Beyond Retraumatization: Paradigms for Trauma-Informed Research

• In Event: Building an Evidence Base for Research Ethics in Political Science

Abstract

Ethics guides for political science have long instructed researchers to avoid retraumatization of human subjects (e.g., APSA 2022, Fujii 2012). Meanwhile, research on sensitive topics—such as violence experienced by refugees, aid for members of stigmatized groups, or attitudes toward combatants—has increased. This article reviews empirical scholarship on the potential for trauma-related research to induce distress in research subjects, and compares it to relevant ethics scholarship. The literature largely suggests that retraumatization as such would not be a significant concern in most political science scholarship, given already-standard ethical practices. This finding is especially true for research that asks participants to discuss traumatic experiences with researchers, which participants may find beneficial. While retraumatization should not necessarily be a core concern, the article identifies other key concerns. These include facilitating the benefits that can accrue to participants, particularly when the benefit of talking with researchers is unavailable for methodological reasons, as in survey experiments, or practical reasons, as in some conflict zones. The article concludes by identifying three paradigms for trauma-related research: a “holding pattern paradigm (standard best practices), a “step-up paradigm (increased mental health services), and an “overhaul paradigm (incorporating trauma-informed praxis into research even not on sensitive topics).

Author

• Amanda Weiss, Cornell University