This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Trauma-informed practice treats the possibility of a trauma response as a design consideration for every project, not a special measure reserved for topics that look sensitive on their face. Predicting which topics or contexts will trigger distress is not always simple, which is why the National Statement identifies the development of clear protocols for managing participant distress as an important part of research planning, regardless of field (NS 3.1). This article sets out the ethical basis for trauma-informed design and the practical framework Iris Ethics points applicants to when building a protocol.
Why this applies beyond "sensitive" projects
Psychological harm, including distress, guilt, anger, fear, or anxiety arising from disclosure of sensitive information or an experience of re-traumatisation, is a recognised category of harm under the National Statement. Discomfort and distress sit on the same continuum: where a participant's reaction might reasonably exceed discomfort and tip into distress, the project should be assessed as carrying potential for harm rather than mere discomfort (NS 2.1; see Risk of discomfort, Risk of harm, Harm vs discomfort). Because some participants carry a higher risk of harm than others in the same project, arising from their own circumstances rather than the topic itself, a project that reads as routine on paper, a household survey or a service-satisfaction interview, can still produce a trauma response in an individual participant. Trauma-informed design responds to this by building safeguards in regardless of how the topic reads on its face.
A four-phase framework
Iris Ethics draws on a trauma-informed evaluation safety protocol developed by evaluation consultant Jo van Twest Farmer, shared with Iris Ethics for use by applicants, which structures trauma-informed practice into four phases:
- Setting up for safety: giving participants clear information in advance about what an activity involves, building choices into the design (format, location, the ability to skip a question or take a break), and attending to accessibility
- Identifying distress: training fieldworkers to recognise the different presentations of distress, from hyperarousal (crying, shaking, agitation) to hypoarousal (dissociation, very brief answers), without assuming that a calm presentation means an absence of distress
- Responding to distress and disclosure: pausing to check in, offering rather than deciding on the participant's behalf, and following a specific, pre-agreed plan for any disclosure that triggers a reporting obligation
- Wrapping up: closing an activity so the participant leaves supported, and providing for the wellbeing of fieldworkers who may experience secondary or vicarious trauma
A full walk-through of each phase, including guidance for group and online data collection, is set out in Distress protocols, which includes a downloadable template covering the same structure.
Framing: safety, not restriction
A trauma-informed approach is not the same as a maximally protective one. A protocol written purely to minimise a participant's exposure to distress can, without intending to, remove the participant's autonomy to engage in the way that works for them. The more defensible framing puts the responsibility on the evaluator or researcher to create a safe environment in which participants can express what they need to, rather than being managed out of any emotional response. This distinction matters for how a protocol is drafted and reviewed: a document that only lists exclusions and a helpline number has not engaged with this framing.
Application across contexts
Trauma-informed design is relevant wherever data collection involves direct interaction with people, not only in research about trauma itself. Program evaluations touching employment, housing, or family services; social research on discrimination or health; and market research probing financial hardship or personal circumstances can all surface a trauma response in participants who were not the intended focus of the topic. Because the trigger is often the interaction between a participant's own history and an otherwise ordinary topic, the safeguard needs to be built into design and fieldworker training rather than reserved for projects flagged in advance as high risk.
What reviewers look for
- A protocol with specific, actionable steps rather than a general assurance that "distress will be managed appropriately"
- Support options named for the relevant participant group, rather than a generic national helpline list appended to the information sheet
- Provision for fieldworker or team wellbeing, not only participant wellbeing
- Evidence that the protocol has been discussed with the data collection team, not only filed with the application
Related resources
This page was last updated on 7 October 2026.
Was this helpful? We'd appreciate your feedback!
This article makes reference to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025. It is intended as practical guidance and does not constitute legal advice.
AI Disclosure: Resources in this library were prepared using Large Language Models with input from Iris Ethics staff who guided the scope and design. Subsequent revisions and final versions were developed and approved by Iris Ethics staff.