Taking a care-centred approach to research

Note 5 — July 2023

Hello there! I’m back here once again, trying to squeeze some design research-related writing out of my rambly little brain! I really tried to press publish on this in June to get me into some sort of monthly rhythm, but alas, here we are in July.

Last time I wrote, I was asking some pretty hefty questions about accessibility in the design research sector and what could be done to make things a little more welcoming and inclusive. Since then I’ve found a few resources which shed some light on how we might answer these questions. Take a look at these wonderful talks from last year’s Magnify conference for more on this.

While continuing to ponder questions of accessibility in research methodology, I’ve also been reflecting on the dynamics between participants and researchers. Specifically the incentives and barriers which help or hinder people sharing their stories for the purposes of research.

I’m really interested in how we can craft research relationships that produce value for both parties, in which researchers are open-hearted, compassionate and curious. I think of this as care-centred research.

In care-centred research, we prioritise people’s psychological safety and often take a trauma and culturally-informed approach to research.

The opposite of this approach is extractive research: research that has not been designed with an awareness of context, and therefore fails to hold space for people’s stories and lived experiences. Extractive research methodologies lack an understanding of how wider systems and power dynamics impact people and their choices.

This lack of care for context often mirrors a similar lack of care for the individuals taking part in the research. Often leading to participants being reduced down to the value their stories can deliver for the project outcomes and to the research feeling flimsy and short-termist.

Confronting our existing notions of what makes ‘good research’

To take a more care-centred approach, it’s important to establish creative ways to support people to share their story safely and comfortably. This crosses over with research accessibility, as while finding ways for more people to access and engage with our research, we often need to work more creatively and confront our existing notions of what ‘good research’ looks like.

Questions we might consider when beginning care-centred research:

• What is the problem we’re trying to solve for or define (the shape of this question will depend on the project stage and how much work has already been done)?
• Who is impacted by this problem?
• Who contributes to this problem?
• Who is currently excluded from this space?

Often the problems we are trying to unravel exist in complex, webbed systems.

Defining who to engage

The answers to the above questions (however incomplete) will give you a sense of who you need to be engaging or at the very least considering as you design your research methods.

Those people who have been excluded by these kinds of enquiries before, or who are currently excluded by the service/product/solution that you are researching need to be first on your list to engage.

You might then consider:

• What factors or forces have created this exclusion previously?
• What power dynamics are at play here?

As you unravel the threads of these questions, it’s likely you’ll get to some big systemic challenges around racism, gender bias and ableism, as they are unfortunately endemic in most historical structures in the UK.

Once you’ve defined the challenges, points of exclusion and barriers to access around your project, you can build a picture of the groups of people you need to recruit, engage and build relationships with to truly understand the problem(s) to solve.

Understanding value for both researchers and participants

Having done this, you’ll need to identify what incentives and barriers exist for these groups regarding taking part in your research. For example:

• What value will people gain from taking part?
• What is the relationship between the impacted people taking part and your client (i.e. positive / negative / neutral)? Will this affect people’s willingness to take part?
• What is the potential for negative unintended consequences for participants? Depending on the project type, the topic area and the questions you’re interested in answering, the answers to this question might range from simply wasted time to the perpetuation of existing negative power dynamics and re-traumatisation.

You may find you need to do some desk research or pre-research calls with potential participants to understand the answers to these questions. Just make sure if you do speak to participants at this stage, be very clear about what questions you’re trying to answer and put some boundaries around the time and effort required of participants.

You may also want to consider reviewing the principles of trauma-informed research, if you believe your research subject area might cover sensitive or difficult topics for people. You can go here for this. A lot of these principles align with a care-centred approach and can be translated into all sorts of research projects.

Embedding care into your research

Once you’ve established some answers to the above questions, you can begin putting together some care-centred research protocols and methods that focus on:

• Ensuring your participants will get equal value from taking part (e.g. financial incentives, decision-making power, skill development or other things that the participants define themselves — all of which, crucially, you must be able to offer)
• Shielding participants from confronting situations that might be triggering, for example if this particular group of people have a negative relationship with your client (e.g. the local council), it might important to consider how you empower them to manage their interactions with them.
• Putting the ‘right’ person into the role of researcher — avoiding dynamics that might be triggering. For example, it may be important that the researcher has a similar lived experience to the participants, or a shared cultural heritage (the role of peer researchers might be useful here).
• Designing research questions that create space for participants to share their story, but avoid opportunities for over-sharing or going down avenues that may feel too sensitive for the participant.
• Creating sufficient time and space for the participant to build trust with the researcher and feel comfortable to share.
• Building in a robust feedback loop such that participants trust that their feedback has been safely and conscientiously incorporated into your project and their time has been valuable.
• Sharing decision-making power wherever possible; where can you bring participants into creative moments in the project, such that their value expands beyond the initial exploratory stage (if they want to continue to engage)?
• Incorporating robust safeguarding protocols, which may include signposting to helpful resources and establishing relationships with a named supporter for participants who can liaise on the behalf of the participant if required.
• Establishing clear and accessible consent protocols so participants know their rights and feel in control at all times.

What do you think?

As always these notes are reflective of an evolving practice, which I am always iterating based on experience, reading and a whole lot of listening!

For example, sometimes I think these care-centred and safeguarding protocols might be ‘too much’ and could patronise people if applied in the wrong setting. While at other times, I feel they don’t go far enough to protect people who may be going through difficult things when they’re taking part in research.

I’d really love to hear your thoughts on all of this! Please share any reflections with me in the comments below or at hello@emmadiamond.net!

Cheers for reading :).