Toward a trauma-informed qualitative research approach: Guidelines for ensuring the safety and promoting the resilience of research participants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative researchers frequently conduct studies with individuals who have experienced various types of trauma, including those who have been historically marginalized and oppressed. However, in-depth discussions of how to conduct trauma-informed qualitative research do not exist. Thus, we lay the groundwork for a trauma-informed qualitative approach and then outline five guidelines for conducting research: (1) preparing for community entry: Learning about the impacts of traumatic events and historical trauma on individuals and communities; (2) preparing for the qualitative interview or focus group: Establishing safety and trust in the research environment; (3) extending safety and trust into the qualitative interview or focus group; (4) knowing when to change course to avoid re-traumatization in the interview or focus group; and (5) committing to regular and radical self-reflection and self-care in the research process. To demonstrate their applicability, we use an example from our own research with multiply-marginalized queer and transgender migrants in South Africa. This article advances the study of qualitative methods, offering researchers an opportunity to incorporate these guidelines into their study design and implementation to ensure participant safety and promote their resilience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.656 | 0.215 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it