CEO: Gig Economy Dataset
Context:
Your company is developing an AI system for mental health diagnostics requiring 10 thousand hours of annotated emotional speech data to be effective. Your budget is insufficient for fair wages.
Dilemma:
A) Pay an ethical $25/hour wage. This protects workers but only yields 800 hours of data, creating a limited, potentially unreliable system.
B) Use gig workers at $2/hour. This exploits a vulnerable workforce but secures the full dataset needed for an effective AI model.
Story behind the dilemma:
This study provides a critical analysis of how vulnerability is conceptualized and regulated in global social and behavioral research. By systematically coding 355 official research ethics documents from 107 countries, the authors identified 68 distinct categories used to classify vulnerable populations. The analysis revealed significant regional variation in these designations and a concerning overreliance on categories imported from medical research, which may not fully capture social science contexts.
Crucially, the study found that certain groups facing severe vulnerabilities in the real world—such as displaced persons or victims of trafficking—are often neglected in official regulations. To address these shortcomings, the authors propose a fundamental shift away from static, pre-defined lists of vulnerable groups. Instead, they introduce a dynamic framework that differentiates between three types of vulnerability: inherent (e.g., children), situational (e.g., poverty), and research-induced (where the study itself creates risk). This new approach emphasizes that researchers must actively assess and protect against vulnerabilities they may unintentionally create, moving beyond a simple checkbox mentality to a more nuanced, context-dependent implementation of ethical safeguards.
Resources: