Strengthening Reflexivity Through Trauma- and Violence-Informed Practice in Action Research

Abstract

Reflexivity is an integral part of action research and is recognized as an important and necessary indicator of study rigour. A key goal of reflexivity is to ensure that research decisions do not replicate existing (or add new) harm to those whom the research describes or involves, however less attention has been paid to potential harms that researchers themselves may face. This paper brings attention to the vulnerabilities of researchers with lived experiences of trauma and structural violence and explicitly integrates Trauma- and Violence-Informed (TVI) principles into the reflexive process. A case example and “how to” guide are provided to assist researchers in creating safe environments not only for their study participants, but also for the researchers and community co-researchers involved, with particular focus on those conducting sensitive studies in highly (re)traumatizing topic areas.

Keywords

reflexivity trauma- and violence-informed principles sensitive research researcher’s safety and care

Introduction

Reflexivity, defined as “a set of continuous, collaborative, multifaceted practices through which researchers self-consciously critique, appraise, and evaluate how their subjectivity and context influence the research process” (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023), is an integral part of action research and is recognized as an important and necessary indicator of study rigour. Engaging in reflexivity allows researchers to document their subjective stance and articulate decisions throughout the complex process of co-constructing knowledge with participants, from question selection, study design, data collection and analysis, to interpretation of findings and knowledge mobilization strategies (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023). At its simplest, reflexivity can be thought of as continuously examining and questioning assumptions and perspectives that influence research decisions. These assumptions and perspectives relate to the researchers’ positionality, which “both describes an individual’s world view and the position they adopt about a research task and its social and political context” (Holmes, 2020). These positions, including intersecting social identities and affiliations, generate assumptions (ontological, epistemological, etc.) that influence what people choose to study, how they study it and with whom, what data they choose to collect and not collect, how they interpret and share their findings. In this paper, we bring specific attention to the vulnerabilities of researchers with lived experiences of the kinds of trauma and structural violence reflected in the topics they/we often select for study, discussing the kinds of research contexts and decisions that could lead them, and their teams, to moral, emotional and structural distress. We describe Trauma- and Violence-Informed (TVI) principles, then explain how to explicitly integrate them into the reflexive process, including providing guidance on how to articulate statements of positionality. First, we review key literature on the core concepts of reflexivity and positionality, then discuss how personal experiences of trauma can frame for individual researchers (and teams) the selection of topics that can be (re)traumatizing both to themselves and those participating. We then propose a practical Trauma- and Violence-Informed Reflexivity (TVI-R) process and provide practical examples of its application in our own work.

While keen attention to reflexivity and positionality has arisen mainly from qualitative and critical traditions, these positions - both those we adopt, and those in which we are placed through hierarchies or matrices of oppression (Collins, 2022) - equally can and do influence decisions across all research types, including quantitative and mixed-method designs (Akter et al., 2022; Jamieson et al., 2023; Massoud, 2022). However, it is generally still the case that only those undertaking qualitative research are expected to both practice reflexivity and report on its use, along with their positionality, in peer-reviewed and other products, such as dissertations (Barrett et al., 2020; Finefter-Rosenbluh, 2017; Guba & Lincoln, 1981). To support this emerging imperative in action research and beyond, there is a growing body of literature explaining reflexivity and positionality and how to successfully integrate, implement and report on them (Arias López et al., 2023; Dodgson, 2019; Johnson & Rose, 2024; Keso et al., 2009; Kinitz, 2022; Olmos-Vega et al., 2023; Vertommen et al., 2024), while avoiding common pitfalls (Dodgson, 2019; Kinitz, 2022). Additionally, a key goal of reflexivity is to ensure that such decisions do not replicate existing (or add new) harm, including stigma, discrimination, and oppression (e.g., via prioritizing researchers’ assumptions over participants’ lived experiences), to those whom the research describes or involves (“subjects” in quantitative studies; “participants” in most mixed and qualitative work; “co-researchers” in participatory and action research). But few if any of these guides explicitly integrate TVI principles into reflexivity to ensure that researchers and research teams themselves remain safe and well, both from the potential reactivation of their individual trauma, but also from the ongoing forms of oppression and structural violence in which the research, and researchers, are potentially embedded. The importance of TVI reflexivity cannot be overstated given the unique opportunities and challenges entailed in engaging in reflexivity, in particular for researchers with lived/living experience of the kinds of trauma being examined in the specific research (Vertommen et al., 2024). Unlike other components of research where the focus is on the process and participants, the reflexivity process brings in the researchers’ “self/selves” and requires them to engage in an in-depth reflection on their subjectivity and positionality, and document how this may influence the research process and outcomes (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023). While beneficial, reflexivity could lead to unintended harm if measures to safeguard researchers’ well-being are not carefully put in place. Thus, this paper builds on previous work suggesting the integration of a trauma lens in the research process (Johnson & Rose, 2024; Vertommen et al., 2024) but positions trauma- and violence-informed approaches as a way to capture the traumatic impacts of experiences of trauma and violence, especially structural and systemic violence.

Reflexivity and Positionality – A Brief Primer

While reflexivity’s origins date back to the early 20^th century and the work of John Dewey in education, and later Bourdieu and then Giddens in critical social theory, recent decades have seen significant evolution in the “how to” of reflexive practice for qualitative researchers. The concept is rooted in respect for individual perspectives and the social shaping of knowledge through social/relational practices (Charmaz, 2006; Finlay & Gough, 2008; Olmos-Vega et al., 2023; Sandelowski, 1993). The fundamental premise of reflexivity is that there is and can be no true ‘objectivity’ in research – all decisions are relational, first with/within the researcher’s own perspectives and positions, then with/within those of their co-researchers, including, in action research, those with lived and living experience of the phenomenon of interest. Reflexivity prioritizes ethical conduct of research in the sense that it enables researchers to attend to the effects of research, ensuring that people or perspectives are not misrepresented or marginalized in study data and that participant voices are prioritized (Grenier, 2023; Lees et al., 2022). Practicing reflexivity means ensuring respectful, ethical, and consensual negotiations between and among research team members and participants (Grenier, 2023). Thus, the expectation in the practice of reflexivity is not to try to neutralize researcher influence on the study, but to build on their subjective experience to co-create knowledge with co-researchers/participants. When reflexivity is realized, participants’ voices will be prioritized but researchers’ voices will also be represented (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023).

As noted above, it is becoming common practice in qualitative research to document an explicit discussion of researcher positionality (Subramani, 2019), often at the outset of the research process, to clarify how their experiences, privilege/lack of privilege, and social locations may influence their research decisions and processes (Massoud, 2022). Thus, the statement of positionality is the necessary but not sufficient ‘up-front’ acknowledgement of the factors that may influence the ongoing and dynamic process of reflexivity that occurs throughout a research study, from ideation through data collection and analysis, interpretation and presentation of study findings to academic and non-academic audiences, including, in action research, back to participants and those implicated by the findings.

Reflexivity’s Impacts on Researchers

Limited literature exists regarding the potential adverse effects of the reflexive process on researchers who engage in it. Potential harms can take the form of mental distress relating to, for example, recalling painful personal experiences, discomfort in sharing/disclosing personal details, fear of social, employment or even political repercussions from making one’s experiences public, etc. (Mallon & Elliott, 2019). Here we focus on the case where the researcher(s) themselves have lived and/or living experience of the phenomenon under study when it is sensitive and potentially re-traumatizing.

Sensitive and/or Traumatic Research

There are different ways in which research topics may be considered sensitive. Mallon & Elliott (2019) describe three ‘threats’ that may make a topic or research process harmful: (1) ‘inclusive threat’ where the topic of study is private or has the potential to cause distress, (2) ‘sanction threat’ that includes data that may expose forms of stigma or deviance, and (3) ‘political threat’ that may emerge when researchers are investigating topics of social conflict. These ‘threats’ potentially place researchers as well as participants at risk of experiencing harm or vulnerability through conducting, participating in and sharing the research. Sensitive research topics also refer to those that have the potential to create highly charged emotions for the researcher, especially if the topic is considered traumatic (Band-Winterstein et al., 2014). This type of research has the potential to create feelings of vulnerability and may re-activate trauma from events that occurred in the past (Band-Winterstein et al., 2014).

Trauma is an experience and response to an event or series of events that is perceived to be intense, overwhelming, or devastating, exceeding the individual’s ability to cope and integrate the emotions that are part of the experience and/or response (Winfield, 2022). A common experience, trauma can result from a variety of situations such as a single event (e.g., an accident or natural disaster), be complex (e.g., displacement caused by war), and/or chronic (e.g., ongoing forms of abuse in childhood or intimate partner violence as an adult) (Nonomura et al., 2020). Trauma can have long-lasting health effects and be transmitted across generations (Uwizeye et al., 2021; Uwizeye et al., 2025; Wathen & Mantler, 2022). In this context, the reflexive process itself, including the initial consideration of positionality, may exacerbate traumatic activation/re-activation.

Researchers as Insiders

Insider research is a term that originated in anthropology and describes a context where the researcher is also a member of the community or culture being studied (Gupta, 2023; Kinitz, 2022). Often, those who engage in insider research bring their own lived and living experiences to the work, with many benefits, including being able to use common language and reflect on shared experiences; this rapport can foster person-centred research (Gupta, 2023; Kinitz, 2022). Research questions are more likely to address an identified need in the community and use methodologies and methods that are aligned with the culture and context being studied. Insider researchers are also better placed to recruit participants and appreciate subtleties or nuances of how shared experiences may influence reactions and responses during data collection, analysis and interpretation (Gill, 2022). This rapport, nuance and depth of knowledge enriches the reflexive process as researchers can use their insider status to position themselves within the study topic: “It situates researchers with lived/living experience in a particular context into the research process in insightful ways that outsiders might be unattuned to” (Kinitz, 2022, p. 1636).

On the other hand, insider researchers can face varying types and degrees of distress, as reflexivity requires revisiting events and experiences that may reactivate or even elicit new trauma (Kumar & Cavallaro, 2018). At times, a dual identity forms, in which researchers straddle the roles of both an academic and a person with lived experience, potentially creating difficulties with fitting into the social norms of the academic workplace (Faulkner & Thompson, 2023). Along with balancing potentially conflicting identities, researchers who share common experiences with participants may over-identify with participants and avoid or prioritize personally meaningful facets of the research topic (Gill, 2022).

In sum, researchers with lived experience of the topic under study, particularly topics that are traumatic, have been documented to experience overt emotions such as stress, anxiety or intense discomfort while practicing reflexivity (Kumar & Cavallaro, 2018). Since reflexivity makes explicit issues of power, privilege, and social or cultural factors (Kumar & Cavallaro, 2018), researchers who identify with the experiences of the participants under study may be vulnerable to experiencing additional trauma. Harms can be especially prevalent when researchers from marginalized social positions are leading studies about marginalization while working in environments that have the potential to be oppressive and oppressing (Box 1) (Machin et al., 2023). Thus, the intersections of a researcher’s (or team’s) social locations and positionings, specific to gender, racialization, class, ability, sexuality and other factors, can compound and exacerbate experiences of discrimination and harm (Gupta, 2023).

Insider researchers, and those studying sensitive/traumatizing topics, generally accept the risk of some level of emotional distress and indeed may feel empowered by bringing their personal experience to influence research in a meaningful way. Some research shows that lived experience of survivorship allows researchers to bring additional resilience to the research process (Faulkner & Thompson, 2023), however, such resilience does not exist in a vacuum; rather, it requires structural, institutional and interpersonal enablers that create conditions in which resilience can be built. As do Faulkner & Thompson (2023), we argue that there are explicit strategies, as there are for protecting participants, to consider for protecting researchers.

Box 1. A Traumatically Sensitive Research Context Case

Uwizeye (first author) studies intergenerational trauma among those prenatally exposed to the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, of which she is herself a survivor (“insider”). Genocide is a sensitive topic of extreme suffering and trauma. Over 1 million Tutsi were killed by extremist Hutu in 100 days. Approximately 350,000 women were raped as a weapon of genocide (Rwagatare & Brackelaire, 2015). Uwizeye and many of her co-researchers (both on the team and as participants) experienced genocide directly and indirectly. Uwizeye’s work looks at the ongoing effects of genocide and genocidal rape, including shame, discrimination and stigma/self-stigma in subsequent generations. Most participants born of genocidal rape in her previous study did not know their biological fathers (Uwizeye et al., 2022) - a topic difficult to discuss with a mother who was raped (Denov et al., 2020; Muhayisa et al., 2016); in most cases, the father was also involved in killing the mother’s family (Denov & Piolanti, 2020; Mukamana & Brysiewicz, 2008; Nowrojee, 1996). Uwizeye’s prior and ongoing mixed methods studies involve deep engagement with survivors, from collection of biological samples and quantitative data to in-depth interviews. The team also examines past and current political and structural/systemic factors to fully understand context effects and plan how to communicate study findings in ways that do not add new harms to a society that is focused on recovery and rebuilding. During her previous work, Uwizeye engaged with the opportunities and challenges of this in-depth reflection and this informed the writing on the present paper. For example, reflexivity afforded the opportunity to use dual identities as an insider and outsider researcher to design and execute research. Reflecting on methodology led her to revise her ways of doing research to integrate more anti-colonial methods, including community engagement, and TVI knowledge mobilization. As an insider researcher the emotional toll made her realize the need for a guide for researchers’ selfcare. In particular, as a novice researcher it can be difficult to determine when your safety may take precedence over the quality/rigor of the study, and what choices researchers may have when it comes to reflexivity practice and documentation. These questions become even more important when we start working with community members as research collaborators and engage them in reflexivity with us. How do we keep them safe as co-researchers, and extend this care to study participants?

Reflecting on the issues in Box 1, one can imagine how practicing reflexivity could potentially lead to not only known forms of vicarious trauma (from hearing the traumatic stories of participants) but also to emotional distress from the re-activation of trauma for Uwizeye’s research team members with direct experience of the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi, and its ongoing effects. In addition, as the systems and structures that allowed and even enabled this atrocity are examined, especially those that persist and have negative impacts on victim-survivors, the first author and her insider colleagues are at risk of moral and structural distress as they grapple with the enormity of the changes required to help people affected by genocide, including themselves.

An Added Layer of Safety: Trauma- and Violence-Informed Reflexivity

In this section, we provide a guide to inform safe engagement in the reflexive process by researchers studying sensitive topics. We do this by explicitly integrating the four Principles of TVIC (Wathen & Varcoe, 2023) in Olmos-Vega et al. (2023) guide to reflexivity in research.

Trauma- and Violence-Informed Care (TVIC) Principles

Trauma- and violence-informed care (TVIC) is an approach that promotes the prevention of harm by creating safe environments—physical, cultural and emotional—for individuals who have experienced (and may still be experiencing) trauma and violence (MacDonnell et al., 2025). This safety is created considering the intersecting impact of both past and ongoing individual, interpersonal, and structural violence, along with discrimination and stigma, on a person’s life, and in this case, their experiences in the context of conducting research. TVIC has the advantage of being adaptable to many situations, as its principles have broad applicability irrespective of the type and context of the incurred trauma and violence (Ferreira Gomes et al., 2025; Giles et al., 2024; Tiyyagura et al., 2024; Toke et al., 2024).

Key TVI Concepts

The addition of ‘violence’ in TVIC expands the concept of trauma as used in the literature on ‘trauma-informed practice’ (Elliott et al., 2005; Singh et al., 2020) to emphasize structural/systemic and social inequities that affect individuals’ health and behaviours (Wathen & Varcoe, 2023), while also highlighting chronic and complex interpersonal forms of violence, especially those that happen in what should be trusting relationships. This recognition of multiple forms of violence acknowledges that harms may be compounded among those in marginalized groups, particularly those experiencing intersectional trauma and violence at individual, community and sociopolitical levels, with impacts throughout the lifespan (Voith et al., 2020).

TVI approaches are guided by four principles: (1) understanding trauma and interpersonal, structural/systemic violence and their impacts on the lives and behaviours of people; (2) creating an emotionally, culturally and physically safe environment, including for those providing care, with a focus on actively countering stigma and discrimination; (3) fostering opportunities for authentic choice, collaboration and connection; and (4) providing strengths-based and capacity=building approaches to support coping and resilience (Wathen & Varcoe, 2023) (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Principles of TVIC

There are a myriad of recommendations, both within and outside of formal institutional research ethics board requirements, for maintaining the safety of participants, including via explicit trauma-informed approaches in action research with marginalized groups (Aldridge, 2016; Edelman, 2023; Voith et al., 2020), and guides to support the safety of action researchers, including co-researchers (Adams & Moore, 2007; Silverio et al., 2022), and students (Orr et al., 2021), that align well with the TVI principles and approaches above. However, the focus of these guides for researcher safety is generally on recognizing and addressing vicarious trauma (from hearing/seeing the trauma of others) and actively working to avoid doing harm to self or others through planful and iterative research processes. For example, Vertommen et al. (2024) discuss the principle of “First, do no harm” and propose the application of Wathen & Varcoe’s TVIC approach in research. They emphasize the importance of supporting everyone involved in research, including both participants and researchers, irrespective of whether they have direct or indirect lived experiences of trauma and violence. Similarly, Ferreira Gomes et al. (2025) documented the application of TVIC in participatory action research in sport, using reflexivity to facilitate this integration. While the authors discuss some measures used to safeguard the researchers and youth involved in the research, there is no specific guide on safety specific to reflexivity. There is therefore a key opportunity to focus on reflexivity in action research as a site for attention to various forms of safety that are embedded a priori (e.g., through consideration and reporting of positionality) and iteratively and relationally throughout the research process, as researchers consider not only their influence on the research, but the research’s influence on them.

It is important to note that many people who experience even highly traumatic events, especially when they have access to internal and external supports and resources, survive and thrive (Southwick et al., 2014), so we should not assume that re-traumatization for those with shared lived experience of the research topic is a given. Indeed, people may choose to conduct or participate in research reflective of their own experiences as a form of healing or meaning-making (Kulkarni, 2017); that said, it is reasonable to anticipate the possibility of negative impacts on people or groups who have been disproportionately exposed to adversity and/or traumatic events when these topics are closely examined, even in new contexts (Voith et al., 2020).

Four Dimensions of Reflexivity

Olmos-Vega et al. (2023) provide a guide built on four interrelated dimensions of reflexive practice. (1) Personal reflexivity requires researchers to engage in an in-depth reflection of their own subjectivity, conscious and unconscious reactions, as well as the data itself and explore how this influences the research process. (2) Interpersonal reflexivity examines the relationships and power dynamics within the research team and with participants, and how these influence the context, the people involved and the results. (3) In methodological reflexivity, researcher(s) critically consider the nuances and impacts of methodological decisions including a discussion of their paradigmatic orientations and worldviews. (4) Contextual reflexivity refers to locating a particular study within its cultural and historical context. This type of reflexivity emphasizes how the research question and answers are influenced by social assumptions and practices and takes into account the effect that the research has on the social context in which it takes place (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023). Table 1 presents guidelines for TVI reflexivity by outlining how the TVI principles might be articulated at the principal investigator (PI)/institutional and team member levels, followed by how this integrates with Olmos-Vega et al. (2023) four dimensions of reflexivity, and what this looks like in practice, via our case example.

Table 1.

Practical Guidelines for TVI Reflectivity (TVI-R)

TVI-R Principle 1: All researchers are aware of the potential for the reflexivity process to (re)activate trauma from their prior and ongoing lived experiences of the phenomena under study	TVI-R Principle 2: Emphasize emotionally, culturally and physically safe environments for practicing self- and team reflexivity throughout the study
Principal Investigator (PI)	Principal Investigator (PI)
• Organize TVI reflexive training and discussion opportunities (allow time and flexibility)	• Work with the team to prepare environments (physical and online) where reflexivity discussions will safely take place
• Develop guidelines and templates for self-reflection/assessment, discussions, positionality statements, etc.	• Determine and obtain, with team input, required formal and informal supports for potential traumatic activation
• Identify supportive strategies and resources	• Ensure the team has existing and agreed-upon protocols for how to check-in when people might be struggling
• Ensure alignment with relevant Research Ethics Board requirements
Research team (including PI)/co-researchers	Research team (including PI)/co-researchers
• Undertake TVI reflexive training/discussions (as preferred)	• Ensure own emotional, cultural and physical safety before and throughout self-reflection and reflexive discussions
• Self-reflection/assessment	• Take breaks and engage in emotional release activities (e.g., mindful breathing) when experiencing distress
• Be aware of signs of distress in self and others	• Access formal supports provided by the PI and/or institution in case of distress that requires specialized care
• Be aware of supportive strategies and resources
• Use reflexive journaling to document and track personal reactions (e.g. taking extra time and breaks for self-care, having a “safe other” to debrief with, if needed)
TVI-R Principle 3: Foster opportunity for all researchers to make choices in how they reflexively engage, collaborate and connect	TVI-R Principle 4: Ensure strength-based and capacity-building approaches are integrated in the reflexivity process
Principal investigator (PI)	Principal investigator (PI)
• Provide options for engaging in discussions, choice regarding disclosure, etc.	• Identify and promote individual and team strengths and strategies for self-care
• Involve team members in preparation and decision-making on reflexivity	• Promote continuous capacity building, e.g., team mindfulness training, safe engagement practices, etc.
• Set opportunities for collaborative support
Research team (including PI)/co-researchers	Research team (including PI)/co-researchers
• Decide on what, when, and where to reflect and what to share (if at all)	• Recognize and use strategies that leverage existing strength while learning new ways for calming, centring and recognizing signs of (re)activation
• Be aware of strategies, resources and services available	• Identify, use and contribute to collaborative strength- and capacity-building strategies
• Decide what to include in own positionality reporting, and how it is phrased

TVI-Reflexivity is an iterative process that involves overlapping and interconnected dimensions of reflexivity practiced in the context of institutional supports (or lack thereof), PI skills and expertise in these strategies, team dynamics and the broader research and social environment. We recommend that researchers consider taking TVIC training¹ before embarking on their research project to ensure optimal alignment between the TVI principles and the stages and dimensions of reflexivity work envisioned for the study.

Application of TVI-Reflexivity

In this section, we further articulate each of the TVI-R principles in Table 1 through Olmos-Vega et al. (2023) four reflexivity dimensions, then apply them to the research context described in Box 1.

TVI-R Principle 1: All researchers are aware of the potential for the reflexivity process to (re)activate trauma from their prior and ongoing lived experiences of the phenomena under study

Building awareness and acknowledging potential adverse effects of engaging in self- and team reflexivity is the first and foundational step of TVI-R, allowing proactive preparation for a safe and productive reflexivity process. Knowing how trauma can present allows the team to anticipate and recognize specific indicators, without having to prompt disclosures (Wathen & Varcoe, 2023). Thus, it is important for researchers conducting sensitive studies, in particular those who are insiders, to be aware early in the reflexivity process of what features of the research might activate/re-activate a trauma response.

This begins with personal reflexivity, and the act of recording this in the form of a positionality statement. This close examination of one’s past and ongoing social positions and experiences, while highlighting ways to improve study rigor, creates potential for emotional distress, requiring the principal investigator (PI) and (co)research team to be aware of the manifestations of such distress and address them a timely manner (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023). Importantly, different aspects of the research may be emotionally activating for researchers and as such prompts the need to integrate TVIC in reflexivity in each aspect of the research, emphasizing the ongoing application of TVI-R throughout the study. To facilitate TVI-R, the PI works with the team to develop guidelines not only for what the reflexivity process is expected to accomplish but also what individuals and the team should do to ensure safety and well-being. This could include identifying time and space for engaging in debriefing and discussion (should people choose), being aware of distress symptoms and knowing when to disengage, stop and seek support (and from whom/where).

Similarly, interpersonal reflexivity that focuses on examining and addressing the relationship dynamics between researchers and participants and within the research team itself, while promoting the recognition and appreciation of participant and co-researcher voices, can be stressful. It becomes more complex in studies in which researchers have lived experience related to that of the participants, and even more so in action research, when some participants are co-researchers. Using a TVI approach, all members of the research team need to be aware of the implications of these multilevel interpersonal relationships, and attendant power and boundary considerations, along with how various experiences of trauma and violence might present when activated (Wathen & Varcoe, 2023). This awareness can be fostered starting with TVIC education (EQUIP Healthcare, n d) and through group discussions that create safe space for the research team to share their personal and interpersonal positionalities and how these might influence the work. It would benefit the team to work together to set boundaries around these discussions to ensure they are in line with the goals of reflexivity and that each member is supported to safely participate. For example, there are explicit guidelines around what should and should not be discussed, who will facilitate the discussion, what supports are in place should a member experience distress, etc. Members should be clear on the choices available to them, for example whether they can opt out of sessions. Importantly, discussions of power and boundaries around different roles on the team (investigators, students, staff, partners, co-participants, etc.) should be clearly laid out.

Methodological and contextual reflexivity might sound less emotionally fraught, however predicting what might activate a trauma response can be difficult. Our worldviews and epistemic positions are largely shaped by personal and professional experiences, including the social, political and economic contexts of our earlier lives. In reflecting on and invoking these when making methodological decisions, harm may arise. Thus, it is important for researchers to be aware of the potential for emotional distress even during methodological reflexivity and plan measures to safeguard, should these be needed. Similarly, contextual reflexivity involves reflecting on the study’s social, cultural and historical context, how the research questions and data are embedded in that context and the potential impact of the study on this context. In some cases, contextual reflexivity might take an emotional toll on researchers, for example when insider researchers recount the cultural context in which their own historical trauma occurred. Cultural safety is embedded in the TVI framework, and it is essential to understand how both cultural context and past experiences, as they relate to trauma and violence, may influence the reflexive process (Browne et al., 2022). Cultural safety was originally developed in the 1990s in New Zealand by Māori nurse-leaders who saw the need to move the focus of attention beyond ‘cultural sensitivity’ to counteracting the harms of systemic racism and other forms of discrimination. If all research team members are not familiar with the context (e.g., cultural, political, and historical) relevant to the study topic, this can be an area of misunderstanding and vulnerability.

While reflexive dimensions are discussed separately, they are interwoven (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023), making engagement in any dimension of reflexivity a potential point of activation of traumatic distress of varying degrees. Carefully considering the risks involved in each phase of reflexivity, and throughout the research process, is essential. From a TVI lens teams should approach reflexivity without having to explicitly ask research team members whether or not they have experienced trauma or violence; awareness and care strategies should target all team members regardless of their lived experiences.

Case Application: In preparing for a new longitudinal study that will follow the health and wellbeing of Rwandans prenatally exposed to genocide, Uwizeye is incorporating TVI-R into key stages of the process. First, to raise awareness about how reflexivity itself can (re)activate trauma stemming from past and ongoing lived experiences, particularly those related to genocide, a reflexive discussion is built into the onboarding training for all researchers. Uwizeye will work with the team to identify and discuss potential activators and emotional responses. Study tools will include guidelines and templates for individual and team reflexivity to be used at each stage of the study, tailored to each dimension of reflexivity and the people involved in the process. Individual TVI-R will be done both informally (as this is an on-going process) and formally organized by the PI and/or the field supervisor. Researchers will complete a personal TVI-R tool to document the process. Team reflexivity will also be organized and facilitated by the PI/field supervisor, following a TVI-R protocol developed for the study. A list (co-developed with the team) of strategies (e.g. attending to signs of distress, techniques including mindfulness, debriefing sessions) and resources (e.g., access to mental health care) to address emotional distress during the reflexivity process will be available to the team. TVIC and ethical principles are complementary, and thus, our TVI-R training and tools are designed to uphold those principles as we ensure the rigour of the study through TVI-R.

As our work is rooted in a participatory approach, team members are actively involved in this process by preparing and undertaking TVI-R training/discussions (as preferred). Throughout the study and during any reflexive undertaking, researchers will continue to attend to signs of distress in self and others, and what activates this. Reflexive journaling, particularly during individual (formal and informal) reflexivity, will be used to document the process and track responses. TVI-R journaling will follow the regular process, however, researchers will be trained on and offered options in case of any emotional difficulties in journaling, such as taking breaks to disengage for a moment, discussing the difficulties with a peer or formal support person provided. This documentation can be used during the team debriefing or any other support session, and can also be used to refine the TVI-R tools. Active, choice-based participation of all members ensures that available supportive strategies align with the team’s needs, and are mechanisms through which they can advocate for any other measures/resources needed to facilitate safe reflexivity.

TVI-R Principle 2: Emphasize emotionally, culturally and physically safe environments for practicing self- and team reflexivity throughout the study

Careful attention must be paid to creating emotionally, culturally and physically safe spaces (both in-person and virtual options) for the research team to engage in reflexivity, and flexible time provided to allow for this, including self-reflexivity and writing the positionality statement. The creation of ‘safe space’ means that everyone involved feels comfortable reflecting and sharing their experiences in relation to the study without fear of judgment or adverse consequences and knows how to get support if needed (Marcellus et al., 2025). Safety is also reflected in the way the reflexive process is structured, and in attention to professional and personal boundaries, including around roles and perceptions of power, especially when teams comprise academic faculty, students and community members. For example, ordering reflexive questions/points from the most general to the most sensitive and integrating breaks and mindfulness activities into the process could help regulate any emotional responses while also being comfortable for everyone. These are strategies used in mental health care and they have been recommended for interviews used in qualitative research on sensitive topics (Westland et al., 2025). Careful and collaborative decisions on what is done individually, in small groups or in plenary sessions, and who facilitates these, contribute to feelings of inclusion and control. Each researcher should feel safe to engage in reflexivity in a way that feels socially and culturally appropriate to them while respecting others’ cultures and practices. The PI should carefully assess and plan to equip the team with the cultural safety competencies needed to ensure mutual cultural safety for all involved for all aspects of the reflexive process, and for all types of reflexive discussions.

Case Application: Uwizeye's research team includes Rwandan and Canadian faculty and students as well as community members with diverse experience and expertise. Careful consultation and planning of reflexivity activities is important to ensure each team member’s preferences are considered in establishing safe reflexivity at each stage of the study. We will draw on experience from our previous studies and the expertise of our diverse team, including Rwandan mental health nurses, to develop procedures of reflexivity that create emotionally, culturally and physically safe spaces for reflexivity. Having all members involved in planning, open communication and building on our previous collaborative relationship will allow us to foster trust in the team, which is the foundation of safe reflexivity. This is especially important in the context of our study, as traumatic activation can disrupt a person’s ability to build trust.

Further, the team will co-develop personal and professional boundaries around how reflexivity should be practiced (e.g., what should be reflected on, how, what should be shared within the team and what should be documented). Our team will discuss where reflexivity could take place, considering what would be needed for in-person versus online.

Safety protocols co-developed with the team and continuously revised will be used to ensure each research team member understands how to keep themselves and others safe and how to check in when people might be struggling. The procedure will also outline when and how to seek help from professionals in case of distress that requires advanced care.

For emotional safety, the team will use a co-created list of optional strategies for managing any distress that might occur, including, for example, strategies for self-care such as taking breaks, relaxation activities, debriefing, mindfulness practices and breathing skills for calming and centring. Our diverse team creates opportunities to choose and draw from our experience to seek and provide mutual support. Choices on what, when, how and with whom to share the information will be discussed with the team. We will also establish options for seeking professional support outside the team should anyone need it. A list of optional advanced/professional care, such as a professional therapist, will also be elaborated.

We will continue to encourage researchers’ active participation in improving their safety by seeking feedback on the protocols and addressing any concerns. We plan to revise these protocols and strategies as the study evolves to allow adjustment as needed to ensure the available responses are relevant to the individual and team members, taking into consideration what is contextually and culturally appropriate.

TVI-R Principle 3: Foster opportunity for all researchers to make choices in how they reflexively engage, collaborate and connect

Fundamental to the initial and ongoing harms of traumatic and violent events is the loss of control felt in the moment, and when the trauma is reactivated. For those whose trauma included complex and chronic forms of interpersonal violence, especially from those in trusting relationships such as partners or caregivers, this can be further exacerbated by impacts on the ability to forge new trusting relationships. Thus, providing all involved in the research process authentic opportunities to consent up-front to participation (via research ethics board-approval letters of consent for participants and, by virtue of their actions, for researchers, including students and co-researchers from the study community) remains a required step in any research study. For sensitive studies that include insider researchers, ensuring that each is explicitly allowed to decide whether and how to engage in all dimensions and stages of reflexivity is also essential. For example, team members should decide which aspects they want to engage in, how that is done safely (emotionally, culturally socially) for them, and how much and what information they want to disclose. In their participatory action research, Ferreira Gomes et al. (2025) allowed youth co-researchers to opt out of some research activities. To apply this strategy specifically in TVI-R, research team members could be offered the choice to opt out or participate in some reflexivity activities. For example, if a team member is uncomfortable engaging in group reflexivity through open discussion, they can opt out and instead engage in individual reflexivity. They may start by writing down their reflexivity process and then have a one-on-one discussion with a trusted team member. This example emphasizes the importance of the team to co-create various options for the reflexivity process, from which members can choose. They must be allowed the flexibility to change their minds at any time, without explanation, judgement or adverse consequences. Working with the team, the PI should co-create a collaborative set of options around how reflexivity could be practiced, allowing each person to make choices reflecting their comfort and needs. Members should also provide anticipatory guidance around the kinds of experiences they may discuss, so that others will know and can choose to listen/participate in those discussions, keeping their own safety in mind. Alternative ways for information to be shared (synchronous, asynchronous, by voice or text, online or in-person) should be considered.

The PI must also recognize and continuously attend to any power imbalances within the team. When practiced well, various dimensions of reflexivity can facilitate informed choices, promote collaboration, and enhance connections, ultimately improving both reflexivity and the quality of the study. For instance, through personal and interpersonal reflexivity, team members can reflect on their relationships and the dynamics of power, especially when community members are part of the team. This approach enables the team to recognize and appreciate each member’s contributions, which can lead to adjustments in study methods through methodological reflexivity, keeping the study context in mind. TVI Reflexivity should also provide access to diverse resources that support researchers’ engaged reflexivity, including supports from the university/institution. This might include offering a list of training opportunities, facilitating access to self-care activities (such as exercise and relaxation), organizing peer support, and providing connections to professional services. A collaborative culture encourages connection, allowing team members to make choices while considering the project and their colleagues. In such an environment, team members can safely practice reflexivity, enhancing the study and, specifically, the quality of the reflexivity process.

Case Application: The ability and freedom for individuals and the team to collectively make choices on how to reflexively engage, collaborate and connect will result in knowledge and skills gains from TVI-R training and available resources and strategies for emotionally, culturally, and physically safe reflexivity co-developed with the team. Uwizeye as PI will have the responsibility to foster this culture of making safe choices. This a practical stage of safe TVI-R where the team is genuinely invited and facilitated to choose what to apply based on what works and keeps individuals and the team engaged in safe reflexivity. The freedom to choose will build overtime and will take place in a non-judgemental environmental where team members are appreciated, respected and their voices are heard.

TVI-R Principle 4: Ensure strength-based and capacity-building approaches are integrated in the reflexivity process

A strengths-based approach to personal reflexivity emphasizes the identification of researchers’ personal and professional strengths and how these can be utilized throughout the study. This includes recognizing and leveraging the skills, experience, relationships, and knowledge the team has regarding the study’s context and culture. Researchers choose to engage in studies for various reasons, often linked to their personal experiences that may connect directly or indirectly with the study. It is essential to first reflect on the individual and collective assets that researchers bring to their work. Relevant cultural beliefs and practices could be considered to support TVI-R, for example storytelling to share experiences, use of song, dance and other arts-based methods to alleviate stress. This reflection can be achieved through individual, interpersonal, and methodological reflexivity. During this reflexivity, the team examines their experiences, assumptions, and worldviews in relation to the research, the affected population, and the study’s context. Through methodological reflexivity the team might explore local ways of knowing and their integration in research processes. The team can build on this understanding as they design and execute the study, prioritizing the voices of participants (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023). In their work with Indigenous Peoples, Smye et al. (2023) suggest the use of a Two-Eyed Seeing approach that integrates both Indigenous and Western ways of knowing in co-creating knowledge. This approach aligns with TVI-R in that is fosters the integration of community ways of knowing into research that is primarily informed by Western perspectives. For example, in our collaboration with communities who have experienced trauma, integration of community ways of creating and sharing knowledge, including storytelling methods, not only promotes healing but also allows the use of methods that are familiar, safe and comfortable for the co-researchers from the community.

Capacity-building should equip the team with the knowledge and skills necessary for effective TVI-R. This could include training in self-care techniques, such as mindfulness practices and skills for calming and centring. It is important to identify institutional and other formal resources that can support the team and ensure they are informed about and have access to these resources when needed. Engaging team members in the planning and execution of this supportive system is crucial to ensure that it is tailored to their needs and is contextually and culturally appropriate. Different dimensions of reflexivity can provide insights into what is working and what still needs to be addressed to ensure a safe and effective reflexivity practice. It is important for the PI to plan ongoing consultation with the team to understand what needs to be improved, adjusted or made available for them to feel supported in each dimension of TVI-R.

Case Application: Our team will ensure that TVI-R training, resources and strategies for safe reflexivity draw from the individuals' and team’s wisdom on what works for them and in their context and culture. For example, the use of storytelling methods in sharing knowledge align well in the Rwandan context. We will promote learning new strategies to expand team options. For example, in our 2022 knowledge mobilization event in Kigali, our colleague from Canada, Dr. Wathen, introduced the use of hand fidgets to help disconnect from traumatic content, which was novel and appreciated. However, Rwandan colleagues would also have liked interludes with song and dance, a more culturally relevant way to relieve embodied stress. Hence, we will work together to value and build on team resources and develop new capacities as needed.

What to Document & Report: TVI Reflexivity & Positionality Statements

With an understanding of how reflexivity can be conducted in a TVI way, we turn now to how a TVI approach can be applied while writing positionality and reflexivity statements for a manuscript, dissertation, or other document. Often, these statements are short paragraphs that review the authors’ characteristics and how these relate to the research orientation (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023). In actuality, such statements are an opportunity to embrace how the researchers’ subjectivity and personal experiences influence the data and the study at large (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023). This inherently opens up the researcher to potentially be exposed to vulnerability when deciding which parts of their personal experiences are to be explored in the reflexivity section of their manuscript.

Implementing TVI in the positionality section of a report will require that all members of the research team are familiar with TVI principles to ensure that there is a global understanding of what is included in the document and what is not. The content to be included will need to be carefully selected and discussed with the team to ensure that researchers focus on those subjectivities that are relevant to the research at hand (Johnson & Rose, 2024), are not “performative” or “confessional” (Gani & Khan, 2024; Westland et al., 2025) and that the process is guided by TVIC principles. How TVI-R will be initiated and implemented into producing positionality statements depends on the local and perhaps broader social and political context framing the research (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023; Wathen & Varcoe, 2023), and also on the study topic within this context, those participating on the team, and whether others are involved in the reflexive process (e.g., an advisory group of people with lived/living experience). Therefore, when considering what to include in a research report, researchers should assess their own context and what the potential impact may be on themselves and other researchers when including personal experiences that may result in vulnerability (to stigma, discrimination, reputational harm, etc.) or re-traumatization.

Guides to writing positionality statements in qualitative research reporting are available (e.g., Berkovic, 2023; Sybing, 2025), including those embedding new AI technology/chatbots, and those providing general guidance to those who might be at particular risk from over-disclosing personal information – i.e., graduate students and emerging researchers (Orr et al., 2021). Building on Berkovic (2023) and Gani & Khan (2024), Table 2 adds a TVI reflexivity lens to the key questions of personal reflexivity outlined in these guides. It is essential that academic publishing systems gain an understanding of TVI-R and integrate these guidelines into the review process, especially when evaluating research conducted in potentially (re)traumatizing contexts.

Table 2.

TVI Considerations for Personal Reflexivity

Personal reflexivity questions (from Berkovic, 2023)	TVI considerations (sample self-reflection questions that can determine what/how to report)
(1) Why am I interested in this topic?	• Is what’s driving this interest coming from a place of strength? Am I using it as a way to heal?
(2) What do I think I am going to find?	• Is finding out the answer important to my personal well-being? my social identity (ies)? my professional progress?
(3) What am I getting out of this?	• What do I have to gain, personally and professionally, from doing this research? What risks or harms might arise, to my reputation, my health/healing, etc.?
(4) What do others in my professional community think of this work – and of me?	• Will disclosing specific details about myself be potentially stigmatizing (in my work or personally)? Am I prepared to deal with being seen as vulnerable?
	• Do I put my research funding or position at risk?
	• Do I put others from my own or related communities at risk? What are the benefits to them?

Conclusion

Reflexivity is a key component of research methodology that enhances study quality. However, it is important to ensure researchers’ safety and well-being are a priority, especially in the context of sensitive research topics where researchers have lived/living experience of the traumatic topics being studied. The integration of TVI principles in the reflexive process - what we call TVI-R – creates a space for researchers to engage in reflexivity while taking care of themselves and each other. Working closely with the research team in planning, executing and revising the process as needed is crucial to ensure the success of TVI-R. The TVI-R approach has the potential to improve research practices in sensitive areas such as mental health, gender-based violence, genocide and war, homelessness, and work with varoius marginalized communities. More scholarly work is needed to refine this approach and establish best practices that prioritize the safety and well-being of both researchers and participants which is, as noted above, our next step. While the focus of this paper was on the integration of a TVI approach in the reflexivity processes, efforts to integrate TVIC in all aspects of research (MacDonnell et al., 2025; Marcellus et al., 2025) should continue, ensuring safe research practices for researchers and all involved.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Glorieuse Uwizeye

Anna Garnett

C. Nadine Wathen

Funding

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

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Note

Author Biographies

Glorieuse Uwizeye, RN, PhD is Assistant Professor in the Arthur Labatt School of Nursing at Western University studying intergenerational trauma in the context of genocide and sexual violence.

Anna Garnett, RN, PhD is Associate Professor in the Arthur Labatt Family School of Nursing at Western University studying gerontology and health services.

Stephanie Karlovcec, RN, BScN, MScN is a PhD Candidate in the Arthur Labatt Family School of Nursing at Western University studying vicarious trauma.

C. Nadine Wathen, PhD, FCAHS is Professor and Canada Research Chair in Mobilizing Knowledge on Gender-Based Violence and studies interventions for violence against women and health inequities.

References

Adams

Moore

(2007). Participatory action research and researcher safety. Participatory action research approaches and methods (pp. 67–74). Routledge.

Akter

Rich

J. L.

Davies

Inder

K. J.

(2022). Reflexivity conducting mixed methods research on Indigenous women’s health in lower and middle-income countries-an example from Bangladesh. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21(2), 16094069221107514. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221107514

Aldridge

(2016). Participatory research: Working with vulnerable groups in research and practice. Policy Press.

Arias López

B. E.

Andrä

Bliesemann de Guevara

(2023). Reflexivity in research teams through narrative practice and textile-making. Qualitative Research, 23(2), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211065164

Band-Winterstein

Doron

Naim

(2014). I take them with me’–reflexivity in sensitive research. Reflective Practice, 15(4), 530–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2014.900020

Barrett

Kajamaa

Johnston

(2020). How to be reflexive when conducting qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13133

Berkovic

(2023). Researcher positionality. Qualitative Research–a practical guide for health and social care researchers and practitioners. Monash University. Chapter 27.

Browne

A. J.

Varcoe

Wytenbroek

(2022). Chapter 3: A relational approach to cultural and social considerations in health assessment. In Browne

A. J.

MacDonald-Jenkins

Luctkar-Flude&nbsp

(Eds.), Physical examination and health assessment by C. Jarvis (4thrd Canadian edition). Elsevier.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.

10.

Collins

P. H.

(2022). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003142838

11.

Denov

Piolanti

(2020). “Though my father was a killer, I need to know him”: Children born of genocidal rape in Rwanda and their perspectives on fatherhood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 107(1), 104560. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003142838

12.

Denov

Woolner

Bahati

J. P.

Nsuki

Shyaka

(2020). The intergenerational legacy of genocidal rape: The realities and perspectives of children born of the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(17), 3286–3307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517708407

13.

Dodgson

J. E.

(2019). Reflexivity in qualitative research. Journal of Human Lactation: Official Journal of International Lactation Consultant Association, 35(2), 220–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334419830990

14.

Edelman

N. L.

(2023). Trauma and resilience informed research principles and practice: A framework to improve the inclusion and experience of disadvantaged populations in health and social care research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 28(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196221124740

15.

Elliott

D. E.

Bjelajac

Fallot

R. D.

Markoff

L. S.

Reed

B. G.

(2005). Trauma‐informed or trauma‐denied: Principles and implementation of trauma‐informed services for women. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(4), 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20063

16.

EQUIP Healthcare (n d). Trauma- and violence-informed care foundations e-curriculum. Vancouver BC. EQUIP. Unpublished manuscript. https://equiphealthcare.ca/tvic-foundations/

17.

Faulkner

Thompson

(2023). Uncovering the emotional labour of involvement and co-production in mental health research. Disability & Society, 38(4), 537–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1930519

18.

Ferreira Gomes

Iqbal

Hayhurst

L. M.

(2025). Navigating complexity: Ethical and methodological insights from a trauma-informed participatory action research study with young people in sport for development. All About You, 5(3), 62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917703539

19.

Finefter-Rosenbluh

(2017). Incorporating perspective taking in reflexivity: A method to enhance insider qualitative research processes. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917703539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917703539

20.

Finlay

Gough

(2008). Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. John Wiley & Sons.

21.

Gani

J. K.

Khan

R. M.

(2024). Positionality statements as a function of coloniality: Interrogating reflexive methodologies. International Studies Quarterly, 68(2), sqae038. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae038

22.

Giles

A. R.

Smith

Oncescu

Ritondo

Peterson

(2024). Secondary traumatic stress and community-based participatory research in sport and physical activity. Participatory research in sport and physical activity (pp. 70–83). Routledge.

23.

Gill

(2022). Reflexivity and lived experience of out-of-home care: Positionality as an early parenthood researcher. Affilia, 37(4), 664–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/08861099211061210

24.

Grenier

C. M.

(2023). Eroticization of the body, reflexivity, and qualitative methodology in criminology: An omerta. Qualitative Criminology, 12(3), 334–361. https://doi.org/10.21428/88de04a1.c0cbfb19

25.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. Jossey-Bass.

26.

Gupta

(2023). An exploration of emerging identities in mental health, education and research: The University of Liverpool.

27.

Holmes

A. G. D.

(2020). Researcher positionality--A consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research--A new researcher guide. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i4.3232

28.

Jamieson

M. K.

Govaart

G. H.

Pownall

(2023). Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner's guide. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(4), e12735. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12735

29.

Johnson

C. W.

Rose

(2024). “Collecting loose change:” conceptual clarifications on bias, subjectivity, positionality, reflexivity, & autoethnography in leisure research. Leisure Sciences, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2024.2351965

30.

Keso

Lehtimäki

Pietiläinen

(2009). Engaging in reflexive acts-sharing experiences on reflexivity in empirical qualitative research. Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 7.

31.

Kinitz

D. J.

(2022). The emotional and psychological labor of insider qualitative research among systemically marginalized groups: Revisiting the uses of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 32(11), 1635–1647. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323221112620

32.

Kulkarni

(2017). Meaning-making through research. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 36(3), 277–282. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2017-0038

33.

Kumar

Cavallaro

(2018). Researcher self-care in emotionally demanding research: A proposed conceptual framework. Qualitative Health Research, 28(4), 648–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317746377

34.

Lees

A. B.

Walters

Godbold

(2022). Illuminating the role of reflexivity within qualitative pilot studies: Experiences from a scholarship of teaching and learning project. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221076933

35.

MacDonnell

J. A.

Dastjerdi

Bokore

Tharao

(2025). Trauma and activism: Using a postcolonial feminist lens to understand the experiences of service providers who support racialized immigrant women’s mental health and wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(8), 1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22081229

36.

Machin

Shah

Nicholls

Jeynes

Trevillion

Vera San Juan

(2023). Co-producing rapid research: Strengths and challenges from a lived experience perspective. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.996585

37.

Mallon

Elliott

(2019). The emotional risks of turning stories into data: An exploration of the experiences of qualitative researchers working on sensitive topics. Societies, 9(3), 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc9030062

38.

Marcellus

Jack

S. M.

MacKinnon

Hill

M. E.

Gonzalez

Campbell

Catherine

N. L.

MacMillan

H. L.

Tonmyr

Van Borek

Varcoe

(2025). Strategies to engage and retain pregnant individuals and young mothers in the nurse-family partnership program (Canada): An interpretive descriptive study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 167, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2025.107537

39.

Massoud

M. F.

(2022). The price of positionality: Assessing the benefits and burdens of self‐identification in research methods. Journal of Law and Society, 49(S1), S64–S86. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12372

40.

Muhayisa

Dachet

Mukarusanga

Duret

(2016). Que deviennent les enfants nés du viol et leur mère vingt ans après le génocide au Rwanda? Thérapie Familiale, 37(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2008.00253.x

41.

Mukamana

Brysiewicz

(2008). The lived experience of genocide rape survivors in Rwanda. Journal of Nursing Scholarship: An Official Publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, 40(4), 379–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2008.00253.x

42.

Nonomura

Giesbrecht

Jivraj

Lapp

Bax

Jenney

Scott

Straatman

Baker

(2020). Toward A trauma- and violence-informed research ethics module: Considerations and recommendations. Unpublished Manuscript. https://www.kh-cdc.ca/en/resources/reports/Grey-Report---English.pdf.

43.

Nowrojee

(1996). Shattered lives: Sexual violence during the Rwandan genocide and its aftermath. Human Rights Watch.

44.

Olmos-Vega

F. M.

Stalmeijer

R. E.

Varpio

Kahlke

(2023). A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE guide no. 149. Medical Teacher, 45(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287

45.

Orr

Durepos

Jones

Jack

S. M.

(2021). Risk of secondary distress for graduate students conducting qualitative research on sensitive subjects: A scoping review of Canadian dissertations and theses. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 8, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393621993803

46.

Rwagatare

Brackelaire

(2015). Génocide des tutsis au Rwanda: Quand le viol des femmes est utilisé pour annihiler l’origine même de la vie et de la pensée. Cahiers de Psychologie Clinique, 45(2), 165–189. https://doi.org/10.3917/cpc.045.0165

47.

Sandelowski

(1993). Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. ANS. Advances in nursing science, 16(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-199312000-00002

48.

Silverio

S. A.

Sheen

K. S.

Bramante

Knighting

Koops

T. U.

Montgomery

November

Soulsby

L. K.

Stevenson

J. H.

Watkins

Easter

Sandall

(2022). Sensitive, challenging, and difficult topics: Experiences and practical considerations for qualitative researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221124739

49.

Singh

C. D.

Andrews

N. C.

Motz

Pepler

D. J.

Leslie

Zuberi

(2020). Trauma-informed and relational approaches to service provision: Building community-based project capacity to respond to interpersonal violence through a national initiative. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1833. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09960-3

50.

Smye

Josewski

Gross

Efimoff

Patrick

Lambert

(2023). Trauma-and violence-informed mental health interventions: Our work with Indigenous men. In Wathen

C. N.

Varcoe

(Eds.), Implementing trauma-and violence-informed care: A handbook. University of Toronto Press.

51.

Southwick

S. M.

Bonanno

G. A.

Masten

A. S.

Panter-Brick

Yehuda

(2014). Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: Interdisciplinary perspectives. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5(1), 25338. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338

52.

Subramani

(2019). Practising reflexivity: Ethics, methodology and theory construction. Methodological Innovations, 12(2), 2059799119863276. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799119863276

53.

Sybing

(2025). Positionality statements in research: How do you write a positionality statement for a research project? https://atlasti.com/research-hub/positionality-statements-qualitative-research#how-do-you-write-a-positionality-statement-for-a-research-project

54.

Tiyyagura

Leventhal

J. M.

Schaeffer

Gawel

Crawley

Frechette

Reames

Carlson

Sullivan

Asnes

(2024). Acceptability and feasibility of trauma-and violence-informed care for intimate partner violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 157, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.107068

55.

Toke

Correa-Velez

Riggs

(2024). Exploring trauma-and violence-informed pregnancy care for Karen women of refugee background: A community-based participatory study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21(3), 254. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21030254

56.

Uwizeye

DeVon

H. A.

McCreary

L. L.

Patil

C. L.

Thayer

Z. M.

Rutherford

J. N.

(2022). Children born of genocidal rape: What do we know about their experiences and needs? Public Health Nursing, 39(1), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.13023

57.

Uwizeye

Rivera

L.M.

Stolrow

H.G.

Christensen

B.C.

Rutherford

J.N

Thayer

Z.M.

(2025). Prenatal exposure to genocide accelerates epigenetic aging in third- and fourth-generation clocks among young adults in Rwanda. Communications Medicine, 5(346), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-025-01065-5

58.

Uwizeye

Thayer

Z. M.

DeVon

H. A.

McCreary

L. L.

McDade

T. W.

Mukamana

Park

Patil

C. L.

Rutherford

J. N.

(2021). Double jeopardy: Young adult mental and physical health outcomes following conception via genocidal rape during the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. Social Science & Medicine, 278, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113938

59.

Vertommen

Woessner

Kavanagh

Parent

Pankowiak

Haerens

Schyvinck

Constandt

Spaaij

Stevens

Willem

Mountjoy

(2024). ‘First, do no harm’: Conducting research on interpersonal violence in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 58(22), 1315–1318. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2024-108767

60.

Voith

L. A.

Hamler

Francis

M. W.

Lee

Korsch-Williams

(2020). Using a trauma-informed, socially just research framework with marginalized populations: Practices and barriers to implementation. Social Work Research, 44(3), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svaa013

61.

Wathen

C. N.

Mantler

(2022). Trauma-and violence-informed care: Orienting intimate partner violence interventions to equity. Current Epidemiology Reports, 9(4), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-022-00307-7

62.

Wathen

C. N.

Varcoe

(2023). Implementing trauma-and violence-informed care: A handbook. University of Toronto Press.

63.

Westland

Vervoort

Kars

Jaarsma

(2025). Interviewing people on sensitive topics: Challenges and strategies. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 24(3), 488–493. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvae128

64.

Winfield

T. P.

(2022). Vulnerable research: Competencies for trauma and justice-informed ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 51(2), 135–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912416211017254