Reflections of ‘Doing’ Research that Involves Trauma: A Methodological Guide and Framework for Researchers

Abstract

This paper examines the experiences of four researchers engaged in a study with young people residing in therapeutic residential care facilities in an Australian state. These young people, often under 18 years of age, have complex needs stemming from experiences of abuse, neglect, or family breakdown. We explore the challenges, ethical considerations, and personal impact of conducting this trauma-intensive research through a collaborative and reflexive approach. To mitigate the potential for researcher trauma, emotional distress, and dysregulation, we developed a comprehensive methodological framework that prioritises relational support systems and ethical mindfulness. This framework, operationalised through a three-phase process of pre-interview preparation, during-interview support, and post-interview reflection, aims to enhance researchers well-being and contribute to the development of best practices in trauma-informed research. Our findings underscore the profound emotional impact of this work, the importance of peer and institutional support, and the influence of structural factors on our affective experiences during the research process. By sharing our experiences and insights, we hope to contribute to the ongoing discourse on research practices prioritising the well-being of researchers and participants in trauma-saturated research.

Introduction

There is a cost to ‘doing’ research involving trauma. Researchers have called for greater recognition of the possible long-term impacts of researching trauma-heavy topics (Drozdzewski & Dominey-Howes, 2015, p. 17). When researching trauma-heavy topics, researchers must adhere to strict ethical protocols and display enhanced relational literacy that (i) enables them to establish safety attuned to participants and (ii) to gauge any signs of distress or re-traumatisation in real-time (Isobel, 2021, p. 1457). At the same time, considerations about how certain research topics affect researchers are also emerging fields of enquiry. Researching grief, abuse, violence, war, genocide, abuse, and other distressing topics, heightens the risk of researchers experiencing burnout, ‘secondary trauma’ (Kaul et al., 2024, p. 1329), ‘vicarious trauma’ (Isobel, 2021, p. 1456) and ‘compassion fatigue’ (Smith et al., 2023, p. 1). Vicarious trauma, or secondary traumatic stress, refers to the significant psychological effects that arise from being exposed to another person’s traumatic experiences. This exposure can lead to changes in one’s worldview, beliefs, and sense of self, even without directly experiencing the trauma themselves. Compassion fatigue, often referred to as the ‘cost of caring’, on the other hand, is characterised by emotional and physical exhaustion resulting from prolonged exposure to the suffering of others. It leads to a gradual erosion and ‘wearing down’ of one’s capacity to feel compassion and empathy.

For researchers, ongoing engagement with participants’ traumatic experiences can significantly impact their mental health and overall well-being (Taylor et al., 2016). In a study investigating the psychological effects of investigating sexual assault cases on detectives, Morabito et al. (2021) argued that ‘absorbing the trauma that victims experience, can cause physical and psychological consequences’, leading to mental distress. As a form of self-preservation, researchers in trauma-intensive topics might ‘switch off’ their emotions to manage feelings that may cause them emotional distress during the course of the research. This emotional dissonance, that is, the gap between what they feel and the emotions they must adopt as a coping mechanism, can lead to unresolved and compounded stress or even burnout. It is an open secret that researchers, particularly in Western contexts have traditionally been advised to detach themselves from their participants and stories they tell to maintain “objectivity” (Isobel, 2021, p. 1466). Under the “guise of objectivity” (Walter & Suina, 2019, p. 233) and the neoliberal culture of ‘getting on with it’ researchers are harmed in a myriad of ways due to the barriers to help-seeking and misrecognition of the symptomology of burn-out, compassion fatigue or vicarious trauma (Kaul et al., 2024, p. 1333).

While the impact of trauma exposure on researchers investigating trauma-sensitive topics remains relatively understudied, a growing body of literature highlights the significant emotional and psychological consequences for workers on the frontline of distressing work (Tujague & Ryan, 2023). In academia, there is strong evidence connecting the demands of academic work to psychological distress (Paitaridou et al., 2024). Regardless of which field of research they are in, some studies show that academics report similar levels of emotion and psychological exhaustion in ‘high-risk’ professions such as physicians. (Urbina-Garcia, 2020, p. 569). Another study by Hill et al. (2022, p. 1) showed ‘54% [academics] reported a lifetime mental health diagnosis, and 23.7% reported suicidal ideation since their academic career commencement.’

This paper utilises a collaborative and reflexive approach to discuss the experiences of four researchers involved in conducting research with young people in therapeutic residential care facilities and who have histories of complex trauma. The paper identifies a methodological framework that operationalises support systems to facilitate ethical ‘caring’ research practices, ultimately contributing to the development of best practices that enhance researcher well-being in research that involves engagement with significant trauma content.

Researching Experiences Related to Complex Trauma in Out-of-Home Care: Affect and Effect

Our research context is situated within the out-of-home care (OOHC) context in Australia, where young people within those settings report a high prevalence of historical, ongoing, and complex trauma. The multifaceted nature of the emotional impact on researchers studying children and young people with complex trauma, such as those in OOHC, requires a lens that demonstrates how power and dominant discourses shape the relationships between researchers, research participants and the institutions they operate within.

Research in OOHC can heighten researchers’ vulnerability to vicarious traumatisation due to continuous exposure to traumatic narratives and ‘absorbing distressing material’ (Eliasson & DeHart, 2022, p. 489). For some, this can be experienced throughout various stages of the research process, including from frequent and prolonged witnessing of the devastating impact of complex trauma on young people to repeated exposure to distressing accounts from survivors, victims and, at times, perpetrators on topics such as child sexual abuse, domestic violence, and dispossession (San Roman Pineda et al., 2023).

Research shows that social workers, especially child protection workers, experience higher rates of burnout and compassion fatigue (McFadden, 2020; McFadden et al., 2015) related to emotional distress caused by the “prolonged and gradual exposure to other people’s reactions to trauma” (Kaul et al., 2024, p. 1328). Acute symptomology can manifest as hypervigilance, avoidance, re-experiencing/flashbacks, intrusive thoughts, change in mood, and feelings of powerlessness. Some studies suggest that if researchers neglect to manage their emotional engagement with their research, they may start experiencing anger, guilt, humiliation, fear, solitude, despair, stress, anxiety, melancholy, and depression. Physical symptoms such as weariness, headaches, discomfort, congestion, flu-like symptoms, insomnia, nausea, and vomiting may accompany emotions. Depression, isolation, and tiredness may cause researchers to withdraw from social activities and emotionally disconnect from family and friends (San Roman Pineda et al., 2023, pp. 1186–1187).

To mitigate these effects, reflective practices, supervision, peer support, and self-care are essential, ensuring researchers’ well-being and the ethical conduct of trauma research.

Doing Trauma Research Through an Anti-Oppressive Lens

Research with marginalised, often “over-researched” communities necessitate a shift from Western Eurocentric ‘ways of doing research’ to frameworks that recognise research as a relational process. In his book “Research is Ceremony”, Wilson (2020) argues that “relationships do not merely shape research, they are reality. This means every relationship within the research archaeology contributes to what is seen or unseen, what is unheard or unheard, and what is centre and marginal”. Consistent with Indigenous research paradigms (Wilson, 2020), research involving Indigenous children must employ relational and emancipatory methodologies that are culturally situated. Decolonial and anti-oppressive research requires the replacement of extractive data collection with culturally situated knowledge protocols where sovereignty and self-determination are affirmed in space and place (Bawaka Country et al., 2016). This way of designing and thinking about research transforms it into a caring practice and a ‘responsibility’ (Wilson, 2020), that institutionalises accountability structures that safeguard communities against epistemic harm (Tuck & Yang, 2014).

Integrating Trauma-Informed Research (TIR) and anti-oppressive practice is exemplified in working with First Nations children in Out-of-Home Care (OOHC). Here, researchers must prioritise “doing no harm” by acknowledging the historical and ongoing colonial harms perpetuated by research practices within First Nations families and communities (Gatwiri et al., 2021). Historically, research, often underpinned by “scientific racism,” has served to legitimise the colonial project and informed racist policies, such as the forced removal of children. These practices have caused profound and lasting disruption to Indigenous families and communities, severing their intergenerational connections to history, language, and cultural values. Given this harmful past, researchers cannot claim neutrality when working with marginalized groups. Instead, they have a responsibility to adopt trauma-informed and anti-oppressive practices to uphold and preserve the dignity of these communities.

Researchers working with other people who have experienced trauma must also engage in a process of continuous, critical introspection. Their methodologies must embody principles that can foster deeper relational engagement with research participants, centring their lived experiences while necessitating critical reflexivity from researchers as they navigate the ethical complexities of the trauma folded within the narratives shared during the research process. This means a trauma-informed approach to research understands that research is not socially, culturally or politically neutral; rather, it must and should critically examine how power privileges certain forms of knowledge while failing to identify and interrupt historical, systemic and ongoing causes of trauma. It demands an ‘epistemic rupture’ of the traditional researcher-subject hierarchy in favour of participatory methodologies that reconceptualise trauma survivors as agentic collaborators rather than passive research objects. Such a paradigm shift demands that researchers adopt a reflexive praxis, where they must engage in an active process of ‘being with and in’ the research. In so doing, however, such immersive methodologies risk vicarious traumatisation and, therefore, safeguards to mitigate researcher vulnerability while preserving the integrity of co-constructed knowledge are of absolute importance.

While the intersection between TIR and anti-oppressive practice is clear, it is not without its epistemological and methodological tensions. Despite researchers’ best efforts and reflexive intentions, entrenched power asymmetries persist, creating conditions where trauma narratives, especially from marginalised populations, risk being essentialised or framed reductively. Trauma-informed research methodologies, therefore, must (i) ensure psychological safety, (ii) redistribute power and control, and (iii) foster reciprocal trust to minimise risks of re-traumatisation (MacDonald et al., 2024). As such, researchers must invest in continuous relational labour that actively sustains the well-being of both participants and researchers within a shared research epistemic space.

Methodological Considerations

Our Conceptual Framing

This study employed a collaborative and reflexive approach in collecting, interpreting and presenting findings from the experiences of four researchers involved in interviewing children and young people in therapeutic residential care in Australia. Grounded in a decolonial anti-oppressive praxis (Smith, 2012) and childism theory (Biswas et al., 2024), our approach was aimed at centring the experiences of young people in residential care agencies, with a focus on their rights to voice and influence. A childist critique of the broader social structures privileges child-inclusive understandings of reality and thus, in a sense, decolonises adultism itself (Corney et al., 2022). To apply decolonial anti-oppressive thinking to this work, we considered colonisation as the function of empire expansion, which led to invasion, separationism and establishments of colonial projects across the globe, and coloniality as ‘what remains in place’ to date in the forms of macro and micro violence in all structures of society including in welfare services and child protection systems.

Our methodological approach was guided by the ‘Three Rs’. These are foundational standpoints in ethical research involving children: ‘rights’, ‘relationships and ‘reflexivity’ (Truscott et al., 2024). ‘Rights’ refers to children’s right to be involved in research about their lives, even when they are perceived as ‘marginalised’ or ‘at risk’, as is the case for children and young people living in out-of-home care. Often, these children are perceived as too ‘vulnerable’ and the topics too ‘sensitive’ to be approached, and researchers may have to overcome the hurdles of gaining access to them (Lundy, 2019). Children and young people have the right to have a say and be involved in decision-making in research that informs matters that affect them, including research about their lives (McPherson et al., 2021). As such, it is the researcher’s responsibility to create appropriate relational spaces where children or young participants feel safe sharing their lived experiences, even when these may be trauma-heavy.

The second ‘R’ in our methodological approach refers to ‘relationships.’ As discussed below, we explain how our approach to interviewing children and young people in Therapeutic Residential Care (TRC) was highly relational, including the way we aimed to be mindful of our positionality and considerations of ‘power’ between us as ‘adult’ researchers and the ‘child’ or ‘young’ participants. Connection and safety were key as we endeavoured to make the young people feel at ease and in control of the interview process. Ultimately, our aim was not merely to collect data as quickly as we could but to establish a safe relational and dialogical space where we could learn from young participants with respect to the expertise of their own lives.

This brings us to the third ‘R’, which focuses on ‘reflexivity’, a central methodological tenet of this research. In addition to remaining attuned to our participants’ needs and upholding their rights and dignity (Canosa et al., 2018), reflexivity extended to care and consideration for our well-being, as well, given the likelihood of vicarious trauma or compassion fatigue when researching these topics. Below, we describe the pre-interview, the interview and post-interview processes we engaged in to achieve a kind of situational ‘mindfulness’ that allowed us to adapt to the different environments in each house we visited, the diverse interests and capabilities of the children we interviewed, and our own safety and wellbeing. Each of the three ‘Rs’ is woven into the “pre-, during and post-interview” care and preparation process described below.

Research Design

This study examined the interpersonal practices that contribute to positive identity formation in therapeutic residential care (TRC) contexts, where young people with highly complex trauma histories reside. The study was designed to understand what fosters or hinders the conditions necessary for building trust, healthy social connections, cultural safety, positive help-seeking behaviours and opportunities for young people in TRC. We recruited and interviewed 38 young people between the ages of 12 and 18 years living in TRC placements in one Australian state. The interviews were carried out face-to-face and lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. The audio recordings were later transcribed and analysed.

This paper specifically examines the affective dimensions of conducting research saturated with trauma narratives with young people in therapeutic residential care. We documented and debriefed on all our experiences as a way of “keeping a record” of our emotional responses and interactions with the research. We utilised a collaborative ethnographic approach to reflect on two key questions during our critical reflections and debriefing conversations.

(1) How did we experience the research process itself?

(2) What were our affective/emotional responses to the research content?

All debriefing sessions and reflective discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded thematically, allowing us to systematically investigate the intersection of researcher subjectivity and methodological practice in sensitive qualitative inquiry

A Framework to Guide Trauma-Informed Research

We created a trauma-informed, user-friendly research framework that integrates three interconnected protective factors, which we call the ‘pre-, during, and post-interview care and preparation process’ (Please see Figure 1). These dimensions include (i) a pre-interview protocol, (ii) reflexivity practices to address researcher-participant dynamics during the interview, and (iii) emotional regulation practices during the interview. This approach ensured safety through pre-interview team positionality mapping, real-time distress signalling protocols during data collection, and mandatory post-interview debriefing sessions that incorporated grounding techniques.

Figure 1.

Pre, During and Post-Interview Preparation Process.

Pre the Interview Process

Step 1: Discussing Positionality and Impact

Our methodology incorporated a positionality mapping that involved a critical self-reflection on our identities and social and cultural knowledges. We started by examining how “who we are” could influence how we are seen and perceived by children and young people. Drawing on Isobel’s (2021) concept of “dual roles” (p. 1466), we conducted reflexive team dialogues to surface implicit or explicit power asymmetries and to interrogate how factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, accent, age, and cultural background could shape interview dynamics and the responses. The key aim here was to identify and mitigate potential “cultural gaps” to ensure all interviews were conducted in a culturally sensitive and respectful manner.

Step 2: Discussion of Ethical Responsibility and Protocols for Well-Being

Consistent with trauma-informed research principles, we formulated comprehensive researcher wellbeing protocols to address the emotional demands of engaging with distressing narratives from the interviews. This included a commitment to daily self-care practices designed to enhance emotional threshold through mandatory pre-interview exercises to monitor any cues for distress beforehand. Moving beyond assumptions that our extensive experience levels offered us a protective cushion, we drew upon Isobel’s (2021) sensory awareness strategies (p. 1466) to devise personalised, applicable tactics for “noticing” our own emotional threshold as well as the ethical responsibility to communicate this information to the rest of the team.

Step 3: Logistical Preparation

Prior to the commencement of the interviews each day, our team engaged in structured pre-briefing sessions to establish a shared consensus of anticipated challenges. This included collaborative risk assessment, mapping potential triggers, distress and dysregulation indicators during the interviews. Researchers within the team were matched with certain participants, where we predicted the best congruence. For example, Indigenous participants were interviewed by an Indigenous researcher to foster a sense of cultural safety during the interviews.

‘During’ the Interview Process

Step 1: Partnership and Emotional Support

Interviews were conducted in pairs to provide mutual support and to establish multiple layers of safety for both researchers and the participants. This paired approach served three functions: (1) it offered real-time co-regulation between researchers during emotionally demanding interviews, an so when/if one interviewer became overwhelmed or ‘stuck’; the other could take over without disrupting the flow of the interview; (2) It offered opportunity for the non-interviewing researcher to monitor/observe in real-time any possible distress from the participants, and (3) it offered intersubjective validation of the interviews as the second interviewer could function as a ‘second witness’ as to how the young people told their stories and how they presented themselves.

Step 2: A Focus on Connection and Safety

Our interviewing prioritised relational connection over ‘gathering data.’ It was particularly important for us to ‘promote a trusting and friendly interaction’ with the children and young people in care who often do not have safe adults in their lives (Coles & Mudaly, 2010, p. 60). Sometimes, we cultivated moments of shared interests, such as discussing favourite music or hobbies. We shared stories about ourselves in appropriate and necessary ways to show genuine interest in the children’s lives and to reduce the ‘distance’ between us and the young people. To foster a sense of comfort and agency, we also allowed for space where young people doing the interview could determine their own pace for engagement. When they indicated a lack of readiness, we responded with sensitivity and respect. For example, during one interview where the young person refused to say more than a single word to each question, one researcher asked whether they liked music. The young person’s face lit up as he said he ‘loved hip-hop’. The researcher and the participant spent time discussing their favourite hip-hop artists, including some lyrics they found ‘funny’. After that, the young person fostered a connection with the researchers and felt more comfortable answering other questions about their experience in TRC. If our bids for connections were still met with resistance, we considered participants ‘refusal’ to talk to us as an act of agency and self-determination rather than framing it as a ‘difficult or failed interview’.

Post-Interview Process

Step 1: Debrief Process

Immediately following each interview, the pair of interviewers would meet in a private space (such as a car or coffee shop) to ‘check in with each other’ and engage in a reflective discussion. These debriefing sessions provided an opportunity to process and acknowledge the pair's emotional reactions to the distressing and traumatic accounts shared by young people. According to Kaul et al. (2024, p. 1328), such peer-supported debriefings function as a crucial safeguard against the potential psychological effects of research-related trauma. The debriefs highlighted that even team members with extensive expertise in child protection were occasionally taken aback by the profound impact these interviews had on them.

Step 2: Critical Reflection

Following the peer debriefs, the researchers engaged in a structured process of critical reflection to evaluate the interview process and its outcomes. This involved analysing key insights from participant narratives, identifying any challenges encountered, and exploring how the participants’ experiences were connected to broader structural issues. The reflective process enabled an iterative refinement of research methods, enhancing both rigour and ethical sensitivity in subsequent interviews. It also provided a necessary space for the team to collectively process the affective dimensions of the research, thereby mitigating emotional strain and promoting researcher well-being throughout the study.

Step 3: Consensus Building and Emotional Grounding

After the critical reflection, the research team engaged in a collective synthesis of their experiential, affective responses to establish both a shared consensus and to ‘contain’ any ‘spill overs’. This process served as a protective strategy, preventing emotional overwhelm while maintaining professional engagement with the research. The team implemented structured time for processing grief, ensuring that emotional responses were acknowledged without “spilling over” into the broader research activities. This deliberate boundary-setting was essential, as unregulated engagement can exacerbate and prolong researcher distress, underscoring the importance of balancing empathy with self-regulation in qualitative trauma-informed research.

Step 4: Rest and Restoration

The research team intentionally engaged in restorative practices to facilitate psychological and emotional recovery after conducting distressing interviews. This structured transition involved deliberate shifts toward activities that promoted both personal well-being and collective rejuvenation. For instance, the team routinely shared meals together at the end of the day to re-establish ‘team joy’. Individually, researchers employed personalised recovery strategies, such as connection with loved ones or physical movement, to restore emotional equilibrium before resuming research activities the next day. By institutionalizing rest as a ‘non-negotiable’ tool, the team maintained the resilience necessary to continue working effectively with sensitive narratives while mitigating cumulative emotional fatigue.

Findings: What We Learnt from Our Critical Reflections and Debriefing Processes

Following the analysis of the data from our critical reflections and debriefing processes, we identified five key themes. These are: (1) researcher affect and emotional labour; (2) valuing young people’s experiences; (3) Benefits of doing research in pairs; (4) Structural critique; and (5) Boundary negotiation in professional practice.

Theme 1: Researcher Affect and Emotional Labour in Trauma Research are Inevitable

From the inception of this study, we knew that engaging with children and young people affected by complex trauma and adversity would carry significant emotional weight. Keeping a strengths-based perspective, we committed to ‘see’ young people who participated in this research beyond their adverse circumstances. Instead, we maintained a keen awareness of the broader context and systemic barriers these young people navigated daily. Our reflections highlighted profound admiration for participants’ demonstrated resilience, which often manifested in unexpected ways. Some young people had a “remarkable sense of humour,” some demonstrated “exceptional musical talent”, and others had high proficiency in “computer skills.” Some young people expressed aspirations to pursue a degree at a university or hold leadership positions such as “team captain”. We also observed how “very eager” the young people were ‘to talk to us.’

At the same time, our research team grappled with the profound grief of being confronted with the extensive adversities described by the young participants. The narratives frequently evoked visceral reactions, with our team characterising some accounts as “heartbreaking” and “gut-wrenching.” Particularly distressing were recurrent themes of profound loneliness, with many young people articulating difficulties in forming meaningful social connections or friendships. Researchers expressed a sense of sadness for those who “yearned for meaningful peer relationships, a peer, a friend, anyone”, but were unable to form or sustain them. One researcher recalled one young person she interviewed who was “deeply lonely” but hid it through a bravado persona.

As a team, the overall affect of the research was profound. The team mostly felt affected by the lack of hope they observed among some of the young people, with one researcher noting a young girl who said she had “no sense of the future” or a young man who “just pushes everything down” and, ‘wasn’t interested in anything’. This despair was intensified in moments when we met young people who appeared “vacant” or “very disassociated”.

Theme 2: Valuing Young People’s Expertise

The study’s epistemological approach intentionally recognised participants’ lived experiences as valuable expertise, serving as an empowering counter-narrative to institutional discourses that often marginalise institutionalised children or youth. Researchers reflected how the repositioning of young people as “being of help to us” rather than “being helped” created a more collaborative relationship with them. Researchers consciously reframed the participant-researcher dynamic through explicit verbal and behavioural cues that positioned young people as knowledge-holders. Researchers also did not perceive the young people as “broken” or defined solely by their traumatic experiences. This reframing was observed to have a positive impact on the engagement of young people. For example, one researcher noted a discernible shift in a young person’s posture, characterised by “shoulders back and sitting forward”, when he was asked for his input on improving residential care practices. This observation suggests that valuing the young people’s expertise empowered them to actively participate in the research process. Another example was discussed where, in one instance, a young man expressed discomfort with the one-on-one interview format. The research team collaborated with the young man and his carer to facilitate an alternative method through a recorded video blog. This approach provided the young man with the time and support he required to prepare his responses in collaboration with his carer before recording his answers.

Reflections from the debrief highlighted that the research team’s relational approach to all interviews was a factor in the success of the research. Establishing rapport with each young person prior to commencing the interviews involved engaging in informal conversation and exploring shared interests such as favourite foods, music, hobbies, and interests. One researcher recounted a particularly meaningful connection forged with a young boy who shared a common Italian heritage and a mutual appreciation for Italian cuisine, stating, “We were able to connect over that.” In another instance, when a young person inquired about whether using swear words was acceptable to express themselves, the researcher responded, “fuck yes,” which elicited a hearty laughter from the young person. However, finding points of connection could sometimes be challenging, as some young people expressed having “zero connections to anything.” Sometimes when we asked, “What are you interested in?” we received responses like, “Nothing.” When asked, “What are you passionate about?” they sometimes answered, “Nothing.” We had to deploy some “gentle probing” through the interviews to get some of the answers from the young people, but sometimes we were not able to. In other cases, some young people shared so much that we grappled with deciding which responses to pursue. As one researcher explained, “He was saying so many important things, so you just go where you think you need to go with it”.

Theme 3: Pairing Researchers Allowed Us to Hear/See Different Things

The research team reflected on instances where they thought they might have missed important cues during the interviews. The paired interviews were essential to mitigate this. Paired team members provided each other with affirmation and constructive feedback after each interview. Comments like “I really liked the way that you connected with him,” “I love the word that you used,” and “That’s a very powerfully put expression that you used with her” helped build confidence and refine interview approaches. Team members felt validated when, during debriefs, the team agreed and emphasised key points to 'make sense' of what the young people shared. Constructive feedback also included comments like “That’s a good pick-up” as well as space for gentle corrections, such as “Okay, I missed that, so it’s good that you picked that up.” The team encouraged each other to voice both divergent and similar perspectives, asking questions like, “Can you remember what context she said that in?” or “What does that mean?” This process helped situate the stories shared with us within broader narratives and contexts.

The team spent much time discussing the dynamics of each interview, what was said, what was not said, what transpired, and what could have been done differently. They reflected on when they noticed participants got “agitated” or “shut down” after certain questions. Sometimes we got push back where young people told us that we “have no right to ask me that” or “It’s none of your business” over certain topics. On reflection, the team realised that some of the language that was used could take on a different meaning for the participants. For example, we had to reframe questions about relationships, as one young girl assumed all “relationships” were sexual, prompting the researcher to explain that this was “Not a relationship like the one with your boyfriend, but a connection with someone you like.”

Theme 4: Structural/Systematic Issues That Compound Emotional Responses

The research team made multiple observations of systemic issues that put into context the experiences of the children and young people in those care settings. For example, one researcher shared how “confronted” she was by a story where a young person described “food being hidden” or living in houses where food was “locked in storage cupboards”. Whilst this may have been a response to children in the house who were hoarding food, a common response to early neglect, the young person expressed that they felt angry and let down about this experience. In other situations, the researchers noticed that some houses appeared to be damaged and in need of maintenance. For example, whilst some houses were welcoming, had warm, soft furnishings and featured engaging artwork, some other houses had “holes in the wall”, “ground-in stains on the floor”, and “bad smells”.

The researchers also frequently noticed how some children and young people had internalised institutionalised language about themselves. Researchers described this as being “welfarised”, where young people used “welfarised language” when referring to themselves and the youth workers. One team member reflected,

What I’m left with is that these young people need nurture, genuine care and love. That’s what they most need. Only some of the frontline workers see that as their job. The most important message that we’ve taken from young people, for me, is to interact, engage, show that they’re valued and important, and show that you like spending time with them.

Researchers also noted that a number of young people did not attend school, and some of those who did felt unsupported and unsafe in educational settings. One reflected,

“If some of these kids have no access to education, then what does that mean for the trajectory of their lives? It means they’re not able to work; they’re not able to up-skill themselves. So, it means that there are quite low expectations for their life moving forward.”

The team debriefed that some young people reported a high level of instability over the years, with one describing over “40 placements and 14 different schools,”. Each member of the research team was affected by stories where there seemed to be chronic instability and unameliorated trauma impacts on the young person.

Theme 5: Reflections on the Paradox of “Professional” Boundaries

Reflections on the influence of workers were another significant topic of discussion, particularly as their presence often impacted the research space. Most workers were welcoming of the researchers and, whilst offering to support the young person at the interview, allowed them to make that choice for themselves. The research team noted, however, how the presence of a youth worker on occasion was “a bit of a spanner in the works”. Some workers were observed to be“overbearing”. Others “just stared at us” and “asked intrusive questions”, creating an atmosphere where one researcher remarked that “ it felt like nobody wanted us”, or “the feeling that they’re not happy that this is happening.”

Most of the workers we met often avoided the title “carer” despite being “all that the kids have”. - and being the ones that put them to bed.” This prompted reflections about the (mis)understanding or (mis)use of “professional boundaries” used to rationalise or justify certain decisions and actions of workers toward the children and young people. On the one hand, boundaries keep everyone safe, and on the other hand, they encourage distance and withholding of affection, which can create more trauma for children and young people who may have abandonment or neglect trauma wounds. For example, one of the carers told the researchers that they could not buy a young person a hot chocolate, as it was a “breach of professional boundaries.” According to the researchers, this (mis)understanding or (mis)use of professional guidelines resulted in workers worrying more about getting into trouble or creating an “expectation around the relationship” rather than showing care or attentiveness to the young people. One researcher then questioned, “In which other relationship on the planet would it ever be considered inappropriate to buy someone you look after a hot drink on a cold day?” Another researcher, too, was “struck” by this paradox:

“Professional boundaries are meant to protect both caregivers and young people, yet they disrupt the very things that would help foster connection.”

Such professional distancing can be damaging, particularly in cultural contexts that value relational exchange. The paradox of professional boundaries made us question, “Who, then, are these professional boundaries for when they essentially say, I have a right to enter your world, but you have no access to mine”. The researchers argued that professional boundaries should be re-evaluated to incorporate cultural and situational sensitivity so that workers and carers can connect authentically with the young people they care for to provide a relational form of support that meets the emotional needs of young people.

Discussion and Implications

Our findings underscore the profound emotional impact of research involving trauma and the importance of peer and institutional support, as well as the influence of structural factors on our affective experiences during the research process. Researchers conducting research involving trauma are vulnerable to vicarious experiences of trauma themselves if left unsupported and isolated. The key experiences that emerged from the critical reflections discussed in this paper showed how emotional responses such as feelings of shock, distress, deep sadness and hopelessness were almost intrinsic to the work (Kaul et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2023).

To establish a robust support system for researchers engaged in trauma-focused studies, our team developed an accessible methodological framework designed to safeguard researchers’ well-being while maintaining rigorous trauma-informed research standards. This approach operationalised critical reflexivity as a core component of the research process through structured debriefing sessions conducted at three key junctures: pre-interview preparation, in-process check-ins, and post-interview processing. The framework’s implementation necessitated the cultivation of dual-focused relational capacities - both interpersonal (among research team members) and intrapersonal (self-awareness and emotional regulation). These skills and measures proved essential for effectively processing secondary trauma exposure and maintaining psychological grounding during intensive fieldwork periods (San Roman Pineda et al., 2023). The framework operationalises current best practices in trauma-informed research by transforming abstract ethical principles into concrete, replicable procedures that address the often-overlooked affective dimensions of qualitative inquiry with vulnerable populations.

Institutional support mechanisms for researchers in trauma-heavy fields remain inadequate, with academics frequently reporting they are left to manage the emotional toll of the research alone (Kaul et al., 2024, p. 1328). This lack of support researchers’ risk for research fatigue, compassion fatigue, vicarious trauma and burnout, which disproportionately affects “non-male, non-white, working-class, immigrant researchers (and those at the intersections of these categories)” (San Roman Pineda et al., 2023, p. 1185). This raises significant ethical concerns, as researchers with lived experience of the traumas face heightened vulnerability to secondary trauma and re-traumatisation (Kaul et al., 2024; San Roman Pineda et al., 2023). In order to create organisational cultures of care in research organisations, it is, therefore, crucial to “normalise discussions about the psychological and emotional impact of academic work” (San Roman Pineda et al., 2023, p. 1185) and offer the necessary support.

Conclusion

By sharing our experiences and insights, we hope to contribute to the ongoing discourse on research practices that prioritise the well-being of both researchers and participants in trauma-informed research. If universities are to ensure equitable and diverse research environments, then they need to recognise their shared responsibility for making research psychologically safe for researchers. Education and resources on what compassion fatigue, burnout, secondary trauma and vicarious trauma are and how to identify, manage and prevent them would also help to normalise the human aspects of research and care as practice. Most importantly, there needs to be a paradigm shift to disrupt dominant notions of ‘objectivity’ and to recognise the emotional toll that researching trauma has on researchers.