounting and pastoral power in the howard’s government
disability welfare reform 2005. In 9th accounting history international conference, 6-8 september, Verona,
Italy.
Nind, M., & Vinha, H. (2014). Doing research inclusively: Bridges to multiple possibilities in inclusive
research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities,42(2), 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12013
NSW Government (2015). When will the NDIS rollout occur in Illawarra Shoalhaven? NSW Government. https://www.
accessaware.com.au/uploads/resources/1000/Factsheet-WhenwilltheNDISrolloutoccurinIllawarraShoalhaven.
pdf.
Olesen, V. (2000). Feminisms and qualitative research at and into the millennium. In A Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 235–278). Sage Publications.
Oliver, M. (1992). Changing the social relations of research production? Disability, Handicap & Society,7(2),
101–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/02674649266780141
Ong, F., Lewis, C., & Vorobjovas-Pinta, O. (2021). Questioning the inclusivity of events: The queer per-
spective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,29(11–12), 2044–2061. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.
2020.1860072
Ong, F., Vorobjovas-Pinta, O., & Lewis, C. (2020). LGBTIQ+ identities in tourism and leisure research: A
systematic qualitative literature review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,30(7), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09669582.2020.1828430
Pedemont, V. (1993). The society of saint vicent de Paul in Australia. Journal of the Australian Catholic
Historical Society,15(1993), 43–51.
Perrault, E. K., & Keating, D. M. (2017). Seeking Ways to inform the uninformed: Improving the informed
consent process in online social science research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research
Ethics,13(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264617738846
Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in
qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,16(2), 175–196. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635
256 International Journal of Market Research 65(2-3)
Pillow, W. S. (2010). Dangerous reflexivity: Rigour, responsibility and reflexivity in qualitative research. In P
Thompson & M Walker (Eds.), The Routledge doctoral student’s companion (pp. 270–282). Routledge.
Saldaña, J. (2014). Thinking qualitatively: Methods of mind. Sage Publications.
Sherry, J. F. Jr., & Schouten, J. W. (2002). A role for poetry in consumer research. Journal of Consumer
Research,29(2), 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1086/341572
Shultz, C. J., & Holbrook, M. B. (2009). The paradoxical relationships between marketing and vulnerability.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,28(1), 124–127. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.28.1.124
Sigstad, H. M. H. (2014). Characteristic interviews, different strategies: Methodological challenges in
qualitative interviewing among respondents with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual
Disabilities,18(2), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629514523159
Sigstad, H. M. H., & Garrels, V. (2018). Facilitating qualitative research interviews for respondents with
intellectual disability. European Journal of Special Needs Education,33(5), 692–706.
Singh, S., & Wassenaar, D. R. (2016). Contextualising the role of the gatekeeper in social science research.
South African Journal of Bioethics and Law,9(1), 42–46. https://doi.org/10.7196/sajbl.2016.v9i1.465
Kabadayi, S. (2019). Understanding employee sabotage while serving refugees: The case of Syrian refugees in
Turkey. Journal of Services Marketing,33(7), 946–958. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-07-2019-0265
Small, F., Mehmet, M., & Kleinschafer, J. (2020). The circle of vulnerability and the myth of choice. Journal of
Social Marketing,10(4), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsocm-09-2019-0149
Soldatic, K., & Pini, B. (2009). The three ds of welfare reform: Disability, disgust and deservingness.
Australian Journal of Human Rights,15(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238x.2009.11910862
Sreenivasan, G. (2003). Does informed consent to research require comprehension? Lancet,362(9400),
2016–2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(03)15025-8
St Vincent de Paul Society (2017). Home visitation: Our core work. https://www.vinnies.org.au/page/Get_
Involved/Become_a_member/Home_visitation_our_core_work/
Stalker, K. (1998). Some ethical and methodological issues in research with people with learning difficulties.
Disability & Society,13(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599826885
Tadajewski, M., & Brownlie, D. (2009). Critical marketing: Issues in contemporary marketing. John Wiley &
Sons.
Takhar, A., & Chitakunye, P. (2012). Rich descriptions: Evoking informant self-reflexivity in marketing and
consumer research. Journal of Marketing Management,28(7–8), 912–935. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0267257x.2012.700316
The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australian Governments (2018). National statement on
ethical conduct in human research 2007 (updated 2018). Canberra: National Health and Medical Re-
search Council.
Thompson, C. J. (2002). A re-inquiry on re-inquiries: A postmodern proposal for a critical-reflexive approach.
Journal of Consumer Research,29(1), 142–145. https://doi.org/10.1086/339926
Thompson, C. J., Stern, B. B., & Arnould, E. J. (1998). Writing the differences: Poststructural ist pluralism,
retextualization, and the construction of reflexive ethnographic narratives in consumption and market
research. Consumption, Markets & Culture,2(2), 105–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.1998.
9670314
Thummapol, O., Park, T., Jackson, M.,& Barton, S. (2019). Methodological challenges faced in doing research
with vulnerable Women: Reflections from fieldwork experiences. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods,18(January), 1609406919843022. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919843022
Treloar, C. (2021). Accessing the NDIS: Signing deaf people’s experiences. Disability & Society,1–23. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1952063
Nikidehaghani et al. 257
Tuffrey-Wijne, I., Bernal, J., & Hollins, S. (2008). Doing research on people with learning disabilities, cancer
and dying: Ethics, possibilities and pitfalls. British Journal of Learning Disabilities,36(3), 185–190.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2008.00519.x
von Benzon, N., van Blerk, L. J. S., & Geography, C. (2017). Research relationships and responsibilities:
‘Doing’research with ‘vulnerable’participants: Introduction to the special edition. Social & Cultural
Geography,18(7), 895–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2017.1346199
Webber, R. (2010). Researching behavioural differences among ethnic minority groups: The case for inferring
ethnicity on the basis of people’s names. International Journal of Market Research,52(2), 191–215.
https://doi.org/10.2501/s147078530920117x
Williams, P. (2020). ‘It all sounds very interesting, but we’re just too busy!’: Exploring why ‘gatekeepers’
decline access to potential research participants with learning disabilities. European Journal of Special
Needs Education,35(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1687563
Xu, A., Baysari, M. T., Stocker, S. L., Leow, L. J., Day, R. O., & Carland, J. E. (2020). Researchers’views on,
and experiences with, the requirement to obtain informed consent in research involving human par-
ticipants: A qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics,21(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-
00538-7
Zarb, G. (1992). On the road to Damascus: First steps towards changing the relations of disability research
production. Disability, Handicap & Society,7(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02674649266780161
Zhou, P. P., Wu, M.Y., Filep, S. & Weber, K. (2021). Exploring well-being outcomes at an iconic Chinese
LGBT event: A PERMA model perspective. Tourism Management Perspectives,40, 100905. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100905.
258 International Journal of Market Research 65(2-3)
