Direct research involving those who have experienced trauma is highly regulated, as those with this experience are categorized as especially vulnerable to harm in the research process, through re-traumatisation. This is especially true of groups that are also marginalized. As there are correlations between some causes of trauma, especially interpersonal violence (Finkelhor 2008, Armstrong et al 2018 ), these groups would be considered doubly vulnerable. Researchers would need to ensure that their methodology did not exploit power imbalances to compound marginalization or exploit power differentials.

However, the restrictions around research on people who have experienced trauma that exclude them from research and prevent them from expressing their views about matters that concern them have begun to be questioned. This is often the case where potential harms to participants may be overestimated, this is especially pertinent where they are weighed against the benefit of the inclusion of the views, needs and voices of those experiencing trauma. Tisdall has commented on the employment of potential harm to discourage children’s participation in their own child custody hearings. Houghton has linked the inclusion of children who have experienced domestic abuse in research to their rights to participate as stated in the United Nations Children’s Rights Convention (UNCRC). While Seedat et al have described the possibility of research as as positive experience through giving victims a chance to give testimony of their experiences, on the condition that they have control over their engagement in research methods.

Evaluation research with those experiencing trauma brings up some specific issues unique to the field. I would argue that the needs of programme users who have experienced trauma that make them vulnerable are the same needs that also entitle them to high quality, worthwhile and effective programmes. Therefore evaluation research is especially important with this group. For the same reasons, the full and direct participation of programme users in these evaluations in order that they may give their views is therefore underlined, as an aspect of their recovery and of their personal and political empowerment.

However, it is for these practical reasons that evaluation, as a branch of social research can often sidestep the rigorous procedural controls that govern other social research with vulnerable and/or marginalized groups. Simons points out the dearth of literature on ethics in evaluations and there are very few guidelines which address the ethics of working with vulnerable groups, especially those who have experienced trauma in an evaluative context.

Evaluation research is specific, and researchers may often have a different set of skills to practitioners, more equipped at working safely with programme users. Much of the time, this is remedied by the setting of the evaluation, within a project where skilled professionals can share knowledge, and assist where disclosures or needs have been identified. It is important however that mechanisms for addressing confidentiality or safeguarding, for example, should be decided in advance of research commencing. The reality of an evaluation may be more complex though, and it is possible that researchers are faced with situations where disclosures or needs fall outwith their expertise, either because a programme is failing to properly support users, or, more likely, that resource constraints create shortfalls in the ability to fully support programme users or researchers.  These scenario’s will need to have been planned for, with safety mechanisms in place for supporting service users or staff, and with clear procedures for addressing safeguarding, or potential whistleblowing needs.