Post‑COVID user research needs a revised safeguarding plan
Article Overview
The article, authored by Dr. Urvashi Sharma, posits that contemporary user research, particularly in a post-COVID landscape, necessitates a fundamental re-evaluation and expansion of traditional safeguarding protocols. The central thesis is that safeguarding is not merely about what transpires within a research session, but critically encompasses the entire ecosystem surrounding it, including researcher health, logistical complexities, and psychological safety. Sharma argues that ignoring these "around the session" factors—such as infection risk, excessive travel, lone working, and fatigue—directly compromises research quality, leading to shaky decision-making, skipped debriefs, blurred boundaries, and an erosion of ethical standards. The author emphasizes that researcher wellbeing is inextricably linked to the integrity and reliability of the research outcomes, moving beyond a simple "wellbeing" concern to a core research quality issue.
Sharma illustrates this expanded view through a series of "field notes," drawing from personal experiences. One key example details an in-person research project where the author contracted COVID due to being placed in a poorly ventilated, crowded room with sick staff, highlighting the often-unaccounted-for health risks in fieldwork. Another field note, "the invisible entrance," describes significant time lost and anxiety caused by inadequate logistical information, such as unclear building access amidst construction, underscoring the need to treat basic navigation as a safeguarding concern. The "lone working" note recounts being trapped in a building after hours, emphasizing the physical safety risks and the potential for severe consequences, such as a fire incident that destroyed a student's work in the same building.
Furthermore, the article delves into the critical issue of "re-traumatisation," citing an event for an eating disorder trial where a focus on public relations overshadowed the emotional safety of vulnerable participants. The presence of abundant food and enthusiastic eating by staff proved highly triggering for individuals battling severe eating disorders, revealing a profound lack of empathy and foresight. This incident underscores that ethics paperwork (formal permission granted by an ethics committee or board to conduct research involving human participants, ensuring it meets ethical standards) alone is insufficient; a team culture must genuinely treat re-traumatization as a real human outcome, not an abstract risk. Sharma concludes that if the most senior person poses a risk, a pre-agreed "speak-up route" with a named escalation contact outside the immediate hierarchy is essential, fostering a culture where safeguards are rehearsed, not improvised. The article also briefly touches upon "governance collapse," where institutional relationship breakdowns can abruptly halt fieldwork, despite prior approvals.
Impact on Design Practice
For UX/UI designers, particularly those involved in user research, this article serves as a critical call to action, urging a more holistic and empathetic approach to research planning and execution. It fundamentally shifts the perception of "safeguarding" from a mere compliance checklist to an integral component of ethical, high-quality design practice. Designers often operate as the bridge between users and product development, and the integrity of their research directly influences the empathy and effectiveness of their designs. Overlooking factors like researcher fatigue or participant re-traumatization can lead to biased data, skewed insights, and ultimately, products that fail to meet user needs or, worse, cause harm.
This expanded view of safeguarding impacts daily work by requiring designers to think beyond the interview script. For instance, when planning a field study, a designer must now consider not just the interview questions, but also the physical environment (ventilation, accessibility), the researcher's travel burden, and contingency plans for unexpected site issues. When recruiting vulnerable populations, it's not enough to get ethical approval; designers must actively anticipate and mitigate potential emotional triggers, ensuring the research environment and activities are genuinely safe and supportive. This means advocating for adequate project timelines that allow for researcher breaks and sick leave, much like a well-designed app accounts for user error states, ensuring a resilient and humane process.
Safeguarding in user research extends beyond session ethics; it encompasses researcher wellbeing, logistical foresight, and emotional safety, all crucial for high-quality, ethical design outcomes.
How to Apply This
To integrate a revised safeguarding plan into your user research practice, consider these actionable steps:
Pre-empt Logistical Hurdles: Before fieldwork, request photos of entrances, a direct mobile contact, and a clear plan for entry issues, treating navigation as a critical safety factor.
Mitigate Lone Working Risks: Establish clear protocols for lone working, including check-in systems, emergency contacts, and ensuring adequate security measures at research sites.
Prioritize Emotional Safety: For vulnerable participants, rigorously plan research activities and environments to avoid re-traumatization, considering food, messaging, and team behavior.
Establish Clear Escalation Paths: Implement a pre-agreed "speak-up route" with a named, external escalation contact for ethical concerns, especially if senior team members pose a risk.
Account for Researcher Wellbeing: Integrate allowances for travel time, breaks, and potential sick leave into project timelines, recognizing that researcher health directly impacts research quality.
Industry Context
This article resonates deeply with the growing industry emphasis on ethical AI, responsible design, and human-centered principles. In a post-pandemic world, where remote work blurs boundaries and in-person interactions carry new risks, the need for comprehensive safeguarding has become paramount. It highlights a critical evolution in UX research, moving beyond purely methodological rigor to embrace a holistic view of human safety and wellbeing for both researchers and participants. This aligns with broader trends advocating for greater transparency, accountability, and empathy in technology development, recognizing that the foundation of ethical products lies in ethically conducted research.