Explore the vast range of titles available.

There is currently limited research exploring the impact of undertaking sensitive or challenging research on the researcher, although some textbooks explore researcher preparedness. This article presents a discussion of the findings from a research project which engaged with the seldom heard voices of researchers themselves. The aim was to explore researchers’ experiences of undertaking research on sensitive topics, or with marginalized groups, as this can expose researchers to emotionally disturbing situations throughout data collection and analysis, which can be psychologically challenging. Although ethical codes of practice include discussion around protection of both the researcher and the participant, in practice, the ethics approval process rarely considers the impact of the proposed research on the researcher. Their experiences are therefore seldom acknowledged or heard, resulting in potential distress for the researcher. Semistructured interviews were undertaken with social science researchers from a range of discipline backgrounds and at different points in their research careers (n = 10). This article explores two themes emerging from the data: preparedness and positionality. It considers what these themes mean in terms of supporting researchers who encounter challenging research data, and issues related to supporting researcher reflexivity and the requirements for institutional support offered to researchers will also be considered.

Attempts to detect socially desirable responding bias have mainly focused on studies that explore sensitive topics. However, researchers concur that the sensitive character of the survey could be affected by the social context within which the research is conducted. Little research has been reported worldwide investigating the potential effects of social desirability on students’ self-reports, considering the social context within which the survey is conducted. In this paper, we investigate the potential effects of social desirability on students’ self-reports in two social contexts within which the survey was conducted. More specifically, with a sample of 111 Greek students, we explored the effects of social desirability on students’ attitudes towards statistics in two cases: when the questionnaire was administered to participating students after attending (a) lectures and (b) both lectures and laboratory classes. Only in the second case were the items’ attitudes toward statistics associated with a score of socially desirable responding; moreover, social desirability accounted for the relationship between attitudes toward statistics and perceived competence in mathematics. Implications and limitations are also discussed.

In Germany, studies have shown that official coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination coverage estimated using data collected directly from vaccination centers, hospitals, and physicians is lower than that calculated using surveys of the general population. Public debate has since centered on whether the official statistics are failing to capture the actual vaccination coverage. The authors argue that the topic of one’s COVID-19 vaccination status is sensitive in times of a pandemic and that estimates based on surveys are biased by social desirability. The authors investigate this conjecture using an experimental method called the item count technique, which provides respondents with the opportunity to answer in an anonymous setting. Estimates obtained using the item count technique are compared with those obtained using the conventional method of asking directly. Results show that social desirability bias leads some unvaccinated individuals to claim they are vaccinated. Conventional survey studies thus likely overestimate vaccination coverage because of misreporting by survey respondents.

In frameworks in which topic- theoretic considerations— e.g. , tracking subject-matter or topic —are given equal importance with veridical considerations, assigning topics to formulae in a satisfactory way is of critical importance. While intuitions are more-or-less solid for extensional formulae in a propositional language, arriving at a compelling account of the subject-matter of intensional formulae, i.e. , formulae including intensional operators, is more challenging. This paper continues previous work on modeling topics of intensional formulae in William Parry’s logic of analytic implication, adapting the general techniques to the framework of topic-sensitive intentional modals (TSIMs) championed by Francesco Berto and his collaborators. As illustrations, we introduce variations on Berto and Peter Hawke’s logic of knowability relative to information ( KRI ), including a refinement sensitive to topic-theoretic distinctions between knowledge and belief and a refinement capable of internalizing its own properties. Finally, subsystems of Aybüke Ozgun and Berto’s logic of plain hyperintensional belief ( PHB ) are introduced in which fine-grained distinctions in subject-matter are possible.

PurposeThis paper aims to revisit the debate on the insider-outsider positionality of the researcher in conducting qualitative research by highlighting the challenges of researching sexual harassment and harassment among stigmatized or hidden groups of individuals in a culturally value-laden backdrop in South Asia.Design/methodology/approachThe authors drew on a bricolage of methods to analyze and write this paper. First, the authors borrowed from the case study approach to select three research projects that would shed light on the argument raised in the study. Then, narratives, together with self and critical reflexivity were used to write reflective narratives, which served as data for this paper. Next, the authors used the thematic analysis method to analyze the reflective narratives. Finally, the authors drew from literature and the experiences to provide recommendations for the challenges thus identified.FindingsThe critical reflections highlight three overarching challenges the authors encountered as insider-outsiders in researching a sensitive topic among stigmatized/hidden groups in a value-laden cultural backdrop: 1) difficulty in recruitment, 2) internalized gender norms and 3) unconscious biases. Based on these challenges, the authors posit that what is pertinent is not whether a researcher is an insider, outsider or in-betweener per se, but how to maximize benefits and minimize pitfalls of being an insider or outsider and employing other means of overcoming the drawbacks. The authors also claim that being more sensitive to the culture, reflexive, flexible and experienced would help overcome challenges faced when conducting research of this nature as insiders-outsiders.Originality/valueThere appears to be little empirically derived inquiry on the insider-outsider positionality of the researchers at the intersection of sensitive topics, stigmatized participants and culture. Our reflections and suggestions address this lacuna while revisiting the simplistic use of insider-outsider dichotomy and proposing other means to overcome the drawbacks brought on by the researcher positionality.

It can be challenging to research aspects of people's health behaviour, attitudes, and emotions due to the sensitive nature of these topics. We aimed to develop a novel methodology for discussing sensitive health topics, and explore the effectiveness in focus groups using prostate cancer and screening as an example. We developed a fictitious case and employed it as a projective technique in focus groups on prostate cancer and screening. The participants were men and their partners who lived in Denmark. The technique encouraged emotional and cognitive openness in focus group discussions about the risk of prostate cancer, the benefits and harms of screening, and decision-making about screening. It appeared that using the fictitious case allowed the participants to personally distance themselves from the topic, project emotions onto the case, and thereby openly talk about their emotions. This article presents a methodological contribution to communication about sensitive topics in focus groups, using prostate cancer screening as an example. Further refinement of the methodology is needed to enable participants to transfer improvements in knowledge to their own decision about screening.

Cohort replacement – the replacement in a population of older cohorts by their successors who developed under different conditions – is an important process behind cultural change. Research on public opinion indicates that a large proportion of aggregate change is the result of cohort replacement rather than of individuals changing their minds. However, some publicly salient issues, like gay rights, appear to be exceptions. Why different issues show different patterns of change is not well understood. In this paper, we investigate whether opinions on sensitive – that is, hard to discuss – issues might change differently than opinions on less sensitive issues. We use data from the 1981–2020 World Values Surveys and newly collected data on the sensitivity of survey items to compare aggregate changes in public opinion on 56 survey items in eight countries. Our key finding is that survey items on more sensitive issues seem to change more through cohort replacement.

Qualitative research interviews are invaluable in understanding participants’ experiences within public health systems and driving systemic change. These interviews can be sensitive in nature, particularly when exploring how certain groups are failed by systems. Considering this, it is crucial to conduct interviews in a way that prioritises the psychological safety of both participants and interviewers. While there is extensive literature theoretical approaches and methods to minimise risk, practical guidance to enhance safety for both research interviewers and participants throughout the data collection process remains limited. This article outlines a protocol for undertaking research interviews within the specific context of children and young people who have experienced housing insecurity and homelessness in Aotearoa New Zealand. The protocol draws on both the wider literature and the experiences of our multidisciplinary research team, with a focus on supporting less experienced qualitative researchers to conduct psychologically safe interviews. Key features of the protocol include: ensuring appropriate cultural responsiveness, providing researchers with opportunities to practice sensitive and/or challenging interviews, carefully considering interview location, forecasting content to participants, and sharing appropriate support resources once the interview has finished. In particular, we describe closure practices that support researchers to ‘leave’ an interview. We reflect on the processes we put in place with the aim of minimising risk to both interviewers and participants when discussing sensitive topics, while maintaining research rigour. By making this protocol available to fellow researchers and community partners we hope to encourage further discussion of best practice for engaging in sensitive interviews in community-based research.

We aimed to review and synthesize the literature on risk and resilience factors for research-induced distress (RID) among qualitative child abuse researchers, with the review guided by the Lippencott-Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for qualitative reviews. We searched Scopus, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, and ProQuest, with two researchers independently reviewing title/abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion, and with additional articles found using citation searches of identified articles and through a perusal of articles in key child abuse and qualitative research journals. We synthesized 30 unique studies, with this synthesis revealing that risk and salutary factors for RID outcomes emanate from all levels of the research ecology and, consequently, that optimal strategies for the primary and secondary prevention of RID could profitably adopt a multi-systemic perspective. Findings from this review provide child abuse researchers and members of academia with a detailed and systematic overview of potential threats and salutary influences for RID that could be used to (1) inform the development of comprehensive pre-research (and ongoing) training programmes for researchers, and (2) guide the development of secondary prevention programmes designed to mitigate RID outcomes. With respect to future research, this review suggests that the focus of research could usefully be extended in order to: (1) provide a more comprehensive perspective on the experiences of researchers living in low- to middle-income countries, and (2) ensure children’s rights to be heard, and to participate in research on matters that affect them, are more comprehensively addressed.

Researcher mental health in emotionally demanding research (EDR) has been recognized as important, but research to date has often been limited to academic research contexts, qualitative research, or single disciplines. The aim of this study was to identify best practices to promote researchers' mental health in EDR across academic and non-academic contexts. Twenty-six researchers experienced in EDR (aged 33-64) were recruited across sectors and disciplines (e.g. sport psychology, palliative care, conflict resolution). Semi-structured online 2:1 interviews were conducted between October 2023 and January 2024. The co-designed interview guide asked questions on best practices at individual and contextual levels when undertaking EDR. Interviews were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis. Three themes were generated: (1) the need for a psychologically informed research culture; (2) actions and principles in the immediate research environment; and (3) researcher boundaries with the research, others, and oneself. Underlying mechanisms across themes included tailored, iterative and flexible, and collaborative. A shift is needed towards a more psychologically informed research culture to support mental health in EDR. Findings have implications for research organizations, conference organizers, and funders as greater resources are needed for researchers in EDR, regardless of method, discipline, or sector.