Do no harm – how to keep colleagues safe in research

If we want to design ethical, inclusive services that truly meet people’s needs, we also need to think about the emotional impact of research on the teams delivering it. 

Transforming government digital services requires adaptability. Researchers engage with a wide range of service users from straightforward, functional contexts like legal planning applications to deeply emotional experiences such as navigating a divorce process.

Researchers need to balance the needs of product teams, their desire to fill gaps in knowledge, and the needs of participants themselves. In sensitive contexts, this raises an important question: is there a risk that harm or trauma might be reignited through the research process? 

It is far less common, however, for colleagues’ emotional needs to be considered. If we want colleagues to be actively involved in research sessions and synthesis, we need to give more careful thought to their experience of research too. 

Researching a challenging topic 

On a recent research project, the group of users we were researching with were particularly vulnerable, and so safety and wellbeing were of critical importance, and required extra sensitivity. 

For months, our small user-centred design team has been researching the context of victims of crime. Could we, the Ministry of Justice, design a new digital service to support victims through their recovery? Could we provide victims with a digital tool to improve their preparation for their case going to court?  

For months we pored over recent reports written by charities and government agencies. We tested prototypes with proxies for victims to explore needs and anticipated reactions our new digital service. We wanted to research directly with people who were victim/survivors but all the signs suggested this would be difficult to do in an ethical and safe way. To advance though we knew we needed opportunities to test with victims. The Service Standard requires it, and we were aware we were knowingly layering professional biases on top of each other.  

Protecting everyone involved

How could I as research lead ensure my wider team could participate in direct usability research with victims, while keeping them, and the victims themselves safe and happy throughout? 

Trauma considerations in design research have become increasingly important. There are guides, checklists and design patterns to try to limit trauma. 

There was a risk of re-traumatising a victim by running usability testing of a prototype. Therefore, we followed established guidance to create a trauma-aware research experience for participants.  

We developed a robust, sensitive screener, being sensitive to question wording  ensured participants would be aware of the interview scope, that they would not be disclosing their own case/experience, unless they wanted  Participants knew a bit about who they would be talking to in the session with a guide attached to an introduction email before the session  Sessions were extended in case of need for breaks  Shared an information pack with links to support charities.  Developed a longer, more comprehensive introduction to the session to cover disclosure, safety and comfort levels. 

But what about my colleagues? The software developers and interaction designer? I wanted them to observe a session, but they needed to be safe and comfortable too.  

They needed to be prepared differently for this round of testing. It was important, in this project context to think equally of my colleagues’ experience of research, as much the research participant.  

Putting duty of care into practice

Screenshot from inviting colleagues to prepare for the round of research

I sent the team a pre-brief pack. This included the research plan, the interview guide and the trauma-informed plan, to especially consider how to safeguard victims who would be testing the prototype. Next there was additional reading, which included: 

how in sessions people will disclose parts of their life that might be unexpected, troubling or upsetting  about vicarious trauma  how to spot signs of distress during an interview  guidance about self-care for themselves as notetakers and observers 

We had a half-hour session where the team shared what they had read. We had time and space for people to share their feelings about it. We shared our hopes and fears for this round of research. 

We then discussed our own best tips to decompress after a session. We shared these on a Miro board to build a bank of ideas. Examples were playing guitar, going for a walk outside, scrolling YouTube for funny videos. 

Although online interviews come with many benefits for participants and colleagues, there is an isolation, which is heightened in emotional encounters like these interviews.  

Running the sessions with care

We limited it to two observers so as not to crowd the virtual room or intimidate participants. At the start, colleagues said hello, on camera, and then went off camera to observe and note-take.  

I emphasised to colleagues attending that if for some reason they weren’t feeling mentally healthy or able to be exposed to accounts of distressing situations, then they could always skip the session. 

We also had a backchannel chat available in case we needed to communicate without the research participant knowing.  

As interviewer, I felt more confident knowing my team were emotionally prepared and knew to look out for signs of distress. 

Checking in before checking insights

I made sure we followed best practice. We met as soon as sessions were completed on a different call. Instead of the first questions being ‘How was that session for you? What were your top three takeaways?’, the first question was instead, “How are you feeling?” It’s an acknowledgement of that colleague as a person, not just a functional record-keeper or thinker. Some colleagues did say they had been surprised by what people had disclosed, for example one participant shared their experience being in the dock themselves, another being assaulted. Colleagues said they were pleased they had been off camera, and not in the position to steer the conversation back to the prototype.  

The team talked and then I mandated at least 10 minutes away from the computer. After people share experiences that are horrible on calls, it’s important to recalibrate in the world around us. Everyone was reminded where they could get staff mental health support with counsellors if they required it.  

The impact on the research and the team

Creating this process for colleagues improved the research. It meant as interviewer I had confidence the team were mentally, emotionally and practically prepared for the conversations we would have. This meant I could be more relaxed, focus on the participant experience in the moment, and had done my duty of care to ensure that the experience of taking part in research was safe, useful and positive.  

We repeated this process in a second round of research with victims later in the year. It meant that when a participant casually mentioned in conversation that they had been a victim of child abuse it wasn’t so distressing. As a team we had a process in place.  

There are huge benefits to having ‘real users’, with life experience be involved in usability testing. Video calls create a fantastic opportunity for inclusion. That includes more candid conversations. But if this is happening, then it is critical to consider the colleague user experience too. 

Researchers with experience and emotional resilience are prepared for unusual or uncomfortable social settings. We need to ensure our colleagues, with different professional expertise, are prepared as best as they can be.

Do no harm is a foundation to user research. It’s not just for the participants, but colleagues and ourselves too.  

https://mojdigital.blog.gov.uk/2026/04/16/do-no-harm-how-to-keep-colleagues-safe-in-research/

seen at 14:47, 16 April in Justice Digital, Data and Science .