Our responsibility as researchers

As a socially purposeful agency with empathy at our core, doing research the ‘right’ way is in our DNA. But what makes this go beyond a (possibly tokenistic) intention to treat people well?

Well the answer is: a lot! Ultimately it’s about making participant comfort the priority, not a ‘nice to have’ or secondary to the insight gathering. For example, clients will often ask us how to frame a certain problem – the extent of the devastation of climate change, or the fact that certain groups in the population are more likely to experience a certain health condition. But what impact does hearing this have on the participant? Does revealing a ‘new’ or previously unknown problem risk triggering them? These are big questions to grapple with, especially balanced against our other core value of delivering real impact to our clients. Ultimately, we always aim to lead with hope – not in a naively optimistic way that avoids the real issues, but by contextualising the problem in the shared desire for solutions and a better future. This is more likely to encourage less heard groups to take part, and more likely to make research a positive experience for them (which ultimately leads to better insight overall).

On the other hand, we can’t pre-assume what triggers people: everyone is so different and different individuals have different levels of sensitivity to different issues. We are committed to giving our participants genuine agency and being as transparent as possible so they know what they’re entering into. Developing participant-centric distress protocols is really important here too – being prepared to pause or stop the research if participants are finding it too much for them.

We know this is a very live issue and we’re curious to hear how other researchers manage the issue of triggers. If this interests you too, let’s talk!