Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Witnessing violence and injury in research can elicit affective and cognitive reactions. It is imperative that research teams develop trauma-responsive interventions, but little is known about their effectiveness. A convenience sample of violence and injury scholars (n = 64) was recruited through listservs and social media. Scholars answered an online survey about their experience managing research teams and the perceived effectiveness of interventions. Strategies and their perceived effectiveness were described, and a linear regression indicated factors associated with the number of strategies used. Qualitative responses were analyzed using content analysis. This study found that supervisors used a variety of intervention techniques. Most methods were perceived as moderately effective, while requiring time off and having a team member dedicated to well-being programing were rated as highly effective. Qualitative data indicated that to be effective, these strategies needed to be paired with genuine, expressed care for supervisees’ well-being and behavior modeling. The number of strategies used was influenced by supervision experience and one’s belief that researchers could be impacted by trauma exposure. This study indicated that researchers need a variety of strategies to intervene in vicarious trauma. More experimental research is needed to test the long-term effectiveness of such interventions.

Keywords

methodology victimization prevention homicide survivors

Introduction

Researchers who examine injury and violence are exposed to traumatic materials in their work through data collection and analysis. This exposure, known as vicarious trauma, can lead to changes in an individual’s cognitive schema, behaviors, and affect (Molnar et al., 2017). These changes, natural empathic responses to traumatic stimuli, can be negative, called vicarious traumatization, or positive, called vicarious resilience (Cohen & Collens, 2013; Engstrom et al., 2008; McCann & Pearlman, 1990). In addition to the potential negative personal impact on an individual, traumatization can limit one’s ability to effectively perform research tasks and cause individuals to prematurely leave research teams, potentially decreasing the sustainability and accuracy of research (Cummings et al., 2021; Miller Reed et al., 2023; Regehr et al., 2002). Studies on frontline practitioners (e.g., social workers, victim advocates, fire and emergency medical services, police, medical staff) have shown that there are organizational-level interventions that promote resiliency and prevent traumatization, such as training on vicarious trauma (Ben-Porat, 2015; Douglas, 2013b; Habeger et al., 2022) and regular supervision (Bell, 2003; Cohen & Collens, 2013; Ting et al., 2006). Such interventions could be easily translated to research teams; yet there is comparatively little empirical work on how research teams manage traumatic exposure in their scholarship, nor whether such means are effective.

Theoretical Orientation: Vicarious Traumatization and Resilience

Vicarious traumatization was first conceptualized in the 1990s by McCann and Pearlman, two psychologists working with survivors of sexual and domestic violence. A cognitive theory, vicarious traumatization investigates how traumatic exposure changes how one understands their world (i.e., cognitive schema) and the related affective, behavioral, and psychological changes (McCann & Pearlman, 1990). Even when professionals are not exposed directly to violence and trauma, McCann and Pearlman (1990) found that by listening to and accompanying those who directly experience it, workers experience the same impacts. Attending to these psychological safety risks is critical, as the human brain reads psychological danger similarly to physical danger; meaning that psychological trauma can also lead to mental health issues like post-traumatic stress disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2022; Herman, 2015). McCann and Pearlman (1990) identified seven schemas specific to sexual and domestic violence that may be affected by exposure: feeling safe, believing others are inherently good, feeling in control, feeling independent, trusting others and one’s environment, feeling connected to others, and believing that experiences have meaning. When one of these schemas is disrupted, one may, for example, become obsessed with perpetrators of violence being punished or feel stigmatized by their work (McCann & Pearlman, 1990). In other fields similar schema (e.g., a homicide researcher feeling unsafe in a neighborhood) or different schema (e.g., a child welfare worker’s understanding of family) may be affected by their unique exposures. This secondary exposure can also lead to memory disruptions, like dissociation or memory blanks, affective responses like sadness, and behavioral changes like social isolation or substance use (McCann & Pearlman, 1990). When a worker becomes overwhelmed with this traumatic exposure, it can lead to burnout, or the inability to process what one is experiencing, which can make one feel numb, cynical, and ineffective (Maslach et al., 2001; McCann & Pearlman, 1990).

More recently, researchers have also studied the positive impact of working with individuals experiencing trauma, or vicarious resilience. Among frontline workers, vicarious resilience is conceptualized as when working with clients “motivates [workers] to continue their service” (Barrington & Shakespeare-Finch, 2013, p. 18). Workers experiencing vicarious resilience report feeling grateful for their work, feeling in awe of the fortitude of the human spirit, feeling proud of their own strength and of their work, and engaging in meaning making and personal growth (Barrington & Shakespeare-Finch, 2013; Cohen & Collens, 2013; Engstrom et al., 2008; Pack, 2014). Together, vicarious resilience and traumatization describe potential impacts of vicarious trauma (Molnar et al., 2017). Vicarious resilience and traumatization are parallel processes, and many scholars call for the study of both constructs simultaneously in order to best understand the complex impact of trauma exposure and to better inform intervention development (Barrington & Shakespeare-Finch, 2013; Cohen & Collens, 2013; Engstrom et al., 2008; Frey et al., 2017). Importantly, research indicates that the promotion of resiliency and prevention of traumatization are not individual worker responsibilities, but that organizational policies can limit the negative impacts of working with traumatized populations and maximize the positive effects (Cohen & Collens, 2013; Frey et al., 2017; Molnar et al., 2017; Regehr et al., 2002). For example, the U.S. Office for Victims of Crime (2018) created a toolkit grounded in vicarious traumatization and resilience (Molnar et al., 2017) for organizations to review their existing policies and procedures and identify areas for improvement, like including staff in funding decisions and having clear policies for time off. These theories underline that exposure to trauma impacts all workers in positive and negative ways, and that far from being the responsibility of the individual to manage this exposure, organizational-level strategies can be adopted to promote resiliency and prevent traumatization.

Vicarious Trauma and Research Teams

Across disciplines, there have been calls to attend to vicarious traumatization risk to researchers, including in environmental studies (Pihkala, 2020), social science (Fenge et al., 2019; Miller Reed et al., 2023), political science (Loyle & Simoni, 2017), nursing (Butler et al., 2017), child welfare research (Coles & Mudaly, 2010), homicide and violence research (AbiNader et al., 2023; Cullen et al., 2021), and public health research (Dickson-Swift et al., 2008). Some particularly emphasize the risk of traumatization for qualitative researchers due to their immersion into others’ lives and their direct interactions with research participants (Butler et al., 2017; Coles & Mudaly, 2010; Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Wallace & County, 2024), although existing research has also examined the impact of secondary data analysis of potentially graphic data, such as law enforcement casefiles (AbiNader et al., 2023). While many codes and guidelines exist regarding the protection of human subjects, codified guidance on protecting researchers is limited, particularly for psychological safety risks. Two non-profit agencies have issued guidance for researchers to adopt for their own practice, but, to the author’s knowledge, these have not been formally adopted by any university or governing body. The United Kingdom’s Social Research Association (2001) developed a “code of practice” regarding the, primarily physical, safety of social scientists collecting field data, and the global Sexual Violence Research Initiative developed guidelines for gender-based violence researchers attending to both psychological and physical safety risks (Billings et al., 2015).

Qualitative studies of researchers have indicated that they experience many of the same impacts from trauma exposure as frontline workers. Like frontline workers (Aldrich & Kallivayalil, 2013; Bell, 2003; McCann & Pearlman, 1990), researchers report secondary traumatic stress symptoms like hypervigilance, dissociation, and numbing (AbiNader et al., 2023; Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Miller Reed et al., 2023; Wallace & County, 2024). They have also reported impacts to cognition as described by McCann and Pearlman (1990): intrusive memories, such as nightmares, and changes to their cognitive schema (AbiNader et al., 2023; Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Miller Reed et al., 2023). For example, researchers have reported that they became less trusting in others, found it challenging to make sense of the world given what they studied, and felt isolated from others (AbiNader et al., 2023; Miller Reed et al., 2023). Similar to practitioners (Cohen & Collens, 2013; Regehr et al., 2002; Ting et al., 2006), researchers have reported experiencing a range of affective responses including sadness, anger, fear, hopelessness, and confusion (AbiNader et al., 2023; Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Miller Reed et al., 2023; Wallace & County, 2024). A qualitative study of public health researchers reported that scholars felt guilty for and were troubled by the discordance of asking participants to share traumatic parts of their lives while feeling excited to collect data (Dickson-Swift et al., 2007). Researchers have also reported a sense of weighty responsibility to accurately represent the stories of their research participants and to lift up their voices (Dickson-Swift et al., 2007; Miller Reed et al., 2023). Taken together, the distressing impacts of trauma exposure through scholarship can make trauma-focused research agendas difficult to sustain over time (AbiNader et al., 2023; Miller Reed et al., 2023). Much less is known about the vicarious resilience responses experienced by researchers. In one qualitative study, public health researchers reported feeling honored by the trust of their research participants (Dickson-Swift et al., 2007).

Research that has examined predictors of vicarious traumatization and resilience among scholars mirrors the predictors found among frontline workers. Among frontline workers and researchers, increased hours of exposure to traumatic materials through client or participant stories have been shown to increase feelings of burnout and secondary traumatic stress symptoms (AbiNader et al., 2023; Baird & Jenkins, 2003; Bemiller & Williams, 2011; Brady & Hayes, 2018; Miller Reed et al., 2023). A lack of preparation for how to do the work and to manage the exposure to traumatic materials is associated with an increase in traumatic impact among researchers (Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Fenge et al., 2019; Miller Reed et al., 2023) and frontline workers (Berger & Gelkopf, 2011; Douglas, 2013a; Vrklevski & Franklin, 2008). Like research on frontline workers (Benuto et al., 2018; Frey et al., 2017; Ghahramanlou & Brodbeck, 2000), the qualitative evidence on researchers is mixed about whether having a personal trauma history is protective against or magnifies vicarious traumatization (AbiNader et al., 2023; Miller Reed et al., 2023). Researchers with prior clinical experience have reported distress related to challenges in turning off their clinical instincts and switching to a more neutral, hands-off research approach, and in the lack of guidance on how, why, and when to do this (Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Fenge et al., 2019).

Vicarious Trauma Interventions

Two of the most salient organizational-level interventions identified in the literature on vicarious trauma among frontline workers are training (AbiNader et al., 2020; Ben-Porat, 2015; Brady & Hayes, 2018; Cohen & Collens, 2013; Douglas, 2013a; Ghahramanlou & Brodbeck, 2000; Habeger et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2022; Maslach et al., 2001; Molnar et al., 2017) and social support (AbiNader et al., 2020; Barrington & Shakespeare-Finch, 2013; Bell, 2003; Cohen & Collens, 2013; Frey et al., 2017; Ghahramanlou & Brodbeck, 2000; Habeger et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2022; McCann & Pearlman, 1990; Ting et al., 2006). Unsurprisingly, qualitative research on scholars and agency guidance have promoted both strategies. For researchers, past scholarship indicates that early-career training needs to expand beyond analysis and research design to include training on traumatic impact for the researcher and on clinical skills for working with research participants who have experienced trauma (AbiNader et al., 2023; Billings et al., 2015; Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Fenge et al., 2019; Miller Reed et al., 2023; Social Research Association, 2001). In terms of social support, past qualitative research indicates that team science, regular check-ins with supervisors or peers, formal mentoring for early-career researchers, and debriefing promote well-being (AbiNader et al., 2023; Billings et al., 2015; Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Miller Reed et al., 2023; Social Research Association, 2001; Wallace & County, 2024). Some studies suggested that therapy was a potential avenue of intervention, but noted that seeking professional help is often considered taboo, as researchers are supposed to be neutral and unaffected by their work (Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Miller Reed et al., 2023; Wallace & County, 2024; Women’s Aid, 2020). As has been shown in research with frontline workers (Babin et al., 2012; Cummings et al., 2021; Frey et al., 2017; Tham, 2006), it is not sufficient to merely have opportunities to connect with others; the interactions must feel positive, authentic, and supportive to combat traumatization and increase resiliency (AbiNader et al., 2023; Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Miller Reed et al., 2023).

Past research additionally calls for clear and specific policies that support well-being (Maslach et al., 2001; Molnar et al., 2017). Some have noted that as employees of institutions, researchers are entitled to safety protections under national organizational health and safety regulations, which could include policies that attend to the psychological and physical risks of trauma research (Billings et al., 2015; Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Social Research Association, 2001). These could include clear guidelines around physical safety during in-person data collection, like requiring data collection to be done in pairs (Billings et al., 2015; Social Research Association, 2001), and psychological safety measures, such as policies on work hours that allow for flexible schedules so that researchers can pace their exposure to the material (AbiNader et al., 2023; Billings et al., 2015; Social Research Association, 2001). Past work has also indicated that policies that allow researchers to cease their exposure to the traumatic materials, by taking extended breaks or quitting, are also of potential import (AbiNader et al., 2023; Billings et al., 2015; Miller Reed et al., 2023; Social Research Association, 2001). More research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to promote resiliency and decrease traumatization used with research teams.

Current Study

As an initial step toward meeting this gap, this mixed-methods study surveyed injury and violence research supervisors recruited through listservs and social media. The study aimed to identify specific strategies used to promote resiliency and prevent traumatization, and the participants’ perception of the effectiveness of these strategies. Managing trauma-informed research teams that minimize risk to both participants and researchers is critical to conducting ethical, sustainable, and quality studies on violence and injury.

Methods

Approach

A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was used to assess researchers’ perspectives on managing research teams conducting violence and injury research, an understudied area of scholarship (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The participants answered a quantitative survey that assessed their experience, their use of management methods identified in the existing literature for frontline workers, and their perception of strategy effectiveness. They also answered open-ended questions that allowed them to describe their approach and offer insight into managing a violence and injury research team. The results were then analyzed and interpreted in tandem, allowing the qualitative data to enrich and contextualize the quantitative data (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).

Sampling

A convenience sample of self-identified violence and injury scholars was recruited through multiple strategies. Recruitment flyers were posted on X (i.e., Twitter) twice per week for 1 month in Spring 2024. The reasons for using X were twofold: first, at the time, it was a primary tool for academic dissemination (i.e., “academic twitter”), and second, it was the social media platform available to the research team (Klar et al., 2020; Taylor & Francis Author Services, 2025). Recruitment emails were sent to listservs of research societies for injury scholars, CDC-funded injury science centers, and university-based gun violence research centers in the United States that were identified through Google searches and targeted due to their large concentration of injury scholars. Scholars were recruited to answer a 5 to 10-min Qualtrics survey to share their experience of managing research teams. To be eligible for the survey, participants had to study violence and/or injury, have supervised at least one other researcher (including students, research assistants, research staff, and co-investigators), be over 18 years of age, be able to consent to research, be non-institutionalized, and speak English. All recruitment strategies and the research design were approved by the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. Seventy survey responses were recorded by Qualtrics; three responses were dropped because Qualtrics labeled them as bots (Qualtrics XM, 2024), and three responses were dropped due to non-completion (missing values for >90% of the questions). The final sample included 64 researchers.

Researcher Characteristics and Attitudes

The researchers’ roles, topics of study, total number of projects where they’ve supervised others, and their current number of supervisees were recorded (variable levels presented in Table 1). For later analyses, researcher role was condensed into five categories: senior and mid-career academics, early-career academics, academic research scientists, industry scientists, and trainees. The number of study topics was summed for each participant, creating a continuous variable indicating researchers with more specialist (one topic) and generalist (11 topics) interests. Participant attitudes toward vicarious traumatization and resilience were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale from “definitely not” to “definitely yes.” Specifically, participants were asked: “Do you think that individuals are impacted from doing research on violence and injury topics?”, “Do you think research teams can be structured and managed in such a way that promotes the well-being of researchers?”, and “Do you think research teams can be structured and managed in such a way that decreases the negative impacts of the research?”. For later analyses, the attitude Likert scales were reduced to dichotomous variables: yes, no/maybe.

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics.

Participant characteristic	N/m	%/SD
Researcher role
Full professor	10	15.63%
Associate professor	18	28.13%
Assistant professor	18	28.13%
Research scientist—Academy	3	4.69%
Research faculty—Academy	1	1.56%
Lead research scientist—Industry	3	4.69%
Research scientist—Industry	1	1.56%
Postdoc	4	6.25%
PhD student	5	7.81%
No response	1	1.56%
Average number of study topics	3.11	1.88
Study topics
Gender-based violence	42	65.63%
Community Violence	25	39.06%
Suicide	10	15.63%
Homicide	30	46.88%
Overdose	5	7.81%
Car accidents	3	4.69%
Falls & other accidents	2	3.13%
Traumatic brain injury	7	10.94%
ACEs	19	29.69%
Child abuse & neglect	16	25.00%
Firearms	33	51.56%
Other	6	9.38%
Number of projects they supervised
Less than 5	26	40.63%
5–10	19	29.69%
More than 10	19	29.69%
Average current number of supervisees (n = 62)	5.89	5.15
Do you think that individuals are impacted from doing research on violence and injury topics?
Definitely not	0	0.00%
Probably not	3	4.69%
Might or might not	9	14.06%
Probably yes	14	21.88%
Definitely yes	38	59.38%
Do you think research teams can be structured and managed in such a way that promotes the well-being of researchers?
Definitely not	0	0.00%
Probably not	1	1.56%
Might or might not	1	1.56%
Probably yes	18	28.13%
Definitely yes	44	68.75%
Do you think research teams can be structured and managed in such a way that decreases the negative impacts of the research?
Definitely not	0	0.00%
Probably not	1	1.56%
Might or might not	3	4.69%
Probably yes	23	35.94%
Definitely yes	37	57.81%
Average number of methods	9.34	5.23
Average overall perceived effectiveness	3.53	0.71

Management Strategies and Their Perceived Effectiveness

To develop the survey instrument, exisiting literature on vicarious trauma was reviewed to identify effective organizational interventions used in practice- and research-based settings. This literature review yielded a list of 20 strategies for managing traumatic exposure (strategies listed in Table 2). Participants were asked to select strategies from this list that they had used and to enter up to five additional strategies used. For each strategy endorsed, the participant was then asked to indicate how effective they perceived that method on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “not effective at all” to “extremely effective.” The average perceived effectiveness rating per method was also calculated. Finally, an open-text box allowed participants to share any final thoughts about managing research teams exposed to traumatic material.

Table 2.

Management Strategies and Their Average Perceived Effectiveness.

Management strategy	Number endorsed	% Endorsed	Effectiveness (m)	Effectiveness (SD)	Average effectiveness
Talk about aims and objectives of projects with whole research team	54	84.38%	3.23	1.03	Moderately effective
Talk as a team about self-care	47	73.44%	3.43	0.85	Moderately effective
Have regular team meetings that include discussions on well-being	45	70.31%	3.84	0.72	Moderately effective
Check-in with team members after a hard day/interview/session	44	68.75%	3.93	0.74	Moderately effective
Provide opportunities for team members to change tasks/duties	44	68.75%	3.70	0.85	Moderately effective
Discuss potential impact at job interview	42	65.63%	3.13	0.98	Moderately effective
Have regular individual supervision with team members	40	62.50%	3.64	0.78	Moderately effective
Train research members on vicarious trauma	38	59.38%	3.69	0.79	Moderately effective
During onboarding	26	40.63%	—	—	—
Regularly	18	28.13%	—	—	—
As needed	22	34.38%	—	—	—
Hold debriefings with team after critical incidents	37	57.81%	3.92	0.73	Moderately effective
Give team members opportunities to work with community partners	30	46.88%	3.10	1.14	Moderately effective
Have informal social events	26	40.63%	3.32	0.9	Moderately effective
Include the whole research team in creating research aims and objectives	25	39.06%	3.75	0.99	Moderately effective
Provide opportunities for continuing education, such as access to trainings or speakers	24	37.50%	3.48	1.08	Moderately effective
Give team members opportunities to work with research partners at other sites/labs	20	31.25%	3.25	0.85	Moderately effective
Have required time-off given to all team members	19	29.69%	4.00	0.75	Very effective
Have a written, accessible policy about breaks and/or time off	13	20.31%	3.36	1.21	Moderately effective
Have a written, accessible policy about supervision expectations	12	18.75%	3.25	1.06	Moderately effective
Have a designated team member whose job it is to promote well-being and support researchers	7	10.94%	4.00	1.26	Very effective
Have a written, accessible policy about changing tasks	6	9.38%	3.50	0.84	Moderately effective
Have a written, accessible policy about how to leave the team (i.e., quit)	6	9.38%	3.17	0.75	Moderately effective
Total number of respondents that suggested alternative methods	22	—	—	—	—

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were run to describe the distribution of all study variables. To describe factors associated with the number of management methods used, a linear regression was performed. Prior to regression, multiple imputation was used to estimate missing values in the variables researcher role (n = 1) and the participants’ current number of supervisees (n = 2). Five imputed datasets were generated using Stata 18’s “mi impute chained” command, as about 5% of cases had missing data (White et al., 2011). Pooled estimates were calculated using the “mi estimate” command. The results from the regression analysis using multiple imputation were similar in magnitude and direction to those using listwise deletion. The imputed results are described here. Qualitative results were analyzed using conventional content analysis, identifying themes in the qualitative questions about additional tools and other concerns (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). This approach allows the researcher to use answers to open-ended questions to describe a phenomenon without a priori assumptions (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Open-text responses to additional strategies used and the final open-text field were analyzed together, as some responses to “other method” included commentary, and some responses to the final qualitative question included additional strategies. Twenty-six participants provided qualitative answers, seven responded to both qualitative questions, seven to alternative strategy questions only, and 12 to the open-text question only. Quotes are used to add depth and trustworthiness to the results (Creswell, 2013); speakers are indicated by a randomly assigned identifier 1 to 64.

Results

Research Characteristics

Characteristics of the participants are displayed in Table 1. A majority of the sample were senior or mid-career academics. Researcher-participants studied between 1 and 11 topics, with an average number of study topics of 3.11. The most frequently studied topics were gender-based violence (intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking), homicide, and firearms. On average, participants currently supervised about six individuals, and 40.63% of the sample had supervised individuals on fewer than five projects. On average, researcher-participants used 9.34 management strategies and perceived them to be moderately effective.

Management Strategies and Their Perceived Effectiveness

Table 2 presents the distribution of management strategies used and the average perceived effectiveness of each strategy. Perceived effectiveness was rated on a five-point Likert scale from 1, not effective at all, to 5, extremely effective. The majority of strategies were perceived as moderately effective; a finding that was further emphasized in the qualitative data (qualitative results are presented in Table 3). Eight respondents noted that the perceived effectiveness of these strategies was context-dependent, varying based on the supervisee characteristic (e.g., an undergraduate) or the data characteristics (e.g., survivor stories). Others also emphasized that no single strategy alone was sufficient: “I think none of these strategies alone are more than moderately effective. It’s using these strategies simultaneously that is most helpful & creates a trauma-informed culture in the lab,” (Participant 5). Thus, using multiple strategies seemed to create a structural environment, or “culture,” that promoted well-being and prevented traumatization.

Table 3.

Themes From Qualitative Analysis (n = 26).

Theme	n	Exemplary quote
Strategies
Encourage breaks & slowing down	9	Encouraging occasional breaks and allowing them to work at their own pace at times is helpful. (Participant 41)
Reiterate that questions are welcome	5	Remind supervisees that I am always open to meeting 1:1 to discuss self-care & support healthy coping and work/life harmony (Participant 5)
Informal policies	4	Not written or required, but I provide time-off in selective moments and encourage breaks. (Participant 30)
Model prevention & promotion	4	Actively model taking “mental health days” (Participant 4)
Provide opportunities for reflection	4	Vicarious trauma symptomology self-assessment (Participant 2)
“Build rapport and connection” (Participant 31)	2	Keep an open door, so to speak, and a comfortable environment to visit and talk. To create that environment, I have a round table so there is no head of the table, pictures of past students, and a comfortable chair to relax in if needed. (Participant 24)
Include supervisees in lab policy creation	2	Another behavior would be actually incorporating/leaving the input of the team members into the policies/aims/objectives. (Participant 25)
Fair pay & paid leave	2	Pay people well. (Participant 22)
Connect work to wider issues	1	Connecting staff to community-based organizers addressing the issues we’re observing (Participant 16)
Concerns
Strategies are context-dependent	8	I think the responses I gave are very reliant on the person that we are dealing with. Some chose not to talk, tell the truth or know how to broach the subject. It is a balancing act where I try to constantly offer alternatives and discuss holistic health. (Participant 33)
Lack of support for self	5	Ironically, one of my projects involved studying vicarious trauma in community violence intervention workers but I didn’t really think about vicarious trauma in my own team until I myself broke down sobbing at a community meeting where [triggered by data characteristic]. (Participant 57)
Support needs to be authentic	3	Action is more important than just having policies or going over the stress reducers once and then forgetting about them. (Participant 21)
Power dynamics	3	Also awareness is needed that students or junior employees may not believe they can speak up about issues. (Participant 21)
Lack of external support	1	We struggle to find a good fit for our team to provide VT therapeutic support. This is a challenge when we are multiple MSWs with experience–it can be intimidating to the provide (Participant 11)
Researchers numb to survive	1	I think often in this work people are not able to identify the impact it has on them. It is sometimes easy to create a barrier to the severity of working with homicide and/or child maltreatment data, narratives, interview transcripts, etc. Once out of the environment of dealing with this on a regular basis, people might be more able to identify the impact it had on them while they were engaged in the research. (Participant 48)
Quantitative v. Qualitative	1	Qualitative research can be much more difficult than quantitative research due to the impact of specific stories. (Participant 56)
Tension between clinical and research training	1	One last thing is also working with MSW or clinical folks on understanding research. It is critical we are training them not to be clinicians or advocates during the research process–this has been one of the most difficult processes for my advanced students. (Participant 11)

Two strategies were rated “very effective” on average: having a designated team member who looks after researcher well-being and required time off. Having a designated team member for was one of the least endorsed strategies (n = 7), but was highly rated by those who used it. Two participants further highlighted in qualitative responses that having a therapist available was critical to team well-being. The strategy of requiring time off was endorsed by 19 participants. Qualitative data re-emphasized taking breaks and time off (n = 9) as an effective strategy, with four participants indicating that these were informal or oral policies rather than formal, written ones.

Several others indicated that simply having the strategies or policies in place was insufficient—team leaders needed to cultivate an environment of support through “build[ing] rapport and connection” (Participant 31), modeling the behaviors, and proactively reminding supervisees about the opportunities in place or ensuring that they are used. Participant 25 explained,

I think a major point is the behavior following these actions. For example, asking and discussing vicarious trauma and then labeling/“modeling” when that happens to you and normalizing taking time, engaging in self-care (e.g., modeling not responding to emails over break, etc.).

Three participants explicitly emphasized that the power dynamics between supervisor and supervisee made these extra steps beyond policy necessary; “encouragement is needed” (Participant 21) to emphasize that these strategies are not only available, but that supervisors really want supervisees to use them. Several widely endorsed strategies could contribute to creating a collegial environment, including talking with the team about self-care (n = 47), check-ins (n = 44), debriefings (n = 38), and informal social events (n = 26).

Five participants noted that while they had strategies for supporting supervisees, they lacked structural support for themselves. As Participant 11 stated: “As for me, I also need support. I carry the burden of caring for the team and worrying about the impact of the research, but do not have much of my own support.” Taken together, the quantitative and qualitative results indicated that participants used a variety of strategies to manage trauma exposure in research and that variability, flexibility, and consistency in strategies were needed to increase their perceived effectiveness.

Researcher Characteristics Associated With the Number of Strategies Used

Table 4 displays characteristics associated with the number of strategies one employs to manage trauma exposure on research teams. The linear regression found that the participants who indicated that they believed people were impacted by the work utilized 4.40 more strategies than those who were unsure or denied impact (p = .008). Researcher-participants who had supervised others on 5 to 10 projects used 3.21 more strategies than those who had supervised others on fewer than five projects (p = .032). There was no significant difference in the number of strategies used by those who had supervised more than 10 projects and those who supervised fewer than 5 projects, nor between those who had supervised more than 10 projects and those who supervised 5 to 10 projects (β = −1.10, p = .496).

Table 4.

Participant Characteristics and the Number of Management Strategies Employed.

Participant characteristic	B	SE	p	95% CI
Role (Ref: Senior to Mid-Career Academic)
Early career academic	−2.04	1.57	.201	−5.19	1.12
Academic Research Scientist	1.52	2.48	.543	−3.47	6.51
Industry Scientist	−1.16	2.50	.646	−6.20	3.88
Trainee (doctoral & postdoctoral)	−0.76	1.84	.68	−4.45	2.93
Attitude: Are people impacted? (Ref: Yes)
No	4.40	1.59	.008	1.20	7.61
Attitude: Can you promote resilience? (Ref: Yes)
No	3.10	3.89	.431	−4.74	10.93
Attitude: Traumatization possible (Ref: Yes)
No	2.52	2.61	.339	−2.72	7.77
Number of projects (Ref: Less than 5)
5–10	3.21	1.46	.032	0.29	6.14
More than 10	1.72	1.73	.326	−1.77	5.21
Number of supervisees currently	0.20	0.13	.132	−0.06	0.46
Constant	−3.03	3.77	.426	−10.61	4.56

Bold text indicates a significant finding.

Discussion

To summarize, this mixed-methods study found that supervisors used a variety of techniques to promote resilience and prevent traumatization, and these methods were perceived overall as moderately effective. Findings from the qualitative data indicated that perceived effectiveness was context-dependent, varying by research design and research team makeup. Participants further noted that these strategies needed to be paired with genuine, expressed care for team members’ well-being and modeling of the behaviors (e.g., taking breaks) to be effective. Only two strategies were perceived as highly effective: requiring time off and having a team member whose job is supporting team well-being. The number of strategies one used was associated with believing that the work could impact research well-being and having previously supervised others on 5 to 10 projects.

Researcher-participants had used about 10 strategies to respond to vicarious trauma, and findings from the qualitative data emphasized that multiple strategies were needed to foster an environment responsive to traumatic exposure. Studies of interventions with frontline workers have rarely investigated a single strategy but rather examined the impact of multiple interventions, such as training, policies, and social support. Notably, these strategies emphasize interventions implemented by the organization, not individuals. The Vicarious Trauma Toolkit, an evidence-based tool to support community-based agencies to create a vicarious trauma-informed workplace, underlines the importance of a multi-prong approach by examining five areas for intervention: leadership and mission, management and supervision, employee empowerment and work environment, training and professional development, and staff health and wellness (Office for Victims of Crime, 2018). If one were to construct a management approach combining the toolkit domains and the strategies with higher perceived effectiveness ratings found here, one could, for example: include the whole research team in creating research aims and objectives, have regular team meetings that include discussions on well-being, have required time-off given to all team members, train research members on vicarious trauma, and have a designated team member whose job it is to promote well-being and support researchers. This study further underlines past findings that several strategies should be used in tandem to support researcher well-being.

The number of strategies researchers endorsed varied significantly by the number of projects on which they had supervised others. Those who had supervised others on 5 to 10 projects used significantly more strategies than those who had supervised on fewer than five projects. This could be explained by a supervisor seeing the impacts of vicarious trauma on their research team over time and proactively seeking strategies to improve outcomes. However, researcher-participants who worked on the greatest number of supervised projects did not use significantly more strategies than the other, less experienced, researchers. There are a few possible explanations here. First, these researcher-participants may have tried many strategies earlier in their career but have now identified a smaller subset that works well for them. The majority of respondents who reported having supervised others on 10 or more projects were mid-career to senior faculty (68%). It is possible that this lack of difference may also reflect generational differences regarding the responsibility of a researcher to support supervisees in this manner (Austin, 2002) or that later career faculty may be experiencing burnout, decreasing their motivation for intervention (Maslach et al., 2001; McCann & Pearlman, 1990). More work is needed to understand the sustainability and effectiveness of interventions over time and on generational differences in attitudes toward and training on vicarious trauma.

One of the highest-rated, but least endorsed strategies to intervene in vicarious trauma was having a team member whose job it was to respond to the psychological needs of the research team. Past literature on researchers has explicitly endorsed access to psychological support through accessing therapy (Dickson-Swift et al., 2007; Miller Reed et al., 2023; Wallace & County, 2024); and agency guidance has called for having a team member responsible for wellness and safety (Billings et al., 2015; Social Research Association, 2001). Among frontline workers, past research has emphasized the need for institutionalized access to support, including a specific staff person for well-being or access to therapeutic resources (Bell, 2003; Ben-Porat, 2015; Douglas, 2013a; Habeger et al., 2022; McCann & Pearlman, 1990; Office for Victims of Crime, 2018). However, in practice, this role is not always accessible or implemented. One notable barrier to hiring an individual to provide care on a research team, as well as in community agencies, is funding. Some have highlighted a need to change grantors’ perspectives in order to allow budgets that include extra supports for individuals who experience negative impacts from trauma research; a budget item that is as critical to completing the research project as participant incentives (Billings et al., 2015; Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Social Research Association, 2001). In addition to individual grants, researchers could collaborate with others in their school or department to cost-share a specialized interventionist.

Another potential barrier to accessing care is the feeling that seeking psychological support for one’s work is shameful or wrong (Miller Reed et al., 2023; Wallace & County, 2024). Many scholars are taught to approach science from a positivist and objectivist frame, and admitting that one is having affective and cognitive changes in response to one’s data can go against the image of a neutral researcher that one was taught to emulate (Clegg, 2016; Miller Reed et al., 2023; Wallace & County, 2024; Wilson, 2000). However, injury and violence research meets the criteria of jobs that require emotional labor: our work is public-facing; it can produce an emotional response from others, especially through qualitative interviews and surveys of participants; and supervisors direct the emotional experiences of employees by assigning team members to projects with traumatic material (Hochschild, 2012). Thus, it is the supervisor’s role (and their institution’s) to attend to these emotional and traumatic responses experienced by their team and to proactively manage the impact of traumatic exposure (Cohen & Collens, 2013; Gustavsson & MacEachron, 2002; Hochschild, 2012; Kim et al., 2022; Ting et al., 2006). Importantly, vicarious traumatization theory posits that when one ignores this impact, workers are more likely to develop biases, become cynical, and burn out (McCann & Pearlman, 1990). Accessing care, either outside one’s lab or by having a team member dedicated to wellness, is critical for promoting resiliency and preventing traumatization; however, structural and epistemological changes are needed before this strategy can be widely implemented.

The qualitative analyses indicated that these strategies need to be delivered in a way that felt authentic: supervisees required reminders that they were expected to take interventions like time off, and supervisors needed to model the behaviors for which they were advocating. Prior studies among researchers and frontline workers have found that a positive work environment where individuals feel genuine care promotes resiliency and a sense of equity and fairness (AbiNader et al., 2023; Cummings et al., 2021; Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Frey et al., 2017; Tham, 2006). Importantly, researcher-participants who believed that researchers could be impacted by trauma were more likely to use a higher number of strategies than those who did not. The normalization of vicarious trauma impact from the supervisor could contribute to a genuine culture of care and create a more robust response to trauma exposure (Frey et al., 2017; Ghahramanlou & Brodbeck, 2000; Habeger et al., 2022; Iliffe & Steed, 2000). In addition to genuinely supporting others, part of creating such an atmosphere is proactively investing in structures that support well-being (Frey et al., 2017). Formal, written policies that ensure time-off, access to services, and flexibility in workloads; describe clear pay scales; and outline other interventions indicate to staff that one is serious about responding to trauma exposure and codify workers’ rights (AbiNader et al., 2023; Cohen & Collens, 2013; Maslach et al., 2001; Regehr et al., 2002). A study of Swedish child welfare workers found that this type of proactive, codified approach to supporting well-being decreased the odds of someone wanting to leave the industry by 48%, and was the sole significantly driving factor when controlling for other characteristics like control over work, perceived inequality, supervisor support, and workload (Tham, 2006).

Study Limitations and Future Research Directions

While this article is an initial step toward examining the perceived effectiveness of interventions used with research teams to promote resiliency and decrease traumatization, it is not without its limitations. The sample for this study was on the smaller side and conveniently sampled, meaning that the findings here are not generalizable to a larger population. National research organizations could perhaps run a randomly sampled survey of their members to better capture the trends nationally. While this study measured perceived effectiveness, studies using experimental methods are needed to measure the effectiveness and sustainability of intervention methods. For example, a multisite study of violence and injury could run a parallel study where some sites receive vicarious trauma interventions and others do not, taking advantage of the multisite project to randomize the intervention by site.

This study intentionally studied researchers with supervisory experience to focus on organizational-level strategies for resilience promotion and traumatization prevention. Thus, the sample represented predominantly senior researchers and may lack insights for managing traumatic exposure that early-career faculty or predoctoral researchers may use to regulate their own exposure that could be extended to team science. Furthermore, in order to measure actual effectiveness of these interventions, supervisees must be surveyed to measure and describe intervention impact. Finally, this study recruited participants primarily from U.S.-based injury science centers, which limits its generalizability globally. More research is needed to understand how local contexts and cultures may influence how researchers experience vicarious trauma and how supervisors mitigate risk on research teams.

Conclusion

Witnessing violence and injury in one’s work elicits affective and cognitive reactions due to potential psychological safety risks and natural empathic responses (American Psychiatric Association, 2022; Herman, 2015; McCann & Pearlman, 1990). It is therefore imperative that research teams develop strategies to promote resilience and prevent traumatization, like those studied here. As researchers, we are bound to ethical codes that dictate practices to keep participants safe, and formal guidelines that also consider researcher physical and psychological safety are needed. Training programs that address vicarious trauma should be developed for use across research labs, similar to the trainings one does for research ethics, and should normalize researcher reactivity to violence and injury data. Interventions could collaborate with existing wellness and safety programs—such as employee assistance programs, student counseling services, and occupational safety and health programs—to decrease the burden of initiating and sustaining vicarious trauma interventions. This study indicated that researchers need a variety of tools in their toolbox to intervene in vicarious trauma and that psychological support and time off were key interventions. More experimental research is needed to test the long-term effectiveness of such interventions.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

The study obtained appropriate ethical approval from the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board, and obtained informed consent from participants prior to their study participation.

ORCID iD

Millan A. AbiNader

Author Biography

Dr. Millan A. AbiNader is a mixed-methods researcher who seeks to understand the social ecology of gender-based violence, with particular attention to intimate partner violence-related fatalities. She also researches how one’s social and geographic position, like race or rurality, affects one’s experience of gender-based violence and investigates how organizational environment, like human resource policies, affects survivor-client experiences. Before entering academia, Dr. AbiNader worked as a community victim services advocate with survivors of sexual violence, intimate partner violence, family violence, and commercial sexual exploitation/trafficking. Dr. AbiNader is currently an Assistant Professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy and Practice.

References

AbiNader

M. A.

DeVoe

Spencer

(2020). “It’s like you gotta fly the plane while you’re repairing it at the same time”: Supporting rural intimate partner violence victim advocates after the homicide of a client. Partner Abuse, PA-D-19-00054. https://doi.org/10.1891/PA-D-19-00054

AbiNader

M. A.

Messing

J. T.

Pizarro

Kappas Mazzio

Turner

B. G.

Tomlinson

(2023). Attending to our own trauma: Promoting vicarious resilience and preventing vicarious traumatization among researchers. Social Work Research, 47, 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svad016

Aldrich

Kallivayalil

(2013). The impact of homicide on survivors and clinicians. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 18(4), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2012.701125

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th, text rev ed.). American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787

Austin

A. E.

(2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2002.0001

Babin

E. A.

Palazzolo

K. E.

Rivera

K. D.

(2012). Communication skills, social support, and burnout among advocates in a domestic violence agency. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40(2), 147–166.

Baird

Jenkins

S. R.

(2003). Vicarious traumatization, secondary traumatic stress, and burnout in sexual assault and domestic violence agency staff. Violence and Victims, 18(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.2003.18.1.71

Barrington

A. J.

Shakespeare-Finch

(2013). Working with refugee survivors of torture and trauma: An opportunity for vicarious post-traumatic growth. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2012.727553

Bell

(2003). Cycles within cycles. Violence Against Women, 9(10), 1245–1262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801203255865

10.

Bemiller

Williams

L. S.

(2011). The role of adaptation in advocate burnout: A case of good soldiering. Violence Against Women, 17(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801210393923

11.

Ben-Porat

(2015). Vicarious post-traumatic growth: Domestic violence therapists versus social service department therapists in Israel. Journal of Family Violence, 30(7), 923–933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9714-x

12.

Benuto

Singer

Cummings

Ahrendt

(2018). The Vicarious Trauma Scale: Confirmatory factor analysis and psychometric properties with a sample of victim advocates. Health & Social Care in the Community, 26(4), 564–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12554

13.

Berger

Gelkopf

(2011). An intervention for reducing secondary traumatization and improving professional self-efficacy in well baby clinic nurses following war and terror: A random control group trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(5), 601–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.09.007

14.

Billings

Cohen

Coles

Contreras-Urbina

Dartnell

Fields

Hatcher

Loots

Kajula

Manoharan

Richters

Sikweyiya

Slegh

Thomson

Vujovic

(2015). Guidelines for the prevention and management of vicarious trauma among researchers of sexual and intimate partner violence. Sexual Violence Research Initiative. https://www.svri.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2016-06-02/SVRIVTguidelines.pdf

15.

Brady

P. Q.

Hayes

B. E.

(2018). The intersection of stalking and the severity of intimate partner abuse. Violence and Victims, 33(2), 218–238. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-16-00193

16.

Butler

L. D.

Carello

Maguin

(2017). Trauma, stress, and self-care in clinical training: Predictors of burnout, decline in health status, secondary traumatic stress symptoms, and compassion satisfaction. Psychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and Policy, 9(4), 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000187

17.

Clegg

J. W.

(2016). Reconsidering philosophy of science pedagogy in psychology: An evaluation of methods texts. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 36(4), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000035

18.

Cohen

Collens

(2013). The impact of trauma work on trauma workers: A metasynthesis on vicarious trauma and vicarious posttraumatic growth. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 5(6), 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030388

19.

Coles

Mudaly

(2010). Staying safe: Strategies for qualitative child abuse researchers. Child Abuse Review, 19(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.1080

20.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.

21.

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

(2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.

22.

Cullen

Dawson

Price

Rowlands

(2021). Intersectionality and invisible victims: Reflections on data challenges and vicarious trauma in femicide, family and intimate partner homicide research. Journal of Family Violence, 36(5), 619–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00243-4

23.

Cummings

Singer

Hisaka

Benuto

L. T.

(2021). Compassion satisfaction to combat work-related burnout, vicarious trauma, and secondary traumatic stress. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, n5304–n5319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518799502

24.

Dickson-Swift

James

E. L.

Kippen

Liamputtong

(2007). Doing sensitive research: What challenges do qualitative researchers face? Qualitative Research, 7(3), 327–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794107078515

25.

Dickson-Swift

James

E. L.

Kippen

Liamputtong

(2008). Risk to researchers in qualitative research on sensitive topics: Issues and strategies. Qualitative Health Research, 18(1), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307309007

26.

Douglas

E. M.

(2013a). Child welfare workers who experience the death of a child client. Administration in Social Work, 37(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2012.654903

27.

Douglas

E. M.

(2013b). Symptoms of posttraumatic stress among child welfare workers who experience a maltreatment fatality on their caseload. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10(4), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/15433714.2012.664058

28.

Engstrom

Hernandez

Gangsei

(2008). Vicarious resilience: A qualitative investigation into its description. Traumatology, 14(3), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534765608319323

29.

Fenge

L. A.

Oakley

Taylor

Beer

(2019). The impact of sensitive research on the researcher: Preparedness and positionality. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1609406919893161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919893161

30.

Frey

L. L.

Beesley

Abbott

Kendrick

(2017). Vicarious resilience in sexual assault and domestic violence advocates. Psychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and Policy, 9(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000159

31.

Ghahramanlou

Brodbeck

(2000). Predictors of secondary trauma in sexual assault trauma counselors. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 2(4), 229–240.

32.

Gustavsson

MacEachron

A. E.

(2002). Death and the child welfare worker. Children and Youth Services Review, 24(12), 903–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0190-7409(02)00251-7

33.

Habeger

A. D.

Connell

T. D. J.

Harris

R. L.

Jackson

(2022). Promoting burnout prevention through a socio-ecological lens. Delaware Journal of Public Health, 8(2), 70–75. https://doi.org/10.32481/djph.2022.05.008

34.

Herman

J. L.

(2015). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence—From domestic abuse to political terror. Basic Books. https://buprimo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=ALMA_BOSU151856879380001161&context=L&vid=BU<=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=LocalSearchEngine&isFrbr=true&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,judithherman&sortby=dat

35.

Hochschild

A. R.

(2012). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520951853

36.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

37.

Iliffe

Steed

L. G.

(2000). Exploring the counselor’s experience of working with perpetrators and survivors of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(4), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626000015004004

38.

Kim

Chesworth

Franchino-Olsen

Macy

R. J.

(2022). A scoping review of vicarious trauma interventions for service providers working with people who have experienced traumatic events. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 23, 1437–1460. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838021991310

39.

Klar

Krupnikov

Ryan

J. B.

Searles

Shmargad

(2020). Using social media to promote academic research: Identifying the benefits of twitter for sharing academic work. PLoS One, 15(4), e0229446. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229446

40.

Loyle

C. E.

Simoni

(2017). Researching under fire: Political science and researcher trauma. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(1), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516002328

41.

Maslach

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422.

42.

McCann

I. L.

Pearlman

L. A.

(1990). Vicarious traumatization: A framework for understanding the psychological effects of working with victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 3(1), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00975140

43.

Miller Reed

Morgan

L. M.

Cowan

R. G.

Birtles

. (2023). Lived experiences of human subjects researchers and vicarious trauma. Journal of Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences, 17(1), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.5590/jsbhs.2023.17.1.12

44.

Molnar

B. E.

Sprang

Killian

K. D.

Gottfried

Emery

Bride

B. E.

(2017). Advancing science and practice for vicarious traumatization/secondary traumatic stress: A research agenda. Traumatology, 23(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/trm0000122

45.

Office for Victims of Crime. (2018). The vicarious trauma toolkit. https://vtt.ovc.ojp.gov/

46.

Pack

(2014). Vicarious resilience. Affilia, 29(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109913510088

47.

Pihkala

(2020). The cost of bearing witness to the environmental crisis: Vicarious traumatization and dealing with secondary traumatic stress among environmental researchers. Social Epistemology, 34(1), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2019.1681560

48.

Qualtrics XM. (2024). Fraud detection. https://www.qualtrics.com/support/survey-platform/survey-module/survey-checker/fraud-detection/

49.

Regehr

Chau

Leslie

Howe

(2002). Inquiries into deaths of children in care: The impact on child welfare workers and their organization. Children and Youth Services Review, 24(12), 885–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0190-7409(02)00250-5

50.

Social Research Association. (2001). A code of practice for the safety of social researchers. https://the-sra.org.uk/common/Uploaded%20files/SRA-safety-code-of-practice.pdf

51.

Tashakkori

Teddlie

(1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage Publications.

52.

Taylor & Francis Author Services. (2025). A guide to Twitter for researchers. Author Services. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/research-impact/a-guide-to-twitter-for-researchers/

53.

Tham

(2006). Why are they leaving? Factors affecting intention to leave among social workers in child welfare. British Journal of Social Work, 37(7), 1225–1246. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcl054

54.

Ting

Sanders

Jacobson

J. M.

Power

J. R.

(2006). Dealing with the aftermath: A qualitative analysis of mental health social workers’ reactions after a client suicide. Social Work, 51(4), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/51.4.329

55.

Vrklevski

P. L.

Franklin

(2008). Vicarious trauma: The impact on solicitors of exposure to traumatic material. Traumatology, 14(1), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534765607309961

56.

Wallace

W. C.

County

(2024). Vicarious trauma and coping mechanisms: The lived experiences of a cohort of qualitative researchers in Academe. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 33(5), 570–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2023.2228236

57.

White

I. R.

Royston

Wood

A. M.

(2011). Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30(4), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067

58.

Wilson

H. J.

(2000). The myth of objectivity: Is medicine moving towards a social constructivist medical paradigm? Family Practice, 17(2), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/17.2.203

59.

Women’s Aid. (2020). Research integrity framework on domestic violence and abuse. Women’s Aid.

Managing the Impacts of Exposure to Trauma on Injury and Violence Research Teams

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Orientation: Vicarious Traumatization and Resilience

Vicarious Trauma and Research Teams

Vicarious Trauma Interventions

Current Study

Methods

Approach

Sampling

Researcher Characteristics and Attitudes

Management Strategies and Their Perceived Effectiveness

Data Analysis

Results

Research Characteristics

Management Strategies and Their Perceived Effectiveness

Researcher Characteristics Associated With the Number of Strategies Used

Discussion

Study Limitations and Future Research Directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Approval

ORCID iD

Author Biography

References