Should academics be worried that the findings of their research will traumatise people? It’s a valid question.
We know everyday experiences have the potential to be a source of psychological distress and trauma. Researchers explore challenging and complex issues, affecting society and individuals – and it’s important to consider how we can make sure our findings don’t cause further harm.
What is trauma and what does it mean to be trauma-informed?
Trauma is more common than we might think, with about 70 per cent of people estimated to have experienced it at some point in their life. Although there is no accepted definition of trauma, a strong starting point is the definition by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which describes it as an event or circumstance which has lasting effects on an individual’s well-being.
Trauma overwhelms us. It makes us feel like we can't handle things – and it can build up over time, affecting our overall health. But here’s the thing: if we know about the potential for trauma, we can do something about it.
- Dealing with abuse after public commentary
- A case for bringing ethics of friendship and care to academic research
- Five tips for building healthy academic collaborations
Being trauma-informed means recognising that the things we do and share, including research findings, could potentially hurt people. So, before we dive into how to handle this, let’s talk about why it matters.
Why it matters to be trauma-informed
How can people – participants, researchers or public as a whole – be traumatised by the sharing of research news after projects have finished? Well, in a nutshell, you don’t have to experience something first-hand to be affected by it. This phenomenon is more commonly known as “vicarious trauma” or “secondary trauma” and can happen when we connect emotionally with what we’re hearing or reading. For example, reading an upsetting news story can trigger secondary trauma. When we connect meaningfully with something, we are inevitably affected by it.
When research findings are hard-hitting, such as highlighting discrimination and inequalities, those engaging with them are exposed to the risk of psychological distress in ways we cannot predict. With psychological distress comes the risk of trauma, which has huge implications for our well-being.
Research news is meant to connect with us, to make us think and feel something. But what if those feelings end up being negative? We don’t always know how people will react to what we share, and that is a problem. That’s where trauma-informed principles come in.
Trauma-informed principles
Trauma-informed principles are guidelines that help us share research in a way that acknowledges the potential for trauma and aims to prevent any extra distress.
There are six in total. Here they are, and what they mean in practice:
Safety
This is about more than just physical safety. Researchers should ensure emotional safety by being mindful of each interaction during research.
Trustworthiness and transparency
It’s vital that you are honest and clear with participants when laying out what you plan to do, what they can expect and what you are setting out to achieve.
Peer support
Support networks are vital in life, and during research this is no different. Researchers understand the challenges faced by other researchers, and can provide valuable support.
Collaboration and mutuality
Research can feel like us-and-them. Instead research and dissemination should promote a sense of coming together to explore findings and next steps, working together as partners where the input of those involved is mutually agreed.
Empowerment, voice and choice
Involving the people on which the research is based and who it impacts is crucial. It’s important that the voice of participants and those who are affected by research is valued, and they have a role in shaping decisions.
Cultural, historical and gender issues
We know stereotypes, discrimination and bias can be a source of trauma. When research collaboratively works with people impacted by its findings, it can help support an appropriate, sensitive and effective way forward.
Using these principles as a guide, researchers can universally approach dissemination in a way that acknowledges the potential for trauma and buffer against additional distress that the research may communicate.
For example, during the pandemic, researchers took a close look at how they shared their findings on the impact of visiting restrictions in care homes with the stakeholders who regulated this. They already knew that these limitations were emotionally draining and extremely difficult for those affected, and made sure to protect people from any extra trauma.
To do this, they put several important measures in place. These included giving people a heads-up about their trauma-informed approach, letting people have a say in how the information was shared, taking breaks during discussions to give people time to reflect and making sure that quieter voices were heard.
Researchers said this created a sense of safety in an open, permissive and non-judgmental space. This approach allowed researchers to put a different lens on the findings, with participants making researchers sensitive to the alternative perspectives of their role in the project. Researchers said that without the trauma-informed approach, the findings would have been didactic. Instead, they gained illustrative insights into the real stories that created authentic reflection and was an important reality check on how to share distressing information with other groups.
Trauma-informed research dissemination is important because trauma can come from everyday things, such as news stories or even just a conversation. Our tipping point is invisible and we may not know ourselves where our threshold is. Researchers should be acutely aware of this, and be vigilant in protecting participants and those consuming their research. This promotes a sense of safety and is a necessary best-practice step that the research community must test further.
It’s a step in the right direction to ensure our research doesn’t cause negative outcomes for individuals, alongside any positives it brings for wider society. We can’t – and clearly shouldn’t – avoid tackling difficult subjects. However, the right approach can help ensure we handle them in a sensitive and considered way.
Eileen Harkess-Murphy is lecturer in health and life sciences at the University of the West of Scotland.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment