Trauma-informed research for content design

by Sarah Fathallah

Design research plays a crucial role in shaping the designs that we interact with, including the content that we read, learn from, and consume. Through design research, designers engage people as co-creators, testers, and evaluators to explore new opportunities for intervention or improve upon existing designs.

Content designers often play an important role in shaping the questions that research needs to answer to make informed design decisions. They might facilitate or observe research sessions with participants, as well as analyse research findings to decide how best to include what they’ve learned into the designs.

However, engaging people in research can sometimes become a source of re-traumatisation or activation for the people participating in the research. So being a trauma-informed content designer means not only focussing on the outcomes that designers produce, but also on the process that designers use to arrive at those outcomes. This means considering trauma-informed design research as the collective responsibility of anyone involved in making it happen, from design researchers to content designers and others.

As the Campaign for Trauma-Informed Policy and Practice aptly cautions, “‘Trauma-informed’ is not a checklist or destination – it’s an ongoing commitment to a process that is nearly always evolving.” With this warning in mind, I urge you to read this chapter not in search of a list of research practices to adopt uncritically or prescriptively. Instead, I invite you to consider any potential practices as a proposal to evaluate and challenge with critical thought and your own beliefs (“reflexivity”). A reflexive stance is crucial to situating, assessing, and adapting your research practices to ensure they are aligned with the context you work in, the ethical commitments you uphold, and the competence you need to carry them out with adequacy and responsibility.

This connection between practice and critical reflection can be referred to as “praxis.” A term popularised in liberatory movements, praxis was defined by Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire as the combination of “reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed.” Guided by this understanding, I invite you to develop, nurture, and realise 6 praxes when adopting a trauma-informed stance in your design research work:

  1. praxis of preparedness
  2. praxis of appropriateness
  3. praxis of instructiveness
  4. praxis of attentiveness
  5. praxis of responsiveness
  6. praxis of dutifulness

Together, these praxes take into account that trauma survivors need to:

  • feel safe,
  • feel in control,
  • express their emotions,
  • know what comes next.

Each praxis is presented with a set of proposed practices and possible reflection prompts that design researchers can use to practise self-reflexivity. You can use these prompts either individually or in teams.

Trauma-informed design research praxes

1. Preparedness

A praxis of preparedness invites designers to reflect on and establish the foundational conditions for a design research team to be trauma-informed. These range from team formation and staffing, to skill building and training, as well as organisational protocols and resources.

Reflection prompts around preparedness

  • What is our understanding of trauma? Where do we draw our trauma expertise from?
  • Are we familiar with the communities we plan to engage with in this design research? What do we know about those communities and their history of being involved in research?
  • How could this design research make conditions worse for research participants and their families or communities? How are we prepared to mitigate that harm?
  • What human resources do we have at our disposal? What skills, backgrounds, and training does each team member bring?
  • What competencies or perspectives are missing? How can we fill those gaps? Who can give us advice or guidance if something is unclear?
  • What timelines are we operating under? Are we likely to feel under stressful time constraints if issues arise?
  • What protocols do we have in place for identifying and responding to participant distress? How confident are we about using those protocols?
  • Do we have resources and referrals we can share with participants? Have we vetted those resources and referrals? Do we know what participants might expect if they use them (for example, wait lists, limitations around citizenship status, agency collaboration with law enforcement, language access)?
  • What do we have in place to support our well-being as researchers? Who could we turn to for support?

Staffing and forming skilled research teams

Form teams with appropriate experiences and backgrounds

Design teams can benefit from having members with a combination of:

  • lived experience,
  • research expertise,
  • trauma understanding (through team members with clinical or social work backgrounds, mental health professionals, or peer support or crisis support workers).

Value lived experience

Beyond simply engaging with those with lived experience through advisory boards or committees, this can look like employing a “peer researcher” model. This is where researchers who share lived experience with participants take the lead, especially with:

  • participant relationships,
  • facilitating design research sessions,
  • tracking participants’ affects, if desired and deemed appropriate by those researchers.

Researchers who have not engaged with the communities at hand may need to receive additional training before working with them.

Engage trauma specialists in consultative or supervisory capacities

If the design research team itself does not have sufficient expertise, it can engage experienced trauma specialists in an extended capacity. This could be in a consultative or coaching capacity, or through a supervision model. Design professor Tad Hirsch suggests that while it is “good practice to include mental health professionals in research sessions . . . at the very least, researchers should be prepared to make appropriate referrals to other needed services.”

Staff teams so that researchers never facilitate sessions alone

Depending on the type of design research methods, it is best to make sure that design researchers work (at the minimum) in pairs.

Plan for researcher activation and vicarious trauma

When you are planning your research, think about situations where a team member may need to leave the research session.

This includes emergent needs, such as:

  • having a backup plan in case a researcher is unable to continue with the research encounter,
  • having explicit group discussions about what researchers need when they are feeling activated and what regulation and self-care strategies they can deploy,
  • practising what to say or do during a session to signal that they need a break or to switch roles with someone else.

This should also consider longer-term needs, such as burnout or vicarious trauma that may result from prolonged exposure to traumatic material.

Building needed competencies and training

Receive training on listening and accessible facilitation skills

Team training can cover reflective and active listening, accessibility considerations, and other topics that will allow the research team to create a space where participants can show up fully and safely.

Build skills to recognise distress and support participants

Training may include learning about trauma and how it affects the nervous system. Ultimately, the goal is to help design researchers identify and respond effectively to symptoms of distress.

Prepare researchers for the potential to experience secondary or vicarious trauma

Secondary trauma can occur when someone is exposed to a traumatic event through a firsthand account or narrative, such as hearing someone's story once in an interview or research session.

Vicarious trauma is when someone is repeatedly exposed to traumatic material, such as researchers working with communities who have experienced trauma for extended periods of time.

Depending on the research topic and context, researchers should be prepared to be exposed to a wide range of traumatic material and potentially experience secondary or vicarious trauma as a result.

This can be achieved through thorough scenario planning as well as conducting role plays and mock research sessions to prepare team members for situations that may play out.

Build skills to recognise and navigate secondary and vicarious trauma

Making sure members of the design team learn about and recognise symptoms of secondary and vicarious trauma is crucial, as well as building skills in trauma stewardship. This is what trauma workers Laura van Dernoot Lipsky and Connie Burk describe as the “ability to evaluate one’s response to trauma exposure.” Because each of us respond differently when we experience “dysregulation” (becoming activated), it is helpful to recognise our individual symptoms so that we can respond with self-compassion or ask for support.

Understand the longer term impact of secondary and vicarious trauma

In addition to immediate dysregulation or strong emotions, secondary or vicarious trauma that isn’t tended to can lead to longer-term trauma. This can not only affect design researchers themselves but also the work that they engage in, often appearing as:

  • increased absenteeism,
  • increased illness or fatigue,
  • reduced motivation,
  • lowered self-esteem and sense of work competence,
  • loss of sense of control over work and life in general,
  • difficulties with boundaries,
  • reduced productivity.

Create personal wellbeing plans

Prior to starting any study, researchers can plan for and discuss how they navigate activation and dysregulation with their teammates. This means getting to know one another, learning about everyone’s distress signs, and determining ways to support one another. Examples of prompts you can reflect on and plan for include:

  • I know I’m activated when I notice . . .
  • Things that help me cope when I feel this way . . .
  • Things I could do if I was in a research session and this happens . . .
  • How I will let a colleague know if it is becoming too difficult to continue . . .
  • How I will take care of myself during the research study . . . (for example, sleep, time alone, exercise, taking baths)
  • Things I can do after a particularly hard day . . . (for example, call friends, be alone, debrief with colleagues)

Putting in place resources, protocols, and support systems

Build more space in project timelines

Teams working in projects on sensitive topics or with vulnerable communities need additional time to, among other things:

  • build rapport and trust with community members,
  • recruit participants,
  • properly train and prepare teams,
  • collect and synthesise data,
  • source and vet resources.

Plan at the very beginning to provide ample time for planned activities (like giving researchers more time to synthesise research findings so as to mitigate potential activation) and unplanned research activities (for example, a specialist to support with an issue that arises).

Set protocols for identifying and responding to signs of distress from participants

Team members can have an agreed upon protocol for what to do when participants are distressed or uncomfortable. These protocols should include:

  • team roles (who is doing what based on their experience and skills),
  • scripts and actions (what to say or do in response to what situation),
  • resources (prepared materials like referrals and contact information for additional support).

Team members should be thoroughly familiar with these protocols ahead of time to avoid confusion or miscommunications during critical moments, which can negatively impact participants.

Establish self-care strategies for researchers

Teams can develop strategies they can use to care for themselves. These include both strategies that design researchers can deploy on their own (such as social support, life balance, or techniques to regulate their nervous system) or access through organisational resources (such as therapy or counselling).

With the appropriate resources for self-care, teams can be more compassionate and effective in tending to participants and engaging in “co-regulation.” Co-regulation is what trauma educator Jax Wechsler describes as a researcher helping to calm the participant’s nervous system by calming their own nervous system.

Prepare resources and referrals to support participants

Ahead of time, it’s best to prepare resources and referrals that are relevant to the context and topics at hand to share with participants should they want support.

It’s best if these resources are localised, translated, and vetted as much as possible. You might consider including confidential and private resources, in case participants are interested in talking with someone without the concern of being reported to the authorities.

Create accessible explanations of the design research study for participants

Prepare verbal and written explanations of the research team’s design research study, which include:

  • expectations for engaging in the research,
  • informed consent protocols,
  • data collection and privacy,
  • compensation,
  • other considerations.

These explanations should be in developmentally and linguistically appropriate language, as well as tested (for example, in mock interviews) beforehand, to ensure understanding and accessibility to participants.

Plan data privacy and storage safeguards

Teams should put in place the infrastructure necessary to ensure that data collection is safe and private, regardless of whether it is done online or in-person. This includes considering:

  • data storage,
  • anonymising identifiable or personal data,
  • how long collected data will be saved.

2. Appropriateness

A praxis of appropriateness urges designers to consider their design research goals and questions. It asks them to make sure that the research study design, environment, and timing consider and protect participants’ physical and emotional safety.

Reflection prompts around appropriateness

  • Do our research methods ask for more than what is necessary for us to meet our research goals?
  • How confident are we that our research and our language minimise harm to participants? Whom can we ask to provide input or review?
  • Could our approach to asking questions and facilitating research sessions lead to unintentional disclosure from participants? How do we prevent that from happening?
  • Is the research environment (physical or virtual) designed to promote the safety of participants?
  • Does our research calendar allow for spaciousness in scheduling research sessions and ensuring critical timely follow-ups to participants?

Using prudent research study design

Minimise unnecessary or unwanted disclosure

Consider the potential for participants to disclose traumatic past experiences, and take that into account in designing the research approach and methodology. As Tad Hirsch says, this is particularly important for “researchers who employ psychotherapeutic techniques that encourage disclosure and reflection.” This could mean, for example:

  • not asking probing questions in an interview if they are not necessary for the goals of the study,
  • not prying,
  • not forcing stories.

This also means that screening for trauma should not be required unless directly linked to the goals of the study.

Avoid asking participants to recall memories in linear ways

Trauma fundamentally alters how the brain processes what’s going on. Memory is encoded as intense sensory fragments, which then form the basis of future flashbacks. This means that participants may have trouble remembering their past experiences in a sequential, fully contextualised way.

This is important when considering design research tools like journey mapping, which linearise participant experiences and memories. Instead, participants can be invited to share however much or little they remember in whichever way they remember it.

Consider the methods, number of people, and format of research interactions

Depending on the goals and context of the study, you should carefully consider your methodology to prioritise participant wellbeing. Think about:

  • Research methods: Participatory research activities (such as a fill-in-the-blanks prompts or a card sorting exercise) where participants don’t have to make eye contact can feel more comfortable than a face-to-face interview.
  • Number of participants: Group research sessions can provide opportunities for peer support amongst participants but may also introduce social dynamics that can be activating or uncomfortable. You may also invite participants to bring a support person with them to the session (in-person or virtual), but take that into account when you set up the research environment.
  • Number of research team members: Aim to find a balance. Include the people with the skills needed to facilitate and document research sessions, but do not overwhelm participants or make them feel like they are being scrutinised by observers.
  • Synchronicity: Research methods that participants can complete in their own time (like unmoderated studies or diary studies) can feel less stressful in the moment or be completed anonymously by participants. However, these don't provide opportunities for support and co-regulation from a facilitator.

Review research study design with survivors and advocates

When crafting specific design research methods and instruments, ask external people, ideally those with understanding of trauma and the subject matter, to:

  • review the questions, language, or activities,
  • make sure that the study design is appropriate for trauma survivors,
  • flag anything that feels unsafe or potentially activating.

Creating safety in the research environment

Physical environments

For design research that takes place in person, host research sessions in physical spaces that are:

  • private,
  • quiet,
  • inviting,
  • comfortable.

Give participants the ability to see and access the exit. Substance Use and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) guidance suggest you should also try to “ensure that the individual has some control in the situation (access to drinking water, choice in seating arrangement, and the ability to take breaks with access to clean, preferably gender-neutral, bathrooms).”

If possible, provide self-care items that can help participants ground and soothe themselves as needed, such as:

  • mindfulness and somatic activities,
  • fidget toys,
  • objects with different textures,
  • colouring supplies,
  • scents,
  • nourishment, snacks, and drinks.

Virtual environments

For remote design research sessions, provide multiple ways for people to participate so they can choose what feels most comfortable, private, and safe. If video conferencing is used, participants should be allowed to choose whether they want to have video on or off, both for them and for the design research team.

It is also good practice to use video conferencing software that is encrypted and in line with privacy and security safeguards.

Try to meet the participants’ access needs

Provide all participants with an upfront list of access preferences and accommodations to choose from and request before the session. SAMHSA says this “allows the person to make requests comfortably and not feel guilty about needing accommodation on the day of the interview.”

These include commonly offered accommodations, such as:

  • captioning,
  • translation and interpretation,
  • tech assistance,
  • compatibility with assistive technology.

It can also include other trauma-informed and accessibility accommodations, such as:

  • having a support person present during the interview,
  • providing items that are helpful for stimming or fidgeting,
  • arranging transportation,
  • reimbursing childcare expenses,
  • assuring that a staff person of a certain gender conducts the interview,
  • anything else they may need to show up fully to the design research session.

Scheduling research sessions with spaciousness

Allow extra time for breaks

When planning the timing and agendas of research sessions, build in plenty of opportunities to pause and take breaks, both planned and unplanned.

When scheduling research sessions, it’s wise to plan time for breaks between sessions. Allow sufficient time between sessions, plan non-activating activities between research sessions, and avoid scheduling sessions during personal time.

Build in time for debriefs

Similarly, it’s important to prioritise regular debriefs for research teams to be able to process and surface any needs they may have. Expectations around attendance for these debriefs (for example, if attendance is optional or required, what the debrief will look like, and who will facilitate) should be made clear to team members.

Ensure research session timing allows for prompt participant follow-up

Consider the need to promptly follow up with participants after research interactions, and avoid scheduling sessions when follow-up may not be possible (like the end of the week or before a holiday).

3. Instructiveness

A praxis of instructiveness invites designers to set expectations and be transparent with research participants when communicating with them ahead of research sessions. This is to minimise participants’ anxiety of the unknown and give them the information they need to make informed decisions about how they engage in the research.

Reflection prompts around instructiveness

  • What do our participants know about the research they are about to participate in? What information could we share with them to set expectations and support them in showing up fully?
  • How transparent are our recruiting and sampling processes to participants?
  • How aware are participants of our data collection, safeguarding, and privacy protocols? Do they actually know what happens with what they share with us?
  • How accessible is our informed consent process to participants? Are participants actually able to say no or revoke consent at any time?

Brief participants about what to expect

In early communications, participants can benefit from knowing what they should expect when coming into the design research session, including:

  • what it will look like,
  • who will be there,
  • how long it will last.

This helps minimise the “unknown” and the anxiety it might induce. You can send participants questions or prompts in advance and specify if they need to prepare anything before coming to the session. This is also an opportunity to discuss with participants what their:

  • options for engaging in the research are like,
  • rights are,
  • access needs might be.

Support participants in preparing for the design research session

You may want to send participants a participant wellbeing packet with resources and referral paths they might find useful during or after the research session. These may include:

  • soothing exercises,
  • self-care resources,
  • referrals to organisations providing support around mental health, violence and harm, and basic needs.

You can consider providing the option to have a one-to-one call with participants to check in about anything they may be concerned about before the session. When relying on technology (like virtual whiteboards) that may be unfamiliar to participants, you may want to offer individual support to show them the platform and how it works. Doing this with the participant ahead of time can reduce any stressful last-minute adaptations to their technology needs or preferences.

Ensure continuity in communications with participants outside research sessions

Being involved in recruiting participants and scheduling research sessions can help designers build a relationship with participants as soon as possible. This relationship-building can be more difficult when teams rely on external recruiting firms instead of recruiting participants themselves. To avoid overwhelming the participants, communications should ideally be with the same team member.

Be transparent and seek informed consent

Participant recruiting calls should be open and transparent. Let potential participants know how many people will likely participate and how they will be selected. After participant recruiting is done, additional information around the recruiting and sampling processes might be beneficial to explain why some were selected and others were not. Psychologist Rebecca Campbell and colleagues suggest that as much as possible, “avoid deceptive or vague recruitment language that may invoke feelings of betrayal.”

Ensure informed consent processes are accessible

Contextualise the informed consent process in a way and language that is familiar to participants so they can more fully understand and consent. Share any relevant consent forms or scripts with participants in advance.

Disclose how the design research data will be used and shared

To ensure complete transparency, be explicit with participants about how their data will be used, as well as how their privacy and confidentiality will be protected. This must include any requirements for researchers to be mandated reporters. Mandated reporters are people (particularly in the helping professions) designated by law to report to the relevant authorities any known or suspected cases of abuse or neglect of children, elders, adults with disabilities, or other dependent adults.

And similarly to informed consent language, privacy policies should be clear, specific, and accessible to participants.

Let participants have an active role in the research

Engage with the structure and pacing of the session

For research sessions that have an agenda, walk through the sequence of activities with participants and ask for their feedback before beginning. This helps frame the design research session as a collaborative partnership.

Provide opportunities for refusal and re-negotiation of consent

Participants can be given opportunities for refusal throughout research sessions, including by:

  • stating upfront which topics are to be discussed,
  • prefacing each transition to check if they want to talk about each topic or not.

In this way, consent is not a static or one-time decision, but rather an ongoing negotiation.

4. Attentiveness

A praxis of attentiveness requires designers to have the capacity and tools to facilitate sessions with care, actively listen, and be attentive to the needs of participants during research interactions. This allows them to watch for, notice, and recognise potential signs of distress or activation.

Reflection prompts around attentiveness

  • Do we have the skills to facilitate research sessions with care?
  • How do we centre the participants’ autonomy and choice during research interactions?
  • How comfortable are we setting and maintaining appropriate boundaries with participants?
  • Do we feel prepared to gently interrupt participants in anticipation of a potentially harmful or activating disclosure?
  • Are we familiar with the signs of participant distress and discomfort that we should be looking for during research sessions? Do we know with confidence what we are paying attention to and how to recognise it?

Facilitating research sessions with care

Ask participants what makes them feel safe

Depending on the research study topic, you can remind participants at the beginning of a session that some of the prompts or questions may be difficult or upsetting. Ask participants if there is anything the team can do or be aware of to help them feel safe.

Dr. Jasmine B. MacDonald and colleagues suggest teams can also empower participants upfront to “set their own boundaries about what they want to disclose or any topics or questions they would prefer to skip” as well as discuss signals participants would prefer to use if they want to stop or take a break (for example, raising their hand).

Outline what will happen during the research session

At the beginning of each research session, reiterate information about:

  • expectations,
  • participant rights,
  • data sharing and confidentiality.

Emphasise their choice, autonomy, and control over what they decide to share.

Practise attunement and active listening

Author and psychotherapist Dr. Resmaa Menakem writes, “Being an active listener involves not interrupting; not making judgments . . . not giving advice or offering explanations; and not jumping in with a story of your own”. These are important maxims for design researchers to consider. Teams can practise attunement and active listening by:

  • being fully present,
  • being respectful,
  • ensuring that participants feel heard through body language and verbal affirmations,
  • welcoming silence,
  • restating what is said and contributed.

Acknowledge the needs participants express

If a participant is sharing that they are having a hard time meeting their basic needs (for example, if they’re experiencing food or housing insecurity), acknowledge that they have shared something that feels important, even if unrelated to the topic being studied. Offer to put them in touch with someone who can connect them with resources, if possible. It’s important to recognise the wholeness and humanity of participants, not just their contributions to the research.

Create and maintain appropriate boundaries

It’s crucial for design researchers to build rapport with participants so that they feel comfortable without overpromising or misrepresenting the nature of the relationship. Researchers should reflect (and potentially disclose to participants) on the boundaries they want to hold. Remain attentive to signals that may indicate a boundary breach, and have a plan for how to respond.

Prefacing sensitive topics and making use of gentle interruptions

Announce the transition to a potentially activating activity or set of questions

Before transitioning to a new activity or set of questions that may be activating, ask the participant if they are okay to switch to that topic. For example, you could say, “Next, we would like to ask you questions about [insert topic]. Would that be alright with you?”

Make use of gentle interruptions when anticipating a disclosure

If a participant appears close to disclosing a past traumatic experience or something that can feel activating, you can try to gently interrupt and warn them before disclosure occurs. Ground the participant in the present moment, and allow them space to decide if they would like to share more information with you. Skillfully and gently nudging participants away from reliving traumatic experiences aims to prioritise their psychological safety, as recounting past trauma can increase participant distress. Indeed, psychotherapist Ayhan Alman suggests that interruptions can “slow the pace and help participants re-anchor in the present.”

Watching for changes in participants’ affect

Tracking changes in participants’ affect

"Affect" is what we can observe about someone’s emotional state through physical or observable traits, like:

  • demeanour,
  • facial expressions,
  • gestures,
  • speech,
  • intonation.

Watch for signs of potential changes in affect in participants, both verbal or nonverbal. Is the participant breathing more heavily? Are they restless or fidgeting? Are they getting irritable? Are they becoming agitated? Are they spacing out? Are they dissociating? Are they suddenly sweating and feeling very hot or shivering and feeling very cold? Are you noticing a voice change? Are they experiencing a sudden loss of concentration or remembering? (Some of these may be harder to observe if the participant is off video during virtual research sessions.)

Understand how dissociation can manifest

Another form of detachment or disconnection, called dissociation, can be mild or severe. Mild forms of dissociation occur everyday for all of us, such as when we are driving a car and become inattentive or distracted while continuing to function as if on autopilot. More severe forms of dissociation are often related to a history of trauma. These are potential signs of dissociation:

  • fixed or glazed eyes,
  • confusion,
  • fast speech,
  • sudden change of mood to low or no emotion,
  • long periods of silence,
  • monotonous voice.

Proactively check-in with participants if they have shared a lot

Even if the participant is not displaying any signs of affect change or dysregulation, you can proactively check-in if you feel like the participant has just shared a lot. For example, you might say, “We have covered a lot of territory over the past hour. How are you doing right now?”

5. Responsiveness

A praxis of responsiveness calls on designers to be able to respond to participant distress or activation when it arises in a way that is trauma responsive: acknowledging and validating the participants’ feelings, offering options for support, and deferring to their lead on how they want to move forward.

Reflection prompts around responsiveness

  • How and when do we interrupt a research session to tend to participants’ needs?
  • Do we know what to say to participants when they are feeling activated? Have we rehearsed or role played scenarios to prepare?
  • What protocols do we have in place for responding to participant distress? Do these protocols allow for participants to be involved in the decision-making around support and next steps?
  • Are we aware of the options participants have at their disposal should they need or want support?
  • Do we have the skills to support participants with safety planning, if needed?

Acknowledging and validating participant distress

Stopping to tend to the participant’s distress

If a participant is feeling distressed or activated, do not continue business as usual! It’s important to interrupt the research session, acknowledge and name what is happening (for example, “I noticed that your tone of voice shifted a little bit; is everything okay?”). Interruption should be as gentle as possible, taking into consideration potential group dynamics if the sessions include more than one participant. If possible and appropriate, the participant can be pulled aside by one of the design research team members to discuss with them individually.

If the participant dismisses the researchers’ concerns or doesn’t want to talk about it, do not dig further or force them to share more. If the participant shares how they’re feeling, researchers must affirm that they are listening (saying something like, “Thanks for sharing that with me.”).

Validating and normalising the participant’s feelings

It’s crucial that design researchers do not interrogate, blame, voice doubts, or minimise the participant’s feelings by saying things like “it will be okay,” “it will pass,” “everything happens for a reason,” or even “I understand how you feel.”

Instead, it’s more advisable to validate what the participant is feeling. It could be as simple as saying: “I’m sorry that happened” or “I’m sorry you are feeling [use their own words]; that sounds [terrible / frustrating / difficult].” You can normalise the participant’s feelings and experience by reminding them that it’s not unusual for people to have strong feelings when recalling painful experiences or discussing topics like the one they just shared.

Approach grounding activities with caution

Research teams may be tempted to learn more about soothing and grounding techniques they can use in a research session to soothe and manage participant’s affect dysregulation in the moment. However well intentioned, trauma experts do not agree on the benefits of grounding and other techniques for co-regulation. Psychology experts Laurence Heller and Aline LaPierre suggest something as seemingly innocuous as “deep breathing with someone who has experienced significant trauma can trigger regression and re-traumatisation."

Additionally, using these techniques typically needs people who are experienced and highly attuned, and who have built a rapport and relationship with participants beforehand, to minimise the risk of re-traumatisation or the potential to create discomfort.

Following participants’ lead

Discuss options for how to move forward

Design researchers can ask the participant how they want to proceed, asking something like, “What would you like us to do next?” This makes it less cognitively difficult for the participant to decide by specifying a few potential options. These could include taking a break, stopping, or resuming the session.

If the participant wants a break, affirm that they can take all the time they need. You might say, “Take as much time as you need and let me know if there is anything we can do to support you. We will be here when you are ready.”

If the participant wants to stop the session, make sure they know that it’s okay to do so, and aim to minimise any feelings of guilt that they may have about it. You could say, “This is completely understandable and okay. As we talked about before, no one is upset about ending this session. We just want to support you in the best way we can. If you need information about people to talk to, we can send you some phone numbers or resources that may help.”

If the participant wants to continue the research session, make a determination as to whether it’s okay to continue. However, it is not necessary or recommended to probe for more information about trauma history at this point. As much as possible, researchers should provide the participant with opportunities to be in control of the lines of inquiry. “We could talk about X or Y. Which one would you prefer tackling first?”

That being said, if signs that the participant is feeling activated keep showing up, researchers can end the session without making them feel that they are to blame.

Provide the participant with opportunities to be in control

Make sure that the participant knows that they are in control, and most importantly, actually let them take the lead.

Offering resources and support

Ask for and use person-specific calming techniques

Ask the participant directly what typically helps when they are feeling this way. For example, some people may like to take a break and go for a walk to calm down, while others may say they need to call a friend. Using calming techniques specific to them works best.

Provide resources and referrals

These should be location-specific, and prepared and compiled ahead of time. If needed and appropriate, design research teams can support the participant with a safety plan.

6. Dutifulness

A praxis of dutifulness encompasses the work that designers must do to show follow through and accountability after design research interactions, particularly to those who may have experienced activation.

Reflection prompts around dutifulness

  • How and when do we inform participants of next steps that we have agreed on taking?
  • Do participants know what happens after a research interaction? Are there opportunities where they can be engaged later on in the design project?
  • Do we have the capacity to promptly follow-up with and compensate participants?
  • Do we have the ability and resources to hold spaces for debriefing and process as a research team?
  • Whom could we turn to for help if we need to process or vent?

Ensure prompt critical follow-ups with participants

End research sessions on a caring note

As the session ends, you can thank the participant and normalise the feelings that may have come up during the session (for example, saying, “I want to acknowledge that talking about these experiences can be uncomfortable, overwhelming, or [use their own words].”)

This is also an opportunity to check in with the participant (“How are you feeling right now?”), and encourage them to take some time for some self-care if they can. Affirm something that they did well – like telling detailed stories or providing helpful suggestions.

Offer to provide follow-up support

After the session, you can:

  • offer follow-up support to the participant if they would like (“What else do you need today?”),
  • discuss follow-up timeline (you can follow up in the future as things don’t always come up immediately after the research encounter),
  • assess whether the participant would like any program support, referral to other services, or additional resources or information.

Inform participants of next steps

At the end of the session, share with the participant what to expect in terms of any follow-up communications or referrals discussed, payment for their compensation, and any contact they should expect in the future.

Demonstrate follow-through and accountability

**“**Do what you say and say what you’ll do” is the rule! If a researcher told a participant that they should expect a follow-up, they should make sure to follow up. Teams can demonstrate diligent and dutiful follow-through by being accountable for their actions, including fully acknowledging when mistakes are made and working to fix the problem.

Ensure prompt follow-ups and compensation

Depending on what was discussed with the participant, design research teams should check-in after the session and provide additional resources or referral paths. Teams should also make sure that payment to participants is processed as quickly as possible, typically within the next business day. Participants should be able to select their payment method during recruitment.

Hold team debriefs and spaces to process and evolve

Create a culture of peer support and consultation

Design research team members can be of support to one another. This could mean consulting with a trusted colleague before a big decision or action, or assigning specific roles for team members to implement trauma-informed practices. For example, a team member could be the go-to person for all things mandatory reporting, while another may want to be responsible for collating and vetting referrals and resource lists, or creating information or wellbeing packets to send to participants.

Hold regular team debriefs to process

Right after each research session, researchers should take time to debrief and decompress together. In addition to post-research session debriefs, the team can meet to discuss personal experiences with the research, process, vent, and, if necessary, surface the need to receive supportive therapy or other resources. Scheduled and impromptu wellness checks can be the container for such debriefs.

Adapt and revise research processes as evolving practice

As they experience and debrief new research encounters, design researchers should be encouraged to continue learning, seek additional training and resources, build new skills, update their processes and protocols, and practise critical reflexivity.

Provide participants with opportunities to engage with the project post-research

Allow participants to review findings before they become public

After synthesising the data and writing the design research findings, you can invite the study participants to correct, add nuance to, and react to findings as part of a participant review process (also called member check or respondent validation).

Consult participants about attribution and identifying information

For any design research that is shared publicly, Rebecca Campbell and colleagues note it is best to “consult with participants about de-identifying data, recognising that participants are in the best position to know what might be identifying to people in their lives.” For specific contributions such as quotations or cultural probe artefacts (drawings, poems, photographs, or other), participants can determine how they want to be credited publicly (for example using their full name, first name, nickname or pen name, or initials).

Provide updates to participants post-research

As the study progresses, design research teams can update the participants on what is happening with the project, and potentially also invite participants to attend or engage in opportunities related to the design project (like a product launch or publication).

Conclusion

These trauma-informed praxes are a synthesis of my own experiences as a design researcher as well as recommendations from other researchers from whom I’ve learned along my journey studying trauma and the ethics of design. These praxes, and their accompanying practices and reflection prompts, are not meant to be prescriptive. Rather, I offer them as suggestions, and invitations for further discussion and critique that can challenge our collective thinking.

When considering these praxes with your teams, it is important to consider them as part of your broader commitments to responsible and ethical design. These include your approaches to transparency and disclosure, informed consent, data privacy, and more. It is also crucial to situate these praxes in the context of your work, particularly the sensitivity of the topics you research and the vulnerability of the communities you work with. Finally, assess these praxes against the knowledge, skills, and capacity that you have, or what designer and author KA McKercher invites us to think of as our “scope of practice.” This means being honest with ourselves about:

  • what we know how to do,
  • what we don’t do (and others know we don’t do),
  • how we keep growing and practising accountability,
  • where we partner to extend our scope of practice.

Reference and further reading

here