Bridging power divides with participants

This blog post is the third in our series about trauma-informed research tactics. To read more about what trauma-informed research is, and why we’re talking about it, read the first post in the series.

Our approach to bridging power divides in research

Bloom Works takes a trauma-informed approach not only to planning research, but to how we facilitate discussions with participants themselves. Central to reducing the chance of harm is giving participants more power and control over their experience of the research. Traditionally, researchers hold much of the power to determine what happens during a session. Although we can probably never totally balance this power dynamic, we use tactics like these to try to shift it toward the participant.

Ask questions in plain, informal language

What it involves: People assume researchers should speak stiffly or in a complicated way. We try to do the opposite: we ask questions in simple, friendly, and warm ways. We eliminate government jargon from our questions, and we use the words participants know. We also let ourselves speak warmly and imperfectly — with the occasional “um” or “er” — without reading questions verbatim from the script.

For example, instead of saying: “During your gestation period, did you use any illicit substances?”

We would say: “Did you use drugs while pregnant?”

Why we do it: Using complex words emphasizes the difference between the researcher — whose career includes using specific words — and the participant, who likely doesn’t use those same words. Formal language often has a similar distancing effect. Plain language respects that participants are the experts of their own experiences, whatever words they know and use. Otherwise, we risk just saying they’re the experts but making it impossible for them to tell us anything.

Give participants choices during our conversation

What it involves: We ask participants many more questions about how they’d like to proceed than some interviewers might.

For example, throughout an interview, we might ask participants:

• Whether, after better understanding the research, they wish to continue
• What topics and questions they are interested in discussing
• Whether they still want to continue with the interview after sharing something difficult

Participants should be paid in full for their time, regardless of how they choose to proceed with an interview. If they choose to leave the interview early or not participate from the start, they are still given their full compensation amount.

Why we do it: When we give participants choices about how and whether to proceed with an interview, we also cede more power to them. Instead of controlling the course of the conversation, we let participants drive their experience. This is more likely to build trust with the participant, which often leads to more honest and nuanced responses.

Adapt the conversation to the participant (instead of robotically following the script)

What it involves: At certain moments, we might not continue an interview as planned. For example, we often welcome participants to tell us if a particular topic, word, or question is particularly triggering to them. If a participant says a question is difficult, we stop the conversation — and ask them what they want to do. And then we pivot based on what they tell us. We might change the order of the topics, skip some altogether, or end the conversation.

Why we do it: Empowering and treating participants with respect is more important than “ticking all the boxes” on an interview guide. We change tactics in response to participants to respect their autonomy and minimize any risk of further harm.