Qualitative methodological study reveals effective trauma-informed recruitment strategies in survivors of gender-based violence, highlighting ethical frameworks for reaching marginalised groups.
Purpose The challenge of recruiting participants from hidden and hard-to-reach groups to sensitive qualitative interviews is well-established. This article brings together recent thinking on trauma-informed research and research relationalities to consider methods of reaching diverse populations effectively and ethically. Design/methodology/approach The article draws from a research study on gender-based violence (GBV) in higher education in Ireland, which recruited 18 participants to in-depth interviews about experiences of disclosing, reporting and not disclosing GBV in their higher education institutions. All participants were self-identified survivors of GBV, and interviews were potentially emotionally sensitive and ethically complex. Recruitment used social media, community networking and ongoing relational engagements. Findings The small sample recruited was highly diverse, including participants who were socially minoritised and who might have reason not to trust professional researchers. Analysis of the recruitment approach identifies four aspects that draw on trauma-informed practice, particularly relationality. Specific to recruitment, we outline how trauma-informed and relational principles apply before fieldwork begins, and extend beyond study participants to take in multiple agents. We propose this as a unifying theme that can be ethical and effective for reaching those who are often excluded from sensitive or challenging qualitative research studies. Originality/value We bring recent thinking on trauma-informed research practice and relationality to bear specifically on recruitment methods for sensitive qualitative research. This contributes practical insight to ongoing considerations on ethical and effective inclusion of hidden and hard-to-reach populations in qualitative research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ballantine et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: