Configurations of vulnerability

Vulnerability appears as a significant concept in a diverse range of disciplines and has appeared in social sciences literature for several decades. In the human sciences, the notion is frequently discussed in relation to hazards or environmental concerns (Alwang et al., Reference Alwang, Siegel and Jorgensen2001; Bankoff et al., Reference Bankoff, Frerks and Hilhorst2004; Adger, Reference Adger2006) and in critical debates over the bounds of ‘health risks’ (see Peterson and Wilkinson, Reference Peterson and Wilkinson2008). Another body of literature relates vulnerability to poverty, famine and ‘natural’ disasters (Chambers, Reference Chambers1989; Watts and Bohle, Reference Watts and Bohle1993; Lindley et al., Reference Lindley, O'Neill, Kandeh, Lawson, Christian and O'Neill2011). Within the fields of philosophy and ethics, a number of writers are passionate about the potential for the notion to be utilised as a vehicle for the attainment of social justice (see Goodin, Reference Goodin1985; Kittay, Reference Kittay1999; Turner, Reference Turner2006; Fineman, Reference Fineman2008). The concept has also been used in social research (see Beckett, Reference Beckett2006; Warner, Reference Warner, Peterson and Wilkinson2008; Emmel and Hughes, Reference Emmel and Hughes2010; Hollomotz, Reference Hollomotz2011), and in more policy-based commentaries (Waiton, Reference Waiton2008; Daniel, Reference Daniel2010; McLaughlin, Reference McLaughlin2012). Across the literature, ‘vulnerability’ is characterised by plurality of meaning and it is constructed in relation to a wide range of factors (Fawcett, Reference Fawcett2009).

Two principal manifestations of the notion tend to appear in the literature (see Brown, Reference Brown2012). Vulnerability can be represented as ‘innate’, being seen as ‘enhanced’ during particular periods in the life course, such as childhood, older age and pregnancy. It is also frequently used ‘situationally’, to highlight particular circumstances where people are at elevated ‘fragility’ or ‘risk’. The concept often appears in research as an explanatory tool for referring to situations or transgressions in a way that suggests that these are not the ‘fault’ of the individual or group concerned. Writers have noted strong moral connotations attached to the term and its potential to elicit sympathy (see Goodin, Reference Goodin1985; Turner, Reference Turner2006; Mackenzie, Reference Mackenzie2009), and particularly in the field of disability research, authors have argued that vulnerability has a strong paternalistic quality (see Wishart, Reference Wishart2003; Hasler, Reference Hasler, Swain, French, Barnes and Thomas2004). Research has highlighted that it can be an effective conceptual mechanism for the transference of power from the receivers of services to professionals who design and provide them (Lansdown, Reference Lansdown and Mayall1994; Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Clare and Holland2008; Hollomotz, Reference Hollomotz2009, Reference Hollomotz2011), with some policy commentators linking this with the ascendance of ideas about ‘risk’ (Culpitt, Reference Culpitt1999; Lupton, Reference Lupton1999; Taylor-Gooby, Reference Taylor-Gooby2000; Sarewitz et al., Reference Sarewitz, Pielke and Keykhah2003).

Indeed, where attempts have been made to theorise the dimensions of the concept of vulnerability, the ‘risk society’ thesis (Beck, Reference Beck1992) is often drawn upon (see Mizstal, Reference Misztal2011, for an overview). Beck himself (Reference Beck2009: 178) has stated that ‘vulnerability and risk are two sides of the same coin’. Unsurprisingly, writings have indicated that vulnerability discourses can be associated with ontological concerns about insecurity and powerlessness (Kemshall, Reference Kemshall and Kemshall2002; Furedi, Reference Furedi2007, Reference Furedi2008; Waiton, Reference Waiton2008). As well as risk-related theorising, a small body of work has developed which advances the idea that vulnerability should be conceptualised as ‘universal’ (Turner, Reference Turner2006; Dodds, Reference Dodds2007; Fineman, Reference Fineman2008; Anderson and Honneth, Reference Anderson, Honneth, Christman and Anderson2005), with some writers using the notion as a mechanism to emphasise the politically and economically constituted nature of human existence and disadvantage (Butler, Reference Butler2004, Reference Butler2009; Beckett, Reference Beckett2006). In their human sciences work, Watts and Bohle (Reference Watts and Bohle1993) suggest ‘causal’ structures of environmental disasters, which they call ‘spaces of vulnerability’. Deployed in social research, this is a powerful idea that has been used to develop understandings of the lived experiences of deprivation (Emmel and Hughes, Reference Emmel and Hughes2010).

Authors interested in social control have noted widening application of ideas of dependency and vulnerability (Furedi, Reference Furedi2003, Reference Furedi2008; Waiton, Reference Waiton2008; Harrison, Reference Harrison2010; McLaughlin, Reference McLaughlin2012). The notion has been seen as linked to ideas which reinforce notions of ‘acceptable’ behaviour (Harrison and Sanders, Reference Harrison, Sanders, Dearling, Newburn and Somerville2006; Scoular and O'Neill, Reference Scoular and O'Neill2007; Richards, Reference Richards2011). Analysing policies on teenage parenting, Van Loon (Reference Van Loon, Peterson and Wilkinson2008: 59) uses Foucault's (Reference Foucault1980) governmentality thesis to argue that vulnerability has a ‘cloak of concern’,which means it can be used to justify stronger controlling mechanisms. Commentators have noted complexities arising where groups may present as ‘transgressive’ at the same time as being seen as ‘vulnerable’ (see Harrison and Sanders, Reference Harrison, Sanders, Dearling, Newburn and Somerville2006; Dobson, Reference Dobson2011; Phoenix, Reference Phoenix, Carrington, Ball, O'Brien and Tauri2012a). Moon (Reference Moon2000: 241) argues that there is a ‘juxtaposition of threat and vulnerability’ in constructions of mental health service users, which Warner (Reference Warner, Peterson and Wilkinson2008: 32) frames as a ‘vulnerability/dangerousness axis’, with vulnerability used to indicate the risk posed by certain individuals as well as to them.

In relation to young people, vulnerability has long been associated with childhood (see Rousseau, Reference Rousseau and Foxley1762; Hendrick, Reference Hendrick, James and Prout1997). The concept is implicit in biological and physical developmentalism, an approach which assumes that because children are not fully mature they are rendered vulnerable to adverse influences that may disrupt the ‘normal’ completion of the ‘developmental process’ (see Bynner, Reference Bynner2001; Malin et al., Reference Malin, Wilmot and Manthorpe2002). The emergence of the sociology of childhood (James and Prout, Reference James and Prout1997, Mayall, Reference Mayall2002; Moran-Ellis, Reference Moran-Ellis2010) has called into question understandings of children as innately vulnerable, emphasising that representations of childhood and childrens’ vulnerability vary over time (see Pearson, Reference Pearson1983; Hendrick, Reference Hendrick, James and Prout1997), and may be socially constructed (see Daniel, Reference Daniel2010; O'Connell Davidson, Reference O'Connell Davidson2011). In policy arenas, representations of children as passive and vulnerable compete and overlap with notions of children as agents in, as well as products of, the social process (James and Prout, Reference James and Prout1997; Piper, Reference Piper2008; Nygard, Reference Nygard2009). This has particular implications for young people, who tend to be constructed in policy either as ‘vulnerable victims’, or as ‘dangerous wrong-doers’ with full responsibilities in situations where they transgress (Goldson, Reference Goldson2000, Reference Goldson2002; Fionda, Reference Fionda2005; Such and Walker, Reference Such and Walker2005). Although there are signs that the configuration of young people's vulnerability and transgressive behaviour is appearing as a concern on the policy horizon (see House of Commons Education Committee, 2012), attention to this in the academic literature is sparse. Useful insights can be found in the youth justice literature (Goldson, Reference Goldson2000, Reference Goldson2002; Muncie, Reference Muncie2006), but such analysis remains primarily focussed on young people involved in the criminal justice system. Generally speaking, examination of the literature related to vulnerability in the social sciences reveals the concept to be highly relevant and yet little-explored. Empirical research into how ideas about vulnerability are operationalised remains limited.

Research methods

The findings in this article are drawn from fieldwork undertaken during 2010–11 for doctoral research which investigated the concept of vulnerability and its use in the care and control of young people. The qualitative empirical element of the research involved a case study which explored how vulnerability was operationalised in services for supposedly vulnerable young people in a large English city (population around 750,000). The city had a sizable local authority and varied infrastructure aimed at supporting ‘vulnerable’ children and young people, in that certain commissioning arrangements, services and interventions were explicitly targeted at this particular group.

Twenty-five young people were interviewed, with the interviewees included on the basis that they were considered ‘vulnerable’ by their workers and that they had extended histories of receiving relatively intensive welfare and/or disciplinary interventions. Indicators for young people's status as ‘vulnerable’ were likely to be imperfect given the complexity and subjectivity of the classification, an issue under scrutiny itself, but this process provided valuable insights into how professionals measured and classified vulnerability. Young people were accessed through six ‘gatekeeper’ agencies: a service for young carers, a locality-based ‘Anti-Social Behaviour’ (ASB) project, a young people's drugs service, a ‘sexual exploitation’ project, a private education provider for young people having problems at school and a service for ‘vulnerable’ children (which supported homeless young people, ‘runaways’ and refugees/asylum-seekers). Interviewees were twelve to eighteen years old, around half were male and half female. A range of different ethnic groups were included in the sample, with seventeen participants being of White UK ethnic origin. Almost all of the young people lived in inner-city social housing estates, with the exception of three young people who lived in private rented accommodation. ‘Transgressive’ young people were deliberately incorporated into the sample; just over half of the young people had offending histories, criminal behaviours, close association with ASB and/or had been excluded from school.

Ethical considerations were of paramount concern in the design and implementation of the research. Support workers were enlisted in the process of informed consent to ensure that every effort was made to fully explain the nature of the research and its potential uses to all interviewees and their parents where appropriate. In line with standard child protection practice, young people were offered confidentiality except for in instances where risk of significant harm might be indicated, an eventuality that did not arise. In the discussion of the research findings, names have been changed for confidentiality reasons, with pseudonyms chosen by the young people.

Engaging young people who are often considered ‘difficult to reach’ was challenging, but through the use of task-based interviewing techniques (see Conolly, Reference Conolly2008) unique insights into ‘vulnerable’ young people's perceptions of vulnerability were generated. Using life-mapping activities, young people were asked about their past experiences, hopes for the future and previous/future vulnerabilities. Through discussions of video vignettes, interviewees’ views on the vulnerabilities of other young people were also sought, with this leading to conversations about their own vulnerability. Most young people in the sample were familiar with and responded to notions of vulnerability, but in some instances the word ‘vulnerability’ was discussed in terms of various proxies such as ‘difficulties’ or ‘difficult lives’. Rich ‘life stories’ data were produced which is not included here for reasons of space, but which is summarised in Appendix 1.

Fifteen semi-structured interviews were also undertaken with professionals, or ‘key informants’, who were involved in the delivery of services for vulnerable young people in the city. Informants were selected using the rationale that the sample needed to include roughly equal numbers of front-line workers, operational managers, commissioners and strategists, in order to give an adequate mix of positions of responsibility. Furthermore, reasonable coverage of agencies involved with vulnerable (and also ‘transgressive’) groups of young people was also required. The sample of key informants included five front-line workers, three commissioners and seven managers, who in some cases also had commissioning and service user-facing duties. Interviewees worked across a range of settings, some providing interventions which were more ‘compulsory’ in nature (the Youth Offending Service [YOS], Social Care and a Family Intervention Project [FIP], for example), while others worked for services which might be considered more ‘supportive’, such as third-sector youth projects working with young people who were ‘in need’ or ‘at risk’ in some way. Informants were asked about how they made use of the concept or idea of ‘vulnerability’ in their work, their understandings of the notion and how they measured and classified ‘vulnerability’. These interviews were complemented by informal data gathering through the researcher's participation in various meetings, conversations and correspondence. Such ethnographically-based approaches were especially useful in generating insights into how professionals perceived and managed young people's vulnerability.

Data were analysed using ideas taken from ‘thematic network’ approaches (Attride-Stirling, Reference Attride-Stirling2001). Attention was given to over-arching themes alongside consideration of more detailed ‘sub-themes’, exposing commonalities and differences across the two sets of interviews. Four main themes emerged in relation to the operationalisation of vulnerability: (i) the popularity and pervasiveness of the notion; (ii) a vulnerability-transgression nexus; (iii) vulnerability as a mechanism for care and control; and (iv) mismatched understandings. Each is explored in more detail below, followed by some concluding comments.

The vulnerability zeitgeist

Vulnerability featured heavily in the language and practices of service interventions with groups of young people considered as ‘in need’ of support or discipline. There was almost uniform agreement amongst key informants about its popularity and pervasiveness. Comments referred to it being a ‘buzz word’, a ‘catchphrase’ and ‘common parlance’ in professional practice. As well as the term, the idea of vulnerability also seemed significant, as one manager said: ‘it's always there at the forefront; it's always in your mind’.

Experienced professionals and earlier career practitioners alike commented that such a prevalent focus on vulnerability was a relatively new development in the provision of welfare and disciplinary services. However, discourses of vulnerability and related practices were not ubiquitous. Two informants avoided using the term in their work, and a small minority disapproved of its increased use, indicating concerns about overuse and the neglect of young people's agency.

A lack of clarity existed around understandings of how young people's vulnerability was perceived and managed. One commissioner based in the City Council's Children's Unit felt this reflected arrangements higher-up in the commissioning framework:

Despite this, some agreement existed about more informal or tacit understandings of such processes. It was fairly standard for consideration of young people's vulnerability to form part of the assessments made by agencies; that is, the procedures which practitioners used to measure or classify young people in order to prioritise, plan and deliver interventions. The worker at the young carers’ service described this process as relatively intuitive:

For others, the classification was more systematic, as indicated by the manager at the FIP:

The assessment of ‘vulnerability’ also seemed significant in disciplinary processes for young people. It was described by a Youth Offending Service's (YOS) senior manager as ‘absolutely critical’ to the organisation's national screening tool, Asset. ‘Vulnerability’ was one of three key areas on which YOS interventions were based (see Youth Justice Board, 2006, Appendix 12: 7), the other two being risk to the public and likelihood of offending. The YOS senior manager explained:

Vulnerability was also drawn upon in aspects of the commissioning process and in the distribution of resources. Several commissioners in the city had the term in their job title and five key informants had been involved in administering a ‘Vulnerable Children Grant’ under New Labour (see Kendall et al., Reference Kendall, Johnson, Gulliver, Martin and Kinder2004, Brown, Reference Brown2012).

Disciplinary background was sometimes implicated in professional uses or understandings of the term, staff from agencies deploying the term more ‘officially’ (the YOS, the FIP, the housing agency and the clinical psychology service were all examples) seemed to be drawing on it in a more apparently ‘defined’ way. Yet, even where it was used in more formal processing mechanisms, vulnerability classifications were tied to discretion. The notion appeared to lend itself well to use as a conceptual basis for flexible service delivery. At the same time, the malleability of vulnerability seems to have engendered a rather ‘messy’ application in practice. A recurring theme in the interviews was that perceptions of vulnerability varied; or as one worker put it, professionals’ ideas about vulnerability depended on ‘their experiences and where they've worked’. The personal values of individual staff members were also felt to shape views of vulnerability, with the worker from the ASB project noting that disagreements about vulnerability reflected ‘differences in people's levels of acceptability’ of certain behaviours or circumstances.

Some young people also commented on the pervasiveness of the term. Sixteen year old Alicia said ‘they just give loads of kids that name in care – “vulnerable”’. Several young people recounted direct experiences of being classified as ‘vulnerable’ by workers. Sixteen-year old Keith gave an account of the way the YOS used ‘vulnerability’ in the assessment of young offenders. He recalled that he was ‘put down as vulnerable’ because his YOS worker wanted him to be incarcerated in a Secure Unit rather than a Young Offenders Institution (Secure Units are generally considered to be the less punitive sanction):

John (16) indicated that workers had frequently applied the term to him, especially during a period before he was sectioned under the Mental Health Act:

Despite a lack of clarity about what vulnerability meant, it seemed to be something of a conceptual zeitgeist in contemporary welfare and disciplinary processes for young people who were seen as ‘in need’ in some way.

The vulnerability-transgression nexus

Data revealed a close relationship between ‘vulnerability’ and ‘challenging’ or ‘difficult’ behaviours, which might usefully be described as a vulnerability-transgression nexus. Empirical realities at the ‘front line’ undermined dichotomous understandings of youth seen at policy level, where young people seem to be represented as either ‘transgressive’ or ‘vulnerable’ (see Goldson, Reference Goldson2000, Reference Goldson2002; Fionda, Reference Fionda2005). For example, key informants often drew on the concept of vulnerability to describe and group together young people who had circumstances or problems in common (see Table 1), with behavioural problems often referred to alongside other adversities.

Table 1 Groups of young people seen as vulnerable by key informants

Young people's life stories echoed these groupings to some extent (see Appendix 1), with accounts highlighting that they often belonged to multiple ‘vulnerable groups’. Many recounted problems with their ‘attitude’ or behaviour alongside stories of abuse, neglect, poverty, mental health issues and multiple transitions:

Young people's narratives firmly challenged notions of vulnerability which imagine ‘the vulnerable’ as behaviourally compliant or weak. For example, Scott (18) had been served with an ASBO at the age of seventeen and had a long history of involvement with statutory Social Care agencies and with the youth justice system:

Eight young people discussed criminal behaviours, including drug taking, violence, criminal damage, burglary and selling drugs. The close relationship between vulnerability and transgression could pose certain problems operationally, as one Local Authority commissioner indicated:

This vulnerability-transgression nexus is rarely recognised at policy level, where representations of young people's circumstances and behaviours tend to be more simplified and dichotomised. One illustrative example is the case of young people who are ‘sexually exploited’. Whilst this group are ‘officially’ constructed as ‘vulnerable victims’ (Department of Health and Home Office, 2000; Department for Children Schools and Families, 2009; Department for Education, 2011), empirical research has indicated that complex behavioural problems are also prevalent amongst sexually exploited young women, which often connect with interventions taking more disciplinary paths than we might imagine (Phoenix, Reference Phoenix2012b). Whilst more detailed consideration of how vulnerability and transgression intersect at policy level lies beyond the scope of this article, this has been explored elsewhere (Brown, Reference Brown2012, forthcoming).

Care, control and the performance of vulnerability

At the same time as being associated with transgression, vulnerability was generally considered by professionals to be a notion which helped frame young people's difficulties or behaviours in ‘caring’ ways. Comments referred to it being a ‘kind term’, which was ‘trying not to put blame on anybody’, and ‘an empathetic word’ that was ‘non-judgemental’. A popular perception amongst informants was that vulnerability discourses could help to shape interventions ‘positively’, as the retired commissioner recounted:

Where they had direct experiences of vulnerability classifications, young people's accounts echoed that this could engender more ‘helpful’ or ‘therapeutic’ approaches, as Keith (16) described:

That vulnerability classifications could be beneficial in provoking differential treatment is consistent with other work highlighting the potentially positive effects of ‘labels’ (see Gallagher, Reference Gallagher1976; Quicke and Winter, Reference Quicke and Winter1994; Riddick, Reference Riddick2000).

Alongside helping to implement ‘caring’ approaches, evidence of more ‘controlling’ or disciplinary elements appeared where vulnerability was operationalised. Informant interviews indicated that young people's entitlement to support was most secure where they ‘performed’ vulnerability through displaying ‘conformist’ behaviours. As the Social Care manager explained, some vulnerable young people could apparently be excluded from support due to behavioural issues:

The account of a manager from housing services, who oversaw the allocation of properties on the basis of ‘vulnerability’, indicated that transgressive behaviour could be a factor in the withdrawal of vulnerability status:

Young people were more likely to be seen as vulnerable if they were willing to give information about their personal histories, and where they demonstrated contrition for transgressions. ‘Compliance’ was repeatedly referred to as one of the primary factors on which conferring vulnerability status was contingent, along with ‘engagement’ or ‘motivation for change’. Some interviewees felt that working with the most well-behaved vulnerable young people could be a way of achieving targets and outcomes more successfully, with one manager commenting that agencies who provided services to vulnerable children and young people ‘cherry-pick the easy to engage’. The retired commissioner's comments seemed to summarise the dynamics: ‘young people's attitudes do shape professional's responses, perhaps more than they should actually’.

There appeared to be a gendered dimension to performances of vulnerability. One illustrative example was given by the YOS manager, who said that if YOS staff were to imagine a ‘vulnerable’ young person, ‘we probably think about the girl that drinks before we think about the six foot three person that's done a few robberies’. The manager of the education service also commented:

Such findings resonate with Cramer (Reference Cramer2005) and Passaro's (Reference Passaro1996) work, which has highlighted the influence of behavioural expectations and gender on classifications of vulnerability within housing provision. Overall, vulnerability discourses seemed to serve a mixture of care and control processes. Alicia (16), who had been in care, used heroin, sold sex and attended a school for ‘vulnerable girls’, seemed to sum up this dualism, saying that when young people are called vulnerable:

Mismatched understandings of vulnerability

Interviews with both young people and key informants suggested that vulnerability might be a more popular notion in policy and practice than with the receivers of services themselves. Young people were largely resistant to notions of themselves as vulnerable. Only one agreed with a view of herself as ‘vulnerable’ without qualification, as she did not ‘know what's coming up next’ in relation to her parents’ heavy alcohol use. There were a small number of young people who spontaneously used the term to describe themselves at points in their past, usually when referring to transgressions, as in Scott's (18) interview:

Most often though, narratives indicated that interviewees attached negative connotations to ‘vulnerability’ and distanced themselves from it. Hayley (sixteen), who was technically homeless and currently sleeping on the floor at an extended family member's house said:

A taken for granted tone permeated young people's perceptions of their circumstances, which often seemed related to tensions with professional views of vulnerability. Jay (17) lived with an elderly couple after physical and sexual abuse experienced whilst living with his parents, and was seen as vulnerable by his worker, but explained his attitude towards being considered as ‘vulnerable’ as follows:

There could be a defiant tone when young people displayed resistance to professional views of their vulnerability, as the following extract from Charlie's (female, 16) interview demonstrates:

Being positioned as vulnerable tended to be seen as an affront to young people's sense of their capacity to cope with their circumstances, as sixteen year old Brook, who lived in a hostel for adult women, explained:

However, interviewees were much more receptive to the idea that they had been vulnerable at certain times in the past, or would be at points in the future, than that they might be ‘vulnerable’ in the present:

For young people, vulnerability classifications were bound up with particular relationships or contexts, so were received in ways that were dynamic rather than fixed, thus giving vulnerability a temporal dimension (see Emmel and Hughes, forthcoming).

Informant interviews showed professionals’ awareness of a potential disjuncture between understandings of vulnerability. Most interviewees commented that they tended to use the term ‘vulnerability’ in environments with other professionals rather than in face-to-face work with young people. The support worker at the ‘sexual exploitation’ project felt that if she called young people vulnerable they may think ‘you don't know me, you know, I can look after myself’ and that it might ‘make that young person feel quite young’. The young carer's worker described a reluctance to use the term with her clients on the basis of a lack of ‘empowerment’, saying ‘it can be perceived like it's a weakness in them’. This raises questions about how far young people's feelings about their own identities shape and inform the systems and processes by which their lives are governed. Furthermore, it might be argued that young people resistant to the idea of themselves as vulnerable may be unlikely to ‘perform’ vulnerability in ways that ensure the most secure access to supportive interventions.