The emotional experiences of quantitative researchers, particularly while conducting sensitive research, are largely neglected. This article aims to advance the awareness of possible emotional strains for quantitative researchers engaged in sensitive research. It qualitatively assesses the ethical and emotional experiences of quantitative researchers conducting a study on aging of bereaved parents and people with a physical disability. Based on the detailed minutes of 66 weekly research meetings held during 2015–2017, a thematic analysis of the researchers’ experiences was performed. Our analysis identified two main themes: vulnerability and resilience. We delineate these themes, along with their subthemes and affinity to vicarious traumatization, moral stress, and vicarious posttraumatic growth. The current study is among the first to introduce the emotional and ethical experiences of the quantitative researcher. Tentative recommendations for the advancement of the researcher’s safety and well-being by training, institutional support, self-care skills, and policy development are provided.
AndriessenK.KrysinskaK.DraperB.DudleyM.MitchellP. B. (2018). Harmful or helpful? A systematic review of how those bereaved through suicide experience research participation. Crisis, 39(5), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000515
2.
ArnoldD.CalhounL. G.TedeschiR.CannA. (2005). Vicarious posttraumatic growth in psychotherapy. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 45(2), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167805274729
BairdK.KracenA. C. (2006). Vicarious traumatization and secondary traumatic stress: A research synthesis. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 19, 181–188.
5.
Band-WintersteinT.DoronI.NaimS. (2014). ‘I take them with me’ – reflexivity in sensitive research. Reflective Practice. 15(4), 530–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2014.900031
6.
BashirN. (2020). The qualitative researcher: The flip side of the research encounter with vulnerable people. Qualitative Research, 20(5), 667–683. https://doi.org/10.1177q1468794119884805
7.
BattyE. (2020). Sorry to say goodbye: The dilemmas of letting go in longitudinal research. Qualitative Research. 20(6), 784–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120905737
8.
BloorM.FinchamB.SampsonH. (2007). Qualiti (NCRM) commissioned inquiry into the risk to well-being of researchers in qualitative research. Cardiff, UK: School of Social Sciences. 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
9.
BloorM.FinchamB.SampsonH. (2010). Unprepared for the worst: Risks of harm for qualitative researchers. Methodological Innovations Online, 5(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.4256/mio.2010.0009
10.
BorgstromE.EllisJ. (2020). Internalising ‘sensitivity’: Vulnerability, reflexivity and death research (ers). International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1857972
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2014). What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers?International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 9, 26152. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.26152
13.
CanfieldJ. (2008). Secondary traumatization, burnout, and vicarious traumatization. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 75(2) 81–101. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J497v75n02_06
14.
CalhounL. G.TedeschiR. G. (2001). Posttraumatic growth: The positive lessons of loss. In R. A. Neimeyer (Ed.), Meaning reconstruction & the experience of loss (pp. 157–172). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10397-008
15.
ChamachoD. (2016). Blurring boundaries: An emotionally aware caregiver, social worker, and researcher. Qualitative Social Work, 15(5-6), 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325016652682
16.
CohenK.CollensP. (2013). The impact of trauma work on trauma workers: A meta-synthesis on vicarious trauma and vicarious posttraumatic growth. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 5(6), 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030388
17.
Dickson-SwiftV. (2017). Emotion and sensitive research. In LiamputtongP. (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 2145–2162). Springer. ISBN 978-981-10-5250-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_141
18.
Dickson-SwiftV.JamesE. L.KippenS.LiamputtongP. (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%2F1049732307309007
19.
DyregrovK. (2004). Micro-sociological analysis of social support following traumatic bereavement: Unhelpful and avoidant responses from the community. OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, 48(1), 23-44. https://doi.org/10.2190/T3NM-VFBK-68R0-UJ60
20.
EmeraldE.CarpenterL. (2015). Vulnerability and emotions in research: Risks, dilemmas, and doubts. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(8), 741–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414566688
FengeL. A.OakleyL.TaylorB.BeerS. (2019). The impact of sensitive research on the researcher: Preparedness and positionality. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919893161
23.
FigleyC. R.LudickM. (2017). Secondary traumatization and compassion fatigue. In S. N. Gold (Ed.), APA handbook of trauma psychology: Foundations in knowledge (pp. 573–593). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000019-029
24.
FisherC. B.TrueG.AlexanderL.FriedA. L. (2013). Moral stress, moral practice, and ethical climate in community-based drug-use research: Views from the front line. AJOB Primary Research, 4(3), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2013.806969
25.
FitzpatrickP.OlsonR. E. (2015). A rough road map to reflexivity in qualitative research into emotions. Emotion Review, 7(1), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1754073914544710
26.
FriedA. L.FisherC. B. (2016). Moral stress and job burnout among frontline staff conducting clinical research on affective and anxiety disorders. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47(3), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000060.
27.
GemignaniM. (2011). Between researcher and researched: An introduction to countertransference in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(8), 701–708. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1077800411415501
28.
HowardL. C. (2020). Vulnerability in the act of research: Methodological praxis and strategies of self-care. In Critical youth research in education (pp. 207–226). Routledge.
29.
ItzhakiM.Peles-BortzA.KostistkyH.BarnoyD.FilshtinskyV.BluvsteinI. (2015). Exposure of mental health nurses to violence associated with job stress, life satisfaction, staff resilience, and post-traumatic growth. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 24(5), 403–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12151
30.
JaffeA. E.DiLilloD.HoffmanL.HaikalisM.DykstraR. E. (2015). Does it hurt to ask? A meta-analysis of participant reactions to trauma research. Clinical Psychology Review, 40, 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.05.004
31.
KempC. L.BallM. M.MorganJ. C.DoyleP. J.BurgessE. O.DillardJ. A.BarmonC. E.FitzroyA. F.HelmlyH. E.AventE. S.PerkinsM. M. (2017). Exposing the backstage: Critical reflections on a longitudinal qualitative study of residents’ care networks in assisted living. Qualitative Health Research, 27(8), 1190–1202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316668817
32.
KumarS.CavallaroL. (2018). Researcher self-care in emotionally demanding research: A proposed conceptual framework. Qualitative Health Research, 28(4), 648–658. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1049732317746377
33.
LajoieC.PoleksicJ.Bracken-RocheD.MacDonaldM. E.RacineE. (2020). The concept of vulnerability in mental health research: A mixed methods study on researcher perspectives. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 15(3), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264620902657
34.
LifshitzR.IfrahK.MarkovitzN.ShmotkinD. (2020). Do past and prospective adversities intersect? Distinct effects of cumulative adversity and the hostile-world scenario on functioning at later life. Aging and Mental Health, 24(7), 1116–1125. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2019.1597014
35.
LoueS.LoffB. (2019). Teaching vulnerability in research: A study of approaches utilized by a sample of research ethics training programs. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619869130
36.
MallonS.BorgstromE.MurphyS. (2020). Unpacking sensitive research: A stimulating exploration of an established concept, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1857965
37.
ManningS. F.de TerteI.StephensC. (2015). Vicarious posttraumatic growth: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(2). 125–139. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v5i2.8
38.
McCannI. L.PearlmanL. A. (1990). Psychological trauma and the adult survivor: Theory, therapy, and transformation (No. 21). Psychology Press.
39.
MelvilleA.HincksD. (2016). Conducting sensitive interviews: A review of reflections. Law and Method, 1(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.5553/REM/.000015
40.
MoncurW. (2013, April). The emotional wellbeing of researchers: Considerations for practice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1883–1890).
41.
NutovL. (2017). Researcher emotions as data, a tool and a factor in professional development. The Qualitative Report, 22(12), 3260–3267. Retrieved fromhttp://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss12/11
42.
PearlmanL. A.SaakvitneK. W. (1995).Treating therapists with vicarious traumatization and secondary traumatic stress disorders. In C. Figley (Ed.), Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized (pp. 150-177). Brunner/Mazel.
43.
ReynoldsS. J.OwensB. P.RubensteinA. L. (2012). Moral stress: Considering the nature and effects of managerial moral uncertainty. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(4), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1013-8
44.
SherryE. (2013). The vulnerable researcher: Facing the challenges of sensitive research. Qualitative Research Journal, 13(3), 278-288. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-10-2012-0007
45.
ShmotkinD. (2005). Happiness in the face of adversity: Reformulating the dynamic and modular bases of subjective well-being. Review of General Psychology, 9(4), 291–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.4.291
46.
ShmotkinD. (2011). The pursuit of happiness: Alternative conceptions of subjective well-being. In PoonL.WCohen-MansfieldJ. (Eds.), Understanding well-being in the oldest old (pp. 27–45). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. ISBN-13: 9780521113915
47.
ShmotkinD.ShriraA. (2012). On the distinction between subjective well-being and meaning in life: Regulatory versus reconstructive functions in the face of a hostile world. In WongP. T. P. (Ed.), The human quest for meaning: Theories, research, and applications (2nd ed.) (pp. 143–164). New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
ShmotkinD.ShriraA. (2013). Subjective well-being and meaning in life in a hostile world: Proposing a configurative perspective. In HicksJ. A.RoutledgeC. (Eds.), The experience of meaning in life: Classical perspectives, emerging themes, and controversies (pp. 77–86). Springer. ISBN:9789400765269
49.
TedeschiR. G.CalhounL. G. (1995). Trauma and transformation: Growing in the aftermath of suffering. Sage
50.
TedeschiR. G.CalhounL. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01
WilliamsonE.GregoryA.AbrahamsH.AghtaieN.WalkerS. J.HesterM. (2020). Secondary trauma: Emotional safety in sensitive research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 18(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09348-y
54.
WoodbyL. L.WilliamsB. R.WittichA. R.BurgioK. L. (2011). Expanding the notion of researcher distress: The cumulative effects of coding. Qualitative Health Research, 21(6), 830–838. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1049732311402095
