Fielding risks 

Editor's note: Sam Evans is senior researcher at Fors Marsh Group, an Arlington, Va., research firm. Kinsey Gimbel is the firm’s director of qualitative methods.

In qualitative research, a lot of emphasis is placed on the mitigation of risk for and the protection of our participants. That’s as it should be. But, as researchers, how much thought do you give to your risk and safety in the field? 

Interpersonal interactions with strangers are the lifeblood of our work but sometimes they put us in uncomfortable and even potentially threatening situations. Much like in the real world, interactions in a research environment can be unpredictable and can place us at risk of both physical and psychological harm. For example, in a recent study using in-depth interviews (IDIs), one of our participants made racist and sexist comments toward our moderator during the session. In another study, a participant made inappropriate and flirtatious remarks toward our moderator as well as the on-site receptionist. In these moments, our moderators and our research staff were forced out of their research roles and into tense situations.

Although instances like these are rare during data collection and most participants will pose no threat, researchers may encounter participants who exhibit malicious behaviors, such as verbal abuse, threats of violence, sexually inappropriate speech or behavior and discriminatory or otherwise offensive speech or behavior. Outside of work, you may have a plan in place for how to navigate these types of situations but have you thought about what you would do if it happened during an interview or focus group?

Social lines can shift

When in the field, we are not acting on our own behalf but rather on the behalf of the study, our employer or our client. As a result, social lines that we would normally draw with strangers can shift in the name of data collection. What’s personally deemed unacceptable behavior or language outside of the office may be endured while on the job for the sake of the study at hand. Although our instincts may tell us that a situation is escalating, other factors, such as project costs, deadlines, client relationships and the pressure of completing that last interview, may keep us from ending the session or dismissing the participant.

Further, qualitative data collection requires a bit of self-removal in order to remain objective. Our role is to be an impartial ear and that can lead us into situations where we are conducting discussions on sensitive subjects, having awkward conversations about personal decisions or pursuing an in-depth understanding of a view that may be much different from our own.

In our experience, researchers can be so focused on the goal of our research and the humanity of our participants that we forget that research studies can impact us too. So where do we draw the line between enduring for the data and protecting ourselves? When is it okay to put your needs above the research?

Here are four steps to preventing and mitigating risk.

Step 1: Introspection. Connect with yourself to define your boundaries and to evaluate your tolerance for difficult situations. Knowing where you stand will help you more confidently decide when a participant has crossed the line. This is a personal and ever-changing process, dependent upon circumstances and evolving with time and experience, so we suggest setting broader guidelines for yourself that give you permission to take action but allow you the flexibility to adapt and develop your boundaries in the moment. For example, you may decide that you are generally comfortable pushing past sexist remarks during a session. In an IDI, you are able to brush such comments aside with little impact to yourself. However, in a focus group setting you notice such remarks are making you feel tense and some of your participants seem uncomfortable too. Ultimately you decide if these comments have become disruptive to the group and you need to take action.

Step 2: Empower action through policy. It is important for employers to empower their staff to take action in the face of potentially dangerous or threatening participants. Establishing an organizational policy or plan of action will provide you and other researchers with not only a framework for the actions you can take but also permission to take those actions. Perhaps in your organization this simply means defining who has the authority to end a session. Having a protocol in place that encourages employees to use their best judgement will alleviate corporate pressures to remain in threatening situations. 

Step 3: Set team guidelines. Once you have a general awareness of your limits as a researcher, it will become easier to talk with your team or your client regarding personal risks. When you start a project, allow yourself and other researchers the time to think through difficult situations before they arise. As appropriate, talk through scenarios together from various angles and create a safety plan as a team. Coming to a team consensus on how to handle risky situations creates support within the team and can make de-escalation decisions less intimidating.

Step 4: Research in numbers. If possible, particularly with ethnographies or other field research that may send you into participants’ homes, make sure you are not in the field alone. There is safety in numbers. Your data collection team could include other researchers in your company, your clients or even research staff at subcontracted facilities. Make sure that others outside of the data collection team know exactly where you are and how long you are planning to be there. Plan daily check-ins with team members who did not travel with you to ensure constant communication with those who are not with you in the field.

Right moment to take action

It can be difficult to know when it is the right moment to take action, let alone which action to take. Addressing risky situations can take many forms, including modifying the guide between sessions to rephrase or even remove a question, modifying the screener for future efforts and even dismissing the participant from the study entirely. In the instance where the participant made both racist and sexist remarks, our moderator felt uncomfortable continuing the interview, so the team decided to terminate the session early and replace the participant. 

Dismissing a participant has different implications depending upon your study method. In an IDI, dismissing the participant ends the session. This could result in the need for additional recruits. In a focus group, however, dismissing a participant comes with the added complexity of continuing the session and resetting the group dynamic and the tone of the room. This may seem like a larger hurdle to jump when dealing with a disruptive or potentially threatening participant but bear in mind that if you are uncomfortable, chances are your other participants are as well. Removing this person from the group may help protect the health of your group, your moderator and your data. 

Once you have decided to dismiss a participant, it can be even harder to figure out how to do it without escalating the situation. In the example above, our moderator simply told the participant that the interview was complete. Establishing an explanation for ending the session ahead of time can help you de-escalate the situation and ensure the safety of all involved. This could include telling the participant at sign-in that the study was cancelled, that all quotas were full or that they are otherwise not needed for the study today. In a focus group, expectations of group respect should be set at the beginning of the session and enforced throughout the session by the moderator. Violations of respect during the group should be openly addressed by the moderator. Warn participants that continued disrespect will result in dismissal from the group and be prepared to enforce that rule. As an additional de-escalation tool, assure dismissed participants that they will still be paid for their participation.

Keep other involved parties (e.g., recruiters or the subcontracted facility) informed on the interaction and your decisions for how to handle the situation to ensure they are aware of the issue and can take appropriate action. Facilities want to know if something sketchy happened, so be sure to tell them! In the instance where our participant made inappropriate and flirtatious remarks, the moderator decided that the session could continue. However, we were able to work with the facility to prevent this from reoccurring by removing that participant from the recruitment panel. When appropriate, participants can be flagged to protect the safety of future research staff. If you believe further security measures may be needed (e.g., if a participant has threatened to come back), let these individuals know and alert the authorities.

Once the interaction with the potentially threatening participant is over, document the event – even with quick notes – as soon as possible. These notes may help you process what happened and can be used as a reference when recounting the situation. Touch base with your research team, which may include your clients, to ensure that everyone is okay and to debrief about the situation. Discuss how the event occurred, what actions the team took in the moment and what actions the team can take moving forward to mitigate the risk of this happening again. Discussing distressful situations is a powerful tool that will help you make sense of what happened. If any staff members need to talk further about what happened, get in touch with your HR department or other qualitative researchers in your community. They will be well equipped to lend you an ear. If necessary, seek resources to help you through any lasting psychological distress.

Overlook the risks

Fortunately, the incidences described above are rare during data collection but they do happen. And although qualitative data collections are built upon a foundation of thorough planning and precaution, this is often aimed to protect the humanity of our participants alone and we tend to overlook the risks to ourselves.

The best tool we have to combat these situations is preparation. We encourage researchers to include themselves when planning for risk-mitigation and to have parameters in place to safeguard themselves as well as their participants. Each researcher has a different capacity for handling difficult situations and this capacity can change over time, so it is okay if your tolerance is different from someone else’s. Know your personal limits as a researcher and be prepared to draw firm lines.