(Self-) Reflection / Reflexivity in Sensitive,Qualitative Research: A Scoping Review

Abstract

This scoping review offers insight into researcher well-being when working with sensitive and traumatic topics in a qualitative research context. The study identified existing empirical research concerning researcher well-being and mental health. The databases included SSCI, ASSIA < IBISS, Scopus, Social Policy and Practice, PsycInfo, Social Science Database/Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest), and Open Grey. An international search was conducted, with no time constraints on publication dates to gather as wide a selection as possible. 55 papers met the criteria. We found that the terminology used within the papers was not consistent which necessitated grouping the (self-) reflection/reflexive practices researchers used and categorizing them under the umbrella term SRR practices. The research questions were: 1. Which disciplines or fields are conducting SRR practices on sensitive topics? 2. What SRR practices do researchers employ in the context of sensitive research? 3. What were the self-reported outcomes from using SRR practices as a tool of researchers working on sensitive research? A key finding of the scoping review is that many researchers who work on sensitive topics feel unprepared and receive little or no training or support for SRR practices. This poses particular challenges for early career researchers. We also identified that qualitative researchers have developed a range of SRR practices to manage the emotional impact of their sensitive research work. Many authors of the scoped papers stress the importance of peer-support as well as formal and informal debriefing meetings. Another key SRR practice discussed by many researchers is reflexive journaling. Our scoping review suggests that if it is combined with other activities, self-reflexive journaling can be an excellent way to acknowledge and assess the emotional impact of sensitive research.

Keywords

sensitive research reflexivity researcher wellbeing (self-) reflection mental health reflexive journaling

Introduction

One of the key strengths of qualitative research is that it can offer critical insights into ‘subjects which quantitative measures are not sensitive enough to address’ (Silverio et al., 2022, p. 2). Sensitive research is vital because it can help us better understand and tackle some of the most pressing problems of our time. Topics that are widely regarded as sensitive include war, domestic violence, political activism, rape, racism, homicide, mental health, death, traumatic childbirth, abortion, and sexual health and behaviours (Elmir et al., 2011; Enosh & Buchbinder, 2005; Goodrum & Keys, 2007; Lipscomb, 2010; Mitchell & Irvine, 2008; Possick, 2009; Sollund, 2008; Walls et al., 2010). While qualitative researchers have never shied away from working on sensitive topics, many have received little to no training, support, or guidance to conduct this research safely and sustainably. The pioneering work of Lee, Renzetti, Liamputtong, Dickson-Swift and others in the 1990s and early 2000s has helped address this issue.¹ Without appropriate training and support mechanisms, sensitive research can result in significant harm.

In a research context, harm can take the form of physical, moral and mental injuries (Buchanan & Warwick, 2021). It has been argued that all research has the potential to cause harm (Hughes, 2004). Indeed, research can have a harmful impact on individual researchers and/or research subjects even if it does not focus on topics that are generally understood as sensitive. One such example is a researcher conducting environmental fieldwork and finding an animal killed by poachers (Pihkala, 2020). Harm can take many forms and can occur at all stages of the research process e.g. when research staff are not trained to use lab equipment safely and hurt themselves, or research participants are recruited against their will or without informed consent. Given this potential for distress or injury, there are institutional requirements embedded within the research process. For example, if research projects involve fieldwork or lab work, researchers also must complete health and safety risk assessments.

Due to its focus on ‘themes that might be considered intrusive and/or harmful’, sensitive research can involve a particularly high risk of moral and mental harm for research subjects and researchers (Hilário and Augusto, 2020; see also: McCosker et al., 2001; Tourangeau, 2008). In an academic context, sensitive research that involves human participants, requires rigorous approval by ethics committees (Corbin & Morse, 2003). Such assessments focus primarily on potential harm to research participants rather than the researchers themselves. However, risks to the emotional wellbeing of researchers tend to play a marginal role in these institutional assessments, even if there is clear evidence that the negative impact upon researchers working on sensitive topics can be far reaching (Dickson-Swift et al., 2008a; McGarry, 2010; Walls et al., 2010).

It is important to note that not all researchers working on sensitive topics find this work distressing. Rather, the scoped papers indicate that how researchers are impacted by sensitive research depends on a range of factors and can evolve over time. Sometimes scholars engage in sensitive research for months or years without noticing any problems before this work begins to negatively impact their mental health. For example, one researcher reported that she began to experience ‘numerous post-interview responses such as nightmares, insomnia, and headaches in addition to a variety of psychological and emotional responses before and during the interview’ (Cowles, 1988, p. 173). Another was diagnosed with complex posttraumatic stress disorder upon his return home after completing fieldwork on a sensitive topic (Taylor, 2019). While these experiences might be extreme, they are by no means unique. Exploration is required into how such crises can be prevented and managed proactively.

Rather than assuming that certain research topics are inherently sensitive, and to categorically exclude others from this category, we understand sensitive research in this scoping review as relational (Hilário and Augusto, 2020), contextual (Lee & Renzetti, 1990) and dynamic. Mallon and Elliott (2021, p. 534) rightly stress: what makes a topic sensitive, certainly from the researcher’s perspective, cannot be reduced to a single factor. Rather, it is underpinned by the researcher’s relationship with the topic, both as it exists when they enter the field, and as it develops throughout the fieldwork and into analysis. In addition, it is affected by complex relationships between the researcher, their immediate peers, supervisors and the overall institutional environment in which the research takes place. Previous research suggests that peer support and expert supervision and training ‘might help both novice and more experienced practitioners develop into more resilient and ethically aware researchers’ (Haugstvedt, 2020, p. 169). Many other factors shaping the experience of researchers working on sensitive research, however, remain underexplored.

One less explored aspect is researcher (self-) reflection/reflexivity practices, which is the central focus of this scoping paper. In practice, “reflexivity” in sensitive research contexts is not always clearly defined or holistically integrated. Some authors include personal reflections in academic publications without linking this to ‘epistemological reflexivity’ (Lazard & McAvoy, 2020). A concrete example are authors who mention their privileged position vis-a-vis vulnerable participants without discussing how they have dealt with this power dynamic during the research process. We also found that some researchers talk about ‘reflexivity’ where it might have been more appropriate to use the term ‘reflection’.

Rather than excluding such publications, we have deliberately included them in this scoping review. Despite their limitations, they, too, can give critical insights into the benefits and challenges of adopting reflexive methods in sensitive research. In line with previous research (Lazard & McAvoy, 2020; Shaw, 2010), we do not consider reflexivity and reflection to be mutually exclusive. Given the potential variability in terminology usage between reflexivity, self-reflection, and reflection, we have opted to use the umbrella term (self-)reflexivity/reflection, herein, SRR for the purposes of our scoping review. Thus, when the terms reflexivity or reflection are used throughout the remainder of the paper, we mean them in their original.

Some researchers found the use of SRR practices extremely helpful. Silverio et al. (2022, p. 9), for example, have used private reflective journals to record successes, challenges, and emotions. They argue that reflective journaling ‘can allow for field researchers to be more aware of the issues they faced when undertaking qualitative research into difficult, challenging, or sensitive topics, more conscious of their praxis, and more reflexive and reactive in future data collection events’ (Silverio et al., 2022, p. 9). However, this practical activity to foster reflexivity does not work for all researchers. This prompted us to look for academic literature on this topic. There have been several reviews examining the growing literature on sensitive research (see, e.g. van Meter, 2000; Lee & Lee, 2012; Haugstvedt, 2020), but to our knowledge there have been no attempts to offer a systematic overview of the role of SRR practices in this body of literature. Our scoping review seeks to fill this gap.

(Self-)Reflexivity/Reflection (SRR)

We use the term SRR practices because of the broad range of procedures and uptake when using these approaches. Such practices can range from short positionality statements to extended personal narratives exploring how the authors’ experience and/or background impact their research (for detailed guidance and best practice examples, see Jamieson et al., 2023). A discussion of the elements that are relevant to our context is next presented to demonstrate the variation in meaning, usage, and terminology crossover within varying disciplines.

In the context of sensitive research, reflexivity has been defined as ‘a form of critical thinking which aims to articulate the contexts that shape the processes of doing research and subsequently the knowledge produced’ (Lazard & McAvoy, 2020, p. 160). One way in which researchers practice reflexivity in this context is to consider their partial perspective and positionality. However, Lazard and McAvoy rightly insist that such personal reflections should go hand in hand with epistemological reflexivity, which ‘moves beyond the personal to concerns with the nature, scope and limitations of knowledge’ (2020, p. 167).

In qualitative research, reflexivity has become a major strategy ‘to secure credibility, trustworthiness, and nonexploitative research by self-scrutinization of the lens through which the researcher views the phenomenon studied’ (Berger, 2015, p. 229). However, how this strategy can be implemented is far less clear as it is nuanced and complex. There are a striking lack of studies exploring ‘how qualitative researchers “do” reflexivity and in-corporate it into their work’ (Probst & Berenson, 2014, p. 813) and how researchers can engage reflexivity ‘more robustly in pursuit of knowledge production’ (Rowlands, 2022, p. 7; see also Lazard & McAvoy, 2020). As Band-Winterstein et al. (2014, p. 537) rightly emphasise, ‘reflexive analysis is not simple, especially in sensitive research’.

Probst and Bernson argue that reflexive methods can be integrated into qualitative research at any point in the research process: (1) in the pre-writing phase through a ‘situating self-memo’ (2014, p. 823) in which researchers explore why they have chosen a particular topic and what they bring to the research; (2) during data collection and writing in the form of diaries, memos, post-it notes and debriefing meetings; and (3) in the post-writing phase at the end of research projects. Probst and Bernson found that participants in their study valued reflexivity ‘as a tool for enhancing the ethics, quality, and results of a study by illuminating, working through, orienting, balancing, expanding, and opening to layers of meaning that might otherwise remain invisible yet continue to exert their influence’ (823). While Probst and Berson’s study offers critical insights into how qualitative researchers implement reflexive methods, it does not comment on the potential benefits to the researcher of using such approaches in the specific context of sensitive research.

In the context of this paper, we are particularly interested in self-reflexivity (Grenier, 2016; Pagis, 2009), which we understand as a process enabling researchers to better understand and evaluate how their background and positionality impact their study design, data collection and interpretation, and how the research impacts them (Joseph et al., 2021). While ‘bringing the self to the fore remains problematic’ for a range of reasons (Finlay, 2002, p. 542, see also Borgstrom & Ellis, 2021), a number of studies suggest that it can be ‘emancipatory’ (Grenier, 2016, p. 157) and ‘a powerful learning experience’ (Olmos-Vega et al., 2022) for researchers. Several studies indicate that SRR practices could be particularly beneficial for researchers working with sensitive or distressing data, as they can enable researchers to explore why they feel drawn to certain topics and how they respond to the data they collect.

According to Fenge et al. (2019: 6), a self-reflexive stance may also support researchers’ self-care and resilience in sensitive research contexts. Considering its potential benefits and relevance to wellbeing, it is surprising that self-reflexivity has so far played a minor role in the literature on sensitive research. One reason for this is certainly that it can be difficult and agonizing for researchers to explore and share how their experience, vulnerabilities, and biases might impact their work – especially if such reflections are included in published papers. However, as this scoping review will illustrate, SRR practices can play a vital role in identifying the complex factors found within the research of sensitive and distressing subject matter. These can be used to identify institutional barriers, along with individual and collective self-care strategies.

This study has employed a scoping review approach to the methodology. There are a number of reasons why this approach, rather than a systematic approach, was utilized. Systematic approaches tend to address defined questions which allows for measures of feasibility and effectiveness of interventions to take place (Munn et al., 2018). In contrast scoping reviews are framed and driven by understanding knowledge and learning in a field where little research exists (Peters et al., 2020). This is particularly pertinent when considering the dearth of research into sensitive topics and SRR practices. Scoping reviews lend themselves to complex and diverse issues where exploration is lacking.

Research Questions

1. Which disciplines or fields are conducting SRR practices on sensitive topics?

2. What SRR practices do academics employ in the context of sensitive research?

3. What are the self-reported outcomes from using SRR practices in sensitive research?

Materials & Methods

Search Strategy

A list of relevant terms was created, and a systematic search was carried out. An initial search focused on the areas of teaching, education, research, and ethics. Via topic familiarity with trigger warnings and looking at a systematic review of them (Bryce et al., 2022), a list was created for an initial search: stress, resilience, emotions, trauma, distress, wellbeing, traumatic stress, secondary, sensitive topics, trauma-informed, content warnings, safe spaces, positive impact, best practices, inclusive practices. Reviews of preliminary findings indicated the search terms were too wide and narrowed to a title only search of the following terms: (sensitive* or distressing or disturb* or traum* or reflection or self-reflect* or “self reflect*” or reflexivity*), (researcher* or instructor* or investigator* or lecturer* or “qualitative research*” or “quantitative research*”). The databases included SSCI, ASSIA < IBISS, Scopus, Social Policy, and Practice, PsycINFO, Social Science Database/Social Science Premium Collection (ProQuest), and grey literature. An international, English only, search was conducted, with no time constraints on publication dates to gather as wide a selection as possible. These were reviewed by two authors at the outset.

Study Selection Process

We wanted to identify what types of research had previously been done by researchers who had used SRR practices in the context of research on sensitive topics. There were three inclusion criteria for studies to be incorporated and three exclusion principles. For inclusion, the primary factor was explicit researcher evidence of SRR practices. Following Lazard and McAvoy (2020, p. 166), we understand this to be concerned with the many ways how our identities, positions, and experiences as researchers impact the research process. The included papers could only be about the researchers’ own experience working with disturbing or sensitive topics. If a study included a group storyboard intended for researchers to contemplate this topic, but not the researchers’ own SRR practices, it was excluded. Second, the study needed to be about the researchers’ negative experiences themselves, such as mental and/or vicarious trauma from dealing with distressing, sensitive, or traumatizing data. Papers were also included if they also mentioned ‘support’ team members such as translators, transcribers, and student researchers.

The following exclusion principles were used to select studies. First, while an international search was conducted only papers in English were included due to budgetary and time restraints that did not allow for translations. Next, entries were excluded if they were about physical trauma in relation to medicine (rather than mental trauma), animals, training and/or teaching research approaches, program reviews, press releases, reviews of books or periodicals. The determining factor for what constituted ‘sensitive’ subject matter was deeper than looking for the word ‘sensitive’. For example, papers about insider/outsider status and SRR practices used to enhance methodological approaches that do not mention the mental health or wellbeing of the researcher were excluded.

To begin the review process, first, one author reviewed the output from the scoped content to remove the articles that were not subject matter specific, not in English, or not SRR practices about the researcher’s mental health or wellbeing. This left articles that were about SRR practices and sensitive topics. If in doubt, the paper was included for the second author to review the entry based on the next set of criteria. The reference data of the remaining article were added to a spreadsheet for the second author to read each article using the two questions below to determine which ones would be included for the next level of analysis:

• Are SRR practices mentioned?

• Are SRR practices defined?

After reviewing the answers to those two questions, it was decided which articles fit the criteria for inclusion. If there was disagreement, the third author was consulted for the final judgement. If the answer to question 1 was ‘yes’, the paper was further scrutinized. This approach enables us to (a) assess what role SRR practices play in the growing body of academic literature on sensitive topics, and (b) evaluate whether SRR practices can be used to enhance awareness and wellbeing among researchers.

A comprehensive search of relevant databases was conducted (see Figure 1) yielding 672 articles. The duplicates were removed (n = 352), and the remaining 320 articles were manually reviewed by one researcher. The review process began with reading the titles and abstracts, and then removing items that did not meet the selection criteria, this resulted in 96 entries. Each paper or blog was read to determine suitability for inclusion in the study. This left 55 papers with explicit evidence of SRR practices, in English, ranging from 1988 to 2023.

Figure 1.

PRISMA chart of identification, retrieval, and inclusion of relevant studies.

Results and Discussion

The final agreed entries yielded 55 papers that were deemed relevant for a closer analysis because they were about researcher SRR practices, of a disturbing/sensitive topic, and in a qualitative research context. The publication dates span from 1988 to 2023, with 73% of them occurring in 2014 or later and almost half occurring in the last seven years showing that the topic has become more common (see Figure 2). It should be noted that the data was collected before September 2023 so additional publications may be found for the remainder of the year. Overall, this shows the topic is increasing within these specific inclusion considerations.

Figure 2.

Scoped publications by number of articles published by year.

As previously mentioned, there are varying definitions of what constitutes ‘sensitive’. There are also a range of topics found in the scoped literature. We classified them into broad categories and the number of entries for each are: Physical health or death (n = 27); ‘Sensitive’ in general (n = 22); and Mental Health (n = 6) (see Table 1). This shows the variety of topics that researchers contemplated, regarding mental health and wellbeing. Some topic areas could be deemed as expected to be distressing or sensitive such as child sexual abuse, death, cancer, after death interviews, sexual violence, and prison research. Other areas are less common and without a close analysis and investigation into the particulars of the projects, may not otherwise be included. Some examples include a community street soccer program; oral history, motherhood and ethics; breastfeeding; geographers using ethnographic methods; management, business, and trauma; remote interviews during COVID; and applied information technology regarding ethics, to list a few.

Table 1.

Categorization of Research Topics in Scoped Findings (Bracket Number [ ] Indicates Reference: See Table 2 Below).

	Physical Health or Death	Sensitive in General	Mental Health
1	Death [1–5]	Homelessness [28]	Management, business, trauma [50]
2	Illness [6–10], illness and caregiving [11–12]; nursing [14–16]	Community street soccer programme [29]	Psychology and STD clinics [51]
3	Intimate relationships -culture and religion [13]	Interviewing in developing countries, Jamaican educational policies, [30]	Sexual harassment in the workplace [52]
4	Pregnancy or childcare [17–20]	Field research in transitional societies [31]	Genocide and sociopolitical violence [53]
5	Sexual crimes [21–26]	As researchers [32–38]	Violent crimes [54]
6	Sexual health [27]	Applied information technology and ethics [39]	Oral history, motherhood, ethics [55]
7	-	Race, youth, firearms [40]	-
8	-	Remote interview during COVID [41]	-
9	-	Early parenthood, out of home care [42]	-
10	-	Parental incarceration; prisoners, parent–child relations, parenting [43–45, 48–49]	-
11	-	Intimate violence against women [46]	-
12	-	Sensitive research interviews [47]	-
Total	27 entries	22 entries	6 entries

Table 2.

Bracket Numbered References Used in Table 1 and Table 3.

1	Arber (2006)
2	Valentine (2007)
3	Woodby et al. (2011)
4	Knopke (2018)
5	Borgstrom and Ellis (2021)
6	Watts (2008)
7	Gadsden (2008)
8	Witty et al. (2014)
9	Fitzpatrick and Olson (2015)
10	Sikes and Hall (2020)
11	Dempsey et al. (2016)
12	Fox (2019)
13	Couture et al. (2012)
14	Cowles (1988)
15	Ashton (2014)
16	Conolly et al. (2023)
17	Sword (1999)
18	Joseph et al. (2021)
19	Silverio et al. (2022)
20	Edelman (2023)
21	Brackenridge (1999)
22	Stoler (2002)
23	Sommer (2009)
24	Jackson et al. (2013)
25	Stewart (2016)
26	Rowlands (2022)
27	Nana Kwame Kyeretwie (2023)
28	Micanovic et al. (2020)
29	Sherry (2013)
30	Brayda and Boyce (2014)
31	Browne and Moffett (2014)
32	Probst and Berenson (2014)
33	Drozdzewski and Dominey-Howes (2015)
34	Nuttman-Shwartz (2016)
35	Call-Cummings et al. (2019)
36	Taylor (2019)
37	Brown (2021)
38	Smith (2021)
39	Hård af Segerstad (2021)
40	Woods et al. (2022)
41	Loughran et al. (2022)
42	Gill (2022)
43	Easterling and Johnson (2015)
44	Damsa and Ugelvik (2017)
45	Rossiter et al. (2020)
46	Yassour (2005)
47	Melville and Hincks (2016)
48	From the Field: Reflections from a First-Time Prisons Researcher’ (Oct 22 2019)
49	Adams (2021)
50	Mavin (2022)
51	Oskowitz and Meulenberg-Buskens (1997)
52	Adikaram et al. (2022)
53	Doná (2014)
54	Fohring (2020)
55	Leahy (2022)

Next, the department or school of the authors in each parent categories of Physical Health or Death, Sensitive in General, and Mental Health, were identified. This was done to determine which disciplines are represented to see if SRR practices are occurring beyond the Humanities and Social Sciences. A comprehensive search was not possible for a variety of reasons. Naming conventions vary for international institutions and some publications had multiple authors but did not list all authors’ affiliations. If multiple authors were from the same department/school, the discipline was only listed once. If someone had more than one workplace listed, the academic one was listed, and in some cases, both were listed if they differed. As this inquiry is intended as a preliminary investigation into the disciplines using SRR practices for disturbing topics, this depth of naming was deemed sufficient. This approach was preferred because doing so allows for the identification of the range of disciplines and examples of transdisciplinary research occurring; if only looking at the journal articles, this depth of analysis would not be possible.

The results are shown in Table 3 and the top three disciplines are Sociology or Social Policy (n = 19), Medical (n = 10), and Criminology of Law (n = 9). These results align with disciplines that one might expect to deal with subject matter that is sensitive but the inclusion of high rates for Medical is a welcome addition to observe. Also interesting, albeit in smaller numbers, are the fields of Education (n = 6), Business or Management (n = 3), Earth Sciences and Technology (n = 3), that are conducting research that the authors have described as negatively impacting their mental health or wellbeing. There are two relevant findings: first, research is being conducted in fields beyond what might be ‘expected’ to be sensitive. Second, it shows an expansion beyond the Humanities and Social Sciences for the use of SRR practices to process the emotional burden felt by these researchers. As Sociology and Social Policy are still the dominant fields, there is an opportunity to share knowledge and information amongst disciplines.

Table 3.

Parent Categories of Research Topics Sorted by Discipline of Researcher/S (Bracket Number [ ] Indicates Reference: See Table 2 Above).

Department	Physical Health or Death	Sensitive in General	Mental Health	Total
Sociology or social policy	[1–7, 12–13, 25–26]	[28–30, 32, 34, 36, 38]	[53]	19
Medical	[9, 11, 14–19]	[45]	[51]	10
Criminology or law	[27]	[31, 40, 43–44, 46–49]	-	9
Education	[10, 21, 23, 24]	[35,42]	-	6
Psychology	[8, 20, 22]	-	-	3
Business or management	-	[37]	[50, 52]	3
Earth sciences and technology	-	[33, 39, 54]	-	3
History	-	[41]	[55]	2
Total				55

The SRR practices found in the 55 publications range from short positionality statements to elaborate narratives. Generally, such narratives centred on one or more of the following questions: (1) What led the researchers to work on this sensitive research (including reasons that they might not be aware of when embarking on the projects)? (2) How prepared did the researchers feel for the emotional impact of their research? (3) What coping strategies did they develop in response to navigate the challenges posed by the research?

In many cases, SRR practices were not a formal part of the research process and instead were prompted by difficulties or crises that researchers experienced either during or after data collection. For example, Stoler (2002, p. 270) notes that she started keeping a journal when she developed ‘flashbacks and other symptoms’ that she ‘eventually recognized as memories of being sexually abused as a child’ whilst working on a research project about childhood sexual abuse. Keeping a diary helped her navigate the emotional impact of her research, and she states that she wished she had started it in the earlier stages of the project (2002, p. 271). Stoler’s consideration on her personal background and experiences, the emotional impact of her work, and her coping strategies meet our criteria for SRR practices which is why it was included in our scoping review. Unlike most publications in our sample, Stoler’s article does not use the terms ‘reflexivity’ or ‘reflection’. However, the publication is a powerful illustration of the ways in which SRR practices can be used in sensitive research contexts.

The publications analyzed for this scoping review confirm Rowlands’ observation that ‘there is an overabundance of concern for reflexivity’ but a ‘dearth of guidelines to help researchers engage reflexivity more robustly in pursuit of knowledge construction’ (2022, p. 7). Almost all the 55 publications with SRR practices mentioned reflexivity or reflection (n = 53), with many stressing its critical importance. Two papers contained SRR practices without explicitly framing them as reflexivity: Stoler (2002) and Cowles (1988). Cowles (1988) offers a detailed discussion of the emotional impact of conducting research with adult survivors of murder victims. She notes: ‘Although aware of some of the potential problems related to the sensitivity of the topic and the vulnerability of the subjects, I was admittedly very naïve about the actual sensitivity and how the study activities would influence both the subjects and myself’ (Cowles, 1988, p. 164).

A key finding of this scoping review is that many early career researchers, who work on sensitive topics, feel unprepared and receive little to no training or support. Our sample suggests that due to their lack of experience, early career researchers can find it difficult to set boundaries (Micanovic et al., 2020, p. 5). Some report that working on sensitive research made them feel guilty (Sherry, 2013), distressed (Sikes & Hall, 2020, p. 165), and traumatized (Taylor, 2019). Another common thread was a perceived lack of institutional training and support. Taylor (2019) rightly insists that researcher wellbeing is not solely a question of self-care and self-sought SRR practices. As a graduate student in anthropology, he received virtually no support and guidance. Against this background, he argues that universities ‘must prioritise practical and financial support for training and (professional) debriefing’ (Taylor, 2019, p. 195).

Of course, greater institutional support would also be beneficial to more experienced researchers. Similar to Haugstvedt (2020), we found that better guidance and support would be valuable to researchers at all career stages. One experienced researcher notes: ‘prior to entering the field for this research project, I felt very prepared. I had a strong recruitment and engagement strategy and trained as a practitioner with anti-oppressive and trauma-informed approaches. […] However, as I commenced data collection via interviews, it became clear that my professional and personal life were overlapping, and I was vulnerable to the stresses induced by engaging in trauma-triggering research.’ (Woods et al., 2022, p. 78). This resonates with Stoler’s (2002) experience and raises critical questions about the meaning and uses of SRR practices in sensitive research that can assist the researcher at both a professional and personal level.

While SRR practices are now much more established in the literature on sensitive research, their meaning and usage remain undertheorized. Here we present examples of both reflection and reflexivity to bolster our point that SRR practices are a welcome addition to the research process. Drozdzewski and Dominey-Howes (2015, p. 18) conceptualize reflexivity as ‘a process of constant, self-conscious scrutiny of the self as researcher and of the research process’; a requirement of us as researchers’. Fenge et al. (2019, p. 3) argue that it is vital that researchers ‘critically reflect upon “the self”’ and adopt ‘a reflexive stance toward their power or positionality’. In a similar vein, Rossiter et al. (2020, p. 59) summarizing Lumsden and Winter (2014), note that reflexivity ‘interrogates the inherent power relations between the researcher and the researched’. Rowlands (2022, p. 18) states: ‘Reflexivity made me aware of my subjective ideas and position in the research process and the effects this had on the objective outcome, and this aided me considerably in gathering data that was otherwise lacking.’

Several studies examined for this scoping review suggest that SRR practices, as we have used the concept, ‘may also be a useful tool in protecting against, or at least identifying the early signs of’ emotional distress and vicarious trauma in researchers (Fohring, 2020, p. 8). However, what this means in practice is less clear. Many authors stress the importance of peer-support as well as formal and informal debriefing meetings (see e.g. Cowles, 1988; Doná, 2014; Loughran et al., 2022; Micanovic et al., 2020; Sherry, 2013; Silverio et al., 2022; Taylor, 2019).

Another key SRR practice employed by academics working on sensitive research was journaling. According to Stoler (2002, p. 271), journaling can assist ‘with emotional processing and self-monitoring, allowing one to become aware of implicit biases and assumptions’. Our scoping survey found that researchers from a range of disciplines agree with Silverio et al.’s (2022) claim that all qualitative researchers working on sensitive, challenging and difficult topics should be encouraged to keep a reflexive journal.

Micanovic et al. (2020, p. 4) offer a detailed discussion of the benefits of reflexive journaling in sensitive research contexts:

reflexive diaries were a good way of recapturing fieldwork (i.e., descriptions of people, places, situations, conversations, and events) as well as our reflection on and interpretations of these observations and experiences. In addition, we also recorded how we felt about what was going on during the research process; to capture the emotional impact of the fieldwork experience or interview that otherwise would not be evident in descriptive field notes or a transcript. Special attention was paid to these personal feelings and emotions to identify particular areas of vulnerability and anxiety. Mazzetti (2018) [38] reminds us that it is important that there is a safe outlet for these emotions and we found that a reflexive diary is an ideal space for unloading and reflection. Field notes are also helpful because they give us an opportunity to scrutinise our own prejudices and biases as well as positionalities during all stages of fieldwork. In sum, we attempted to include observational, theoretical, methodological, and personal notes in our reflexive research diaries to enhance the quality of our research and analysis.’

Other studies examined as part of this scoping review echo this. Oskowitz and Meulenberg-Buskens (1997, p. 85) conclude that diaries were used by researchers to ‘document and reflect on their personal thoughts, assumptions and emotions as well as on issues of a more theoretical nature’. The researchers also found them helpful to reflect on (un)conscious bias. Brackenridge (1999), Arber (2006), Valentine (2007), Sommer (2009), Sherry (2013), Brayda and Boyce (2014), Browne and Moffett (2014), Fitzpatrick and Olson (2015), Knopke (2018), Dempsey et al. (2016), Fox (2019), Adams (2021), Mavin (2022) and Conolly et al. (2023) all stress the importance of keeping reflexive memos and diaries. Silverio et al. (2022: 9) argue that all ‘qualitative researchers should be encouraged to keep a “reflective diary” (or “reflective journal”) to document their thoughts, feelings, and experiences of the data collection events they conduct and their experience of collecting data’, because they ‘are useful for recording the successes and challenges of each data collection event by the field researcher, as well as their psycho-emotional reflections on the research project as it progresses’. Several studies examined as part of our review show that reflexive notes can also be used as ‘a dataset in their own right’ (Silverio et al., 2022, p. 9): Oskowitz and Meulenberg-Buskens (1997), Brackenridge (1999), Arber (2006), Sherry (2013), Fitzpatrick and Olson (2015), Knopke (2018), and Smith (2021).

It is important to stress that SRR practices such as journaling is only one of many tools employed by researchers working on sensitive topics, and our study suggests that it is usually combined with formal and informal debriefings and other activities. In this context, we found that journaling can be an excellent way to acknowledge and assess the emotional impact of sensitive research. While it is never too late to begin this practice, the studies analyzed as part of this sample suggest that it can be beneficial to researcher wellbeing and scientific practice to begin the process of SRR practices as early as possible. Joseph et al. (2021, p. 1) recommend that researchers consider a series of ‘self-reflexive questions’ before conducting their research ‘to anticipate and proactively develop mitigation strategies to address common methodological and ethical dilemmas they may encounter.’ Sherry (2013: 283) argues that her research diary became a ‘safe unloading zone’ and helped her process the emotional impact of her re-search. Valentine (2007) preferred to keep her diary separate from her field notes but lists many of the same benefits.

SRR practice in the form of research diaries appears beneficial for academics working on sensitive research. However, personal reflexivity in this form is not necessarily linked to epistemological reflexivity. Our study also clearly showed that diary keeping alone cannot protect researchers from harm. Borgstrom and Ellis (2021, p. 598), for example, found that ‘reflexive practices have amplified our own sense of vulnerability’. Other researchers found it difficult (Sherry, 2013), if not impossible to write (Taylor, 2019), in moments in which they were extremely distressed by their research. Of course, this does not suggest that reflexive diaries are not helpful. Rather, it suggests that they should be combined with a range of other SRR practices and support mechanisms such as debriefing meetings with peers, institutional training, and counselling.

Limitations

A limitation is that the scoped literature is only in English and does not offer the opportunity to add the contributions from non-WIERD perspectives (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic). It is presumed that there are a wide variety of experiences and community specific situations that could add a richness to this current topic overall. As distressing subject matter is not limited to only WIERD communities and perspectives, so too are the experiences from a range of researchers from varying communities needed. The hope is that the takeaway value from this scoping review will be of some use to researchers regardless of location.

A second limitation is that we focused exclusively on publications that explicitly framed the research as sensitive, traumatic, disturbing, or distressing. Of course, research can be all of these things without being described in these terms. Nevertheless, our sample includes publications from a range of disciplines and on a range of topics including some that are not conventionally understood as ‘sensitive’. Our hope it that this study encourages more scholars to use SRR practices given the sensitive nature of their research and to seek support if they need it. A number of publications that we had to exclude from our sample indicate that SRR practices can be helpful and beneficial well beyond this context. This observation is also supported by the growing body of academic literature associated with the ‘reflexive turn’ (Lumsden, 2019). While our review has focused exclusively on qualitative studies, this does not mean that SRR practices have no role to play in quantitative research and mixed-methods studies. On the contrary, as Jamieson et al. (2023, p. 11), have shown, there are good reasons for ‘quantitative researchers to adopt a similar level of thoughtful reflexivity that is present in qualitative methodologies’.

This scoping review strongly indicates that SRR practices in the form of journaling, debriefing meetings (formal or otherwise), and other individual or shared activities can be beneficial for academics working on sensitive research. However, our focus on small sample size makes it difficult to draw conclusions about reasons why researchers find it difficult or impossible to adopt such practices. It is important to acknowledge that adopting SRR practices can be a painful experience for some researchers, but one which has the ‘power to give voice to the researcher’s own trauma’ (Edelman, 2023, p. 107). Edelman found that even if these practices confronted her with her vulnerabilities, they ultimately helped her improve her coping abilities. However, other researchers might reach different conclusions. Further research is needed to assess why researchers may abandon or reject SRR practices.

Future Directions

This scoping review has highlighted both the complexity and importance of SRR practices when working with sensitive topics as a researcher. As stated from the outset, research into sensitive topics addresses some of the most important human issues of modern times. Without research into these areas, vital work cannot take place that is aimed at tackling and understanding a range of difficult social and individual problems. This review has highlighted that sensitivity is not simply about particular research topics. It is also inseparably linked to the wellbeing, impact, and coping mechanisms of the researcher across a diverse range of specialisms. This demonstrates that it is a nuanced but also complex issue to navigate. Due to both the lack of research and the complexity of SRR practices within sensitive research, planning for successful interventions is difficult given the personalized impact and coping strategies that are required to fully embrace reflexive, reflection, and self-reflective practice.

One key element that emerged from this study is that whilst SRR practices are a key component of successfully managing emotions during sensitive research, the approach should be proactive, rather than reactive. Many of the papers indicated that researchers did not employ support strategies, underpinned by reflexivity, until after the negative impacts from the work had been encountered (which could have occurred at any time in the research process). A common thread throughout was the infrastructure and culture required to support well-being with a distinct lack of institutional training, time, recognition, and support for researchers. The scoping review has shown that a proactive approach to SRR practices and self-awareness is a vital element of the research process. The papers in this study also indicated that a proactive approach has to be ongoing throughout the study that is taking place – with consistent monitoring of research wellbeing. Nevertheless, this is not a simple process that will instantly solve researcher distress. To make sense of feelings within the research process, difficult realizations and negative emotions may need to be reconciled in the reflexive approach.

There is no doubt from the results of this study that awareness of researcher well-being and the impact of distress is becoming more widely recognized. This is demonstrated in Figure 2, which shows a clear rise in papers on this matter since 1988. Nevertheless, a shift in culture is required to reframe how sensitive research is carried out. Being affected adversely by one’s own research still carries a stigma and shame within many research communities. To combat this, researcher wellbeing and SRR practices should be built into projects, proactively, from the outset. This is particularly pertinent at the starting stages of research, to pre-emptively create an environment that opens conversation about wellbeing and mental health in the preliminary stages of the research process. For example, the practicalities around this may be built into grant applications, removing the stigma of exit strategies and conversations in academia, and debriefing sessions throughout the research and afterwards. However, this is not an easy process to follow, due to the nuances around what works for individuals this cannot be a one size fits all – rather a negotiated position with all of the researchers and support staff on a project on what works best for them in relation to wellbeing, fostering positive mental health and reflexivity. A culture shift in academia is required. The conversation needs to become louder and less shameful, which in turn will proactively change the landscape for researchers working in areas that may cause distress. This scoping review has demonstrated that conversations, across diverse disciplines are now rising. However, there is room for more growth, recognition, and future research in this area.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - (Self-) Reflection / Reflexivity in Sensitive, Qualitative Research: A Scoping Review

Supplemental Material for (Self-) Reflection / Reflexivity in Sensitive, Qualitative Research: A Scoping Review by Katharina Karcher, Joanne McCuaig, and Sophie King-Hill in International Journal of Qualitative Methods.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding provided by EUniWell.

ORCID iDs

Katharina Karcher

Joanne McCuaig

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

References

Adams

(2021). Intersectionality and reflexivity: Narratives from a BME female researcher inside the hidden social world of prison visits. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20(1), Article 160940692098214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920982141

Adikaram

A. S.

Weerakotuwa

Liyanage

D. M.

(2022). Researching sensitive topics when the participants are stigmatized, the culture is value-laden and the researcher is an insider-outsider. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 17(3), 376–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrom-12-2020-2079

Arber

(2006). Reflexivity: A challenge for the researcher as practitioner? Journal of Research in Nursing, 11(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987106056956

Ashton

(2014). Researcher or nurse? Difficulties of undertaking semi-structured interviews on sensitive topics. Nurse Researcher, 22(1), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.22.1.27.e1255

Band-Winterstein

Doron

Naim

(2014). ‘I take them with me’ – reflexivity in sensitive research. Reflective Practice, 15(4), 530–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2014.900031

Berger

(2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475

Borgstrom

Ellis

(2021). Internalising ‘sensitivity’: Vulnerability, reflexivity and death research(ers). International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(5), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1857972

Brackenridge

(1999). Managing myself: Investigator survival in sensitive research. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 34(4), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/101269099034004007

Brayda

W. C.

Boyce

T. D.

(2014). So you really want to interview me? Navigating “sensitive” qualitative research Interviewing6. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 318–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691401300115

10.

Brown

(2021). Qualitative analysis for sensitive research - how to protect against researcher vulnerabilities. Centre for Qualitative Research, University of Bath. https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/centre-for-qualitative-research/2021/05/06/qualitative-analysis-for-sensitive-research-how-to-protect-against-researcher-vulnerabilities/

11.

Browne

Moffett

(2014). Finding your feet in the field: Critical reflections of early career researchers on field research in transitional societies. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 6(2), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huu010

12.

Bryce

Horwood

Cantrell

Gildersleeve

(2022). Pulling the trigger: A systematic literature review of trigger warnings as a strategy for reducing traumatization in higher education. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(4), 2882–2894. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221118968

13.

Buchanan

Warwick

(2021). First do no harm: Using “ethical triage” to minimise causing harm when undertaking educational research among vulnerable participants. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(8), 1090–1103. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1890702

14.

Call-Cummings

Dennis

Martinez

(2019). The role of researcher in participatory inquiry: Modeling intra-active reflexivity in conversational reflections. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 19(1), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708617750677

15.

Conolly

Rowland

Abrams

Harris

Kelly

Kent

Maben

(2023). ‘Pretty cathartic actually’: Reflections on the attempt to reduce re-traumatization of researchers and nurses taking part in a longitudinal interview study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 79(11), 4196–4206. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15764

16.

Corbin

Morse

J. M.

(2003). The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(3), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403009003001

17.

Couture

A. L.

Zaidi

A. U.

Maticka-Tyndale

(2012). Reflexive accounts: An intersectional approach to exploring the fluidity of insider/outsider status and the researcher’s impact on culturally sensitive post-positivist qualitative research, Qualitative Sociology Review, 8(1), 86–105. https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.8.1.05

18.

Cowles

K. V.

(1988). Issues in qualitative research on sensitive topics. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/019394598801000205

19.

Damsa

Ugelvik

(2017). A difference that makes a difference? Reflexivity and researcher effects in an all-foreign prison. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), Article 160940691771313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917713132

20.

Dempsey

Dowling

Larkin

Murphy

(2016). Sensitive interviewing in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 39(6), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21743

21.

Dickson-Swift

James

Liamputtong

(2008b). Undertaking sensitive research in the health and social Sciences: Managing boundaries, emotions and risks. Cambridge University Press 9780521718233.

22.

Dickson-Swift

James

E. L.

Kippen

Liamputtong

(2006). Blurring boundaries in qualitative health research on sensitive topics. Qualitative Health Research, 16(6), 853–871. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306287526

23.

Dickson-Swift

James

E. L.

Kippen

Liamputtong

(2008a). 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

24.

Dickson-Swift

James

E. L.

Kippen

Liamputtong

(2009). Researching sensitive topics: Qualitative research as emotion work. Qualitative Research, 9(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794108098031

25.

Doná

(2014). Intersectional traumatisation: The psychological impact of researching genocidal violence on researchers. In Engaging violence: Trauma, memory and representation (pp. 107–126). Routledge.

26.

Drozdzewski

Dominey-Howes

(2015). Research and trauma: Understanding the impact of traumatic content and places on the researcher. Emotion Space and Society, 17, 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2015.09.001

27.

Easterling

B. A.

Johnson

E. I.

(2015). Conducting qualitative research on parental incarceration: Personal reflections on challenges and contribution. Qualitative Report, 20(10), 1550–1567. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1andtype=pdfanddoi=705f83529139dc1eb94db18cb2c546a252dd3470

28.

Edelman

(2023). Addressing researcher vulnerability with the trauma and resilience informed research principles and practices framework. In Qualitative researcher vulnerability: Negotiating, experiencing and embracing (pp. 94–120). Taylor & Francis.

29.

Elmir

Schmied

Jackson

Wilkes

(2011). Interviewing people about potentially sensitive topics. Nurse Researcher, 19(1), 12–16. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2011.10.19.1.12.c8766

30.

Enosh

Buchbinder

(2005). The interactive construction of narrative styles in sensitive interviews: The case of domestic violence research. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(4), 588–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405275054

31.

Fenge

L. A.

Oakley

Taylor

Beer

(2019). The impact of sensitive research on the researcher: Preparedness and positionality. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, Article 160940691989316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919893161

32.

Finlay

(2002). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129120052

33.

Fitzpatrick

Olson

R. E.

(2015). A rough road map to reflexivity in qualitative research into emotions. Emotion Review, 7(1), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914544710

34.

Fohring

(2020). The risks and rewards of researching victims of crime. Methodological Innovations, 13(2), Article 205979912092633. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799120926339

35.

Fox

(2019). Compassion fatigue and vicarious trauma in everyday hospital social work: A personal narrative of practitioner–researcher identity transition. Social Sciences, 8(11), 313. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8110313

36.

From the Field: Reflections from a First-Time Prisons Researcher (Oct 22, 2019). https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/field-reflections-first-time-prisons-researcher/docview/2307331640/se-2?accountid=8630

37.

Gadsden

(2008). ‘I’ve got them in my blood: Reflections on the impact of countertransference on the process of becoming a social work researcher. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 14(1), 15–29. https://reflectionsnarrativesofprofessionalhelping.org/index.php/Reflections/article/view/919

38.

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

39.

Goodrum

Keys

J. L.

(2007). Reflections on two studies of emotionally sensitive topics: Bereavement from murder and abortion. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10(4), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701400976

40.

Grenier

(2016). How can reflexivity inform critical pedagogies? Insights from the theory versus practice debate. International Studies Perspectives, 17(2), 154–172. https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekv006

41.

Hård af Segerstad

(2021). On the complexities of studying sensitive communities online as a researcher–participant. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 19(3), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1108/jices-01-2021-0011

42.

Haugstvedt

(2020). A scoping review of practitioner research on sensitive topics. Nordic Journal of Social Research, 11(1), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.7577/njsr.3594

43.

Hilário

A. P.

Augusto

F. R.

(Eds.), (2020). Practical and ethical dilemmas in researching sensitive topics with populations considered vulnerable. MDPI.

44.

Hughes

(2004). Safety in nursing social research. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 41(8), 933–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2004.05.002

45.

Jackson

Backett-Milburn

Newall

(2013). Researching distressing topics emotional reflexivity and emotional labor in the secondary analysis of children and young people’s narratives of abuse. Sage Open, 3(2), Article 215824401349070. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013490705

46.

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), Article e12735. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12735

47.

Joseph

F. I.

Earland

Ahmed

M. A.

(2021). Experience of conducting sensitive qualitative research as a cultural outsider: Formulation of a guide for reflexivity. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211058616

48.

Knopke

(2018). Touching the dead: Autoethnographical reflections about the researcher’s body in the field of death, dying, and bereavement. Death Studies, 42(10), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2018.1426656

49.

Lazard

McAvoy

(2020). Doing reflexivity in psychological research: What’s the point? What’s the practice? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2017.1400144

50.

Lee

R. M.

(1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. Sage Publications.

51.

Lee

R. M.

Renzetti

C. M.

(1990). The problems of researching sensitive topics: An overview and introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 33(5), 510–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764290033005002

52.

Lee

Y.-O.

Lee

R. M.

(2012). Methodological research on “sensitive” topics: A decade review. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 114(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0759106312437139

53.

Liamputtong

(2007). Researching the vulnerable: A Guide to sensitive research methods. Sage. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=251544

54.

Lipscomb

(2010). Participant overexposure and the role of researcher judgement. Nurse Researcher, 17(4), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2010.07.17.4.49.c7924

55.

Loughran

Mahoney

Payling

(2022). Reflections on remote interviewing in a pandemic: Negotiating participant and researcher emotions. Oral History, 50(1), 37–48. https://repository.essex.ac.uk/32067/1/ReflectionsonremoteinterviewingFinal.pdf

56.

Lumsden

(2019). Reflexivity: Theory, method, and practice (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315692319

57.

Lumsden

Winter

(2014). Reflexivity in criminological research: Experiences with the powerful and the powerless. Palgrave Macmillan.

58.

Mallon

Elliott

(2021). What is ‘sensitive’ about sensitive research? The sensitive researchers’ perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(5), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1857966

59.

Mavin

(2022). ‘Women leaders’ work-caused trauma: Vulnerability, reflexivity and emotional challenges for the researcher. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 17(4), 442–458.https://doi.org/10.1108/qrom-11-2021-2242

60.

Mazzetti

A. S.

(2018). The emotional nature of qualitative research. In Ciesielska

Jemielniak

(Eds.), Qualitative methodologies in organization studies (p. 165). Palgrave Macmillan.

61.

McCosker

Barnard

Gerber

(2001). Undertaking sensitive research: Issues and strategies for meeting the safety needs of all participants. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum for Qualitative Social Research, 2(1). Article 1. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-2.1.983

62.

McGarry

(2010). Exploring the effect of conducting sensitive research. Nurse Researcher, 18(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2010.10.18.1.8.c8043

63.

Melville

Hincks

(2016). Conducting sensitive interviews: A review of reflections. Law and Method. https://www.lawandmethod.nl/tijdschrift/lawandmethod/2016/05/lawandmethod-D-15-00008

64.

Micanovic

L. S.

Stelko

Sakic

(2020). Who else needs protection? Reflecting on researcher vulnerability in sensitive research. Societies, 10(1), 3. https://mdpi-res.com/societies/societies-10-00003/article_deploy/societies-10-00003.pdf?version=1577002617

65.

Mitchell

Irvine

(2008). I’m okay, you’re okay? Reflections on the wellbeing and ethical requirements of researchers and research participants in conducting qualitative fieldwork interviews. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690800700403

66.

Munn

Peters

M. D. J.

Stern

Tufanaru

McArthur

Aromataris

(2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

67.

Nana Kwame Kyeretwie

(2023). Researching homosexuality in Ghana and its implication on the researcher: Reflections from the field. African Identities, 21(1), 177–186. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14725843.2021.1880369

68.

Nuttman-Shwartz

(2016). Research in a shared traumatic reality: Researchers in a disaster context. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 21(3), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2015.1084856

69.

Olmos-Vega

F. M.

Stalmeijer

R. E.

Varpio

Kahlke

(2022). 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

70.

Oskowitz

Meulenberg-Buskens

(1997). Preparing researchers for a qualitative investigation of a particularly sensitive nature: Reflections from the field. South African Journal of Psychology, 27(2), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124639702700204

71.

Pagis

(2009). Embodied self-reflexivity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72(3), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250907200308

72.

Leahy

C. P.

(2022). The afterlife of interviews: Explicit ethics and subtle ethics in sensitive or distressing qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 22(5), 777–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211012924

73.

Peters

M. D. J.

Marnie

Tricco

A. C.

Pollock

Munn

Alexander

McInerney

Godfrey

C. M.

Khalil

(2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI evidence synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167

74.

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

75.

Possick

(2009). Reflexive positioning in a politically sensitive situation dealing with the threats of researching the West Bank settler experience. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(5), 859–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800408330418

76.

Probst

Berenson

(2014). The double arrow: How qualitative social work researchers use reflexivity. Qualitative Social Work, 13(6), 813–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325013506248

77.

Renzetti

C. M.

Lee

R. M.

(Eds.), (1993). Researching sensitive topics. Sage Publications.

78.

Rossiter

Power

Fowler

Elliott

Dawson

(2020). Reflexivity in correctional research: Researcher perspectives on parenthood in a study with incarcerated parents. Qualitative Social Work, 19(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325018791351

79.

Rowlands

(2022). Autoethnography, reflexivity, and insider researcher dynamics: Reflections on investigating violence against men in intimate relationships. African Sociological Review, 26(1), 6. https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/esploro/outputs/bookChapter/Autoethnography-reflexivity-and-insider-researcher-dynamics/9920308807691

80.

Shaw

(2010). Embedding reflexivity within experiential qualitative psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(3), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880802699092

81.

Sherry

(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

82.

Sikes

Hall

(2020). Too close for comfort? Ethical considerations around safeguarding the emotional and mental wellbeing of researchers using auto/biographical approaches to investigate ‘sensitive’ topics. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 43(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727x.2019.1636025

83.

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, Article 160940692211247. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221124739

84.

Smith

(2021). The emotional impact of research: A reflexive account of a counsellor-turned-PhD researcher’s experience of vicarious trauma. European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, 11, 22–32. https://ejqrp.org/index.php/ejqrp/article/view/122.

85.

Sollund

(2008). Tested neutrality: Emotional challenges in qualitative interviews on homicide and rape. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 9(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/14043850802450138

86.

Sommer

C. A.

(2009). Gathering wool: Reflections on conducting qualitative research. Journal of Poetry Therapy, 22(1), 11–20.https://doi.org/10.1080/08893670802708050

87.

Stewart

M. W.

(2016). Sensitive research and the collision of advocacy and research: Consequences for the researcher. Journal of Research Practice, 12(1), Article M2. https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/5857

88.

Stoler

L. R.

(2002). III. Researching childhood sexual abuse: Anticipating effects on the researcher. Feminism & Psychology, 12(2), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353502012002015

89.

Sword

(1999). Accounting for presence of self: Reflections on doing qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 9(2), 270–278.https://doi.org/10.1177/104973299129121839

90.

Taylor

(2019). The long shadows cast by the field: Violence, trauma, and the ethnographic researcher. Fennia - International Journal of Geography, 197(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.84792

91.

Tourangeau

(2008). Sensitive topics. In Encyclopedia of survey research methods (p. 1000). Sage Publications.

92.

Valentine

(2007). Methodological reflections: Attending and tending to the role of the researcher in the construction of bereavement narratives. Qualitative Social Work, 6(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325007077237

93.

van Meter

K. M.

(2000). Sensitive topics and sensitive questions. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 68(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1177/075910630006800125

94.

Walls

Parahoo

Fleming

McCaughan

(2010). Issues and considerations when researching sensitive issues with men: Examples from a study of men and sexual health. Nurse Researcher, 18(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2010.10.18.1.26.c8045

95.

Watts

J. H.

(2008). Emotion, empathy and exit: Reflections on doing ethnographic qualitative research on sensitive topics. Medical Sociology online, 3(2), 3. https://oro.open.ac.uk/10901/1/jhwatts.pdf

96.

Witty

Branney

Bullen

White

Evans

Eardley

(2014). Engaging men with penile cancer in qualitative research: Reflections from an interview-based study. Nurse Researcher, 21(3), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2014.01.21.3.13.e1218

97.

Woodby

L. L.

Williams

B. R.

Wittich

A. R.

Burgio

K. L.

(2011). Expanding the notion of researcher distress: The cumulative effects of coding. Qualitative Health Research, 21(6), 830–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311402095

98.

Woods

Chambers

T. N. G.

Eizadirad

(2022). Emotional vulnerability in researchers conducting trauma -triggering research. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 3(3), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.52547/johepal.3.3.71

99.

Yassour

B. D.

(2005). Teaching a qualitative research seminar on sensitive issues: An autoethnography. Qualitative Social Work, 4(3), 347–362.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB