tricky conversations: Navigating Challenging Topics in People-Facing Research to Protect Participants and Researchers

Authors: Jackson McFadden & Liv Mace

This week, the B-RAD lab discussed the importance of protecting both research participants and research staff from emotionally distressing subject matter during active data collection and analysis. To what extent should we aim to structure such work to protect the very people most vulnerable to adverse outcomes? To what extent should we as professionals be prepared to engage in difficult conversations and heavy subject matter?  

A 2025 article by Kennedy et al., proposed the idea that emotionally safe research begins at the development stage. The GENDER-Q Youth is a participant-response outcome measure (PROM) that investigates gender diverse youth and adolescents’ experiences regarding receiving gender affirming care. Given the potentially sensitive nature of these topics, the research team took considerable care to construct their interviews to bilaterally protect both participants and their sensitivities and the research team and their own. Examples of such considerations follow: “Does the [research] team require any training or resources to recognize and manage potential emotional safety concerns?”, “What are the potential threats to participants/research team’s privacy and safety during the recruitment process?”, “Are interviews being scheduled when the participant and team would have access to further necessary support?” Lastly, the team inquired about the potential for troubling emotional events regarding data analysis and potential qualitative coding of sensitive topics.  

While thought-provoking, the B-RAD team offered interesting points both in support and in dissent of the perspective shared by the article's authors. Researchers always possess the ability to be more mindful of the construction of tasks and procedures in such a way as to encourage healthy boundaries and support chains. On the other hand, it was argued that it is unrealistic to expect professionals in mental health adjacent fields to entirely “flowchart away” the very real difficult conversations and emotions that can arise when discussing sensitive topics or even not-so-sensitive topics. It is important to recall that all participants’ lives are rich and colorful and sometimes those colors can be dark. As people-facing researchers, there is an understanding that we should expect that some interactions will not be so positive. Even in the face of someone having a hard day, we should be prepared to hear those worries, sympathize, and move forward in a supportive manner. Another point made by the B-RAD lab is that protocol can certainly help in times of escalated emotion or threats to safety. It was noted that the GENDER-Q PROM framework was specifically designed for the context of virtual interviews, which may pose distinct difficulties to in-person interactions. There certainly exists a possibility that team members may face difficult encounters, discrimination, or even participant health crises. In this case, research teams should exercise caution that staff, administrators, and research assistants have received ample training on how, who, and when to report an incident with a participant.  

As it appears, the responsibility of the research team is many-fold: to protect data, lab staff, and certainly research participants.  Ultimately, protections against emotionally distressing subjects may not always be eliminating chances for such topics to present themselves, but fostering an environment where honest answers are met with warm but professional concern if necessary, and researchers are appropriately equipped to understand when it is time to be the supporting force, and when it is time to seek support.  

References:  
Kennedy, S.L., Jack, S.M., Johnson, N. et al. Prioritizing Participant and Research Team Emotional Safety During Data Generation and Analysis in Qualitative Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Research: Development of a Framework Informed by the GENDER-Q Youth Study. Patient 18, 597–608 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00756-4