Abstract
The goal of this article is to discuss and illustrate secondary trauma reactions resulting from conducting trauma research. Possible secondary trauma effects have been extensively recognized and documented in those indirectly exposed to traumatic experiences through their affiliation with direct victims; for example family members, first responders and health care professionals. However, recognition and the study of potential secondary traumatization as the result of involvement in trauma research have only recently begun to emerge. This article sought to review what we know and point to where we need to go to gain further and more nuanced understanding of vicarious negative and positive reactions to studying trauma in those directly exposed.
Empirical literature published in English in peer reviewed journals about the prevalence, characteristics, manifestations, predictors and negative and positive effects of trauma practice and trauma research was reviewed and analyzed.
The empirical evidence indicates that involvement in trauma practice and in all stages and aspects of trauma research has the potential to generate both negative and positive vicarious trauma reactions. Correlates of research-related trauma reactions include the types of population studied, the research methods employed, personal and professional background and characteristics.
Involvement in trauma research positions researchers, interviewers, transcribers and others involved at risk for vicarious negative trauma reactions as well as presents the potential for vicarious posttraumatic growth. Individual researchers and research institutes should take measures to minimize negative effects and foster the potential for positive effects. Future nuanced research should examine the effectiveness of such measures as well as seek more nuanced knowledge about differential effects of researching different types of trauma in different research capacities.