The practice of ethics in social science research is a reflexive process of self-review to define a profession’s collective responsibility in the face of changing norms and expectations. In recent years, we have seen transformative changes in how society thinks about supporting sexual assault survivors, and how the scientific community thinks about our obligations to society. Decades of research on trauma and its impact has raised awareness about the needs of victimized individuals, giving rise to the trauma-informed practice movement, which emphasizes that service providers must center survivors’ well-being in all interactions, decisions, and program practices. The field of sexual assault research helped give rise to this movement and provides empirical support for its guiding tenets, and in this article, we explore how to bring these ideas full circle to begin articulating trauma-informed principles for research. A trauma-informed perspective on research challenges scientists to go beyond the requirements of the Belmont Report (1979) and institutional review boards' (IRB) regulations to develop research procedures that fully support survivors’ choice, control, and empowerment. Such reflection on participants’ rights is particularly important given the open science movement sweeping academia, which calls on scientists to share their data publicly to promote transparency, replication, and new discoveries. Disseminating data could pose significant safety, privacy, and confidentiality risks for victims of sexual assault, so we need to evaluate what open science means within a trauma-informed framework. In this article, we examine three key stages of the research process—participant recruitment, data collection, and dissemination—and consider how trauma-informed principles could help, but also could complicate, research practices. We explore these tensions and offer potential solutions so that research on sexual trauma embodies trauma-informed practice.

The purpose of this study was to develop triangulation coding methods for a large-scale action research and evaluation project and to examine how practitioners and policy makers interpreted both convergent and divergent data. We created a color-coded system that evaluated the extent of triangulation across methodologies (qualitative and quantitative), data collection methods (observations, interviews, and archival records), and stakeholder groups (five distinct disciplines/organizations). Triangulation was assessed for both specific data points (e.g., a piece of historical/contextual information or qualitative theme) and substantive findings that emanated from further analysis of those data points (e.g., a statistical model or a mechanistic qualitative assertion that links themes). We present five case study examples that explore the complexities of interpreting triangulation data and determining whether data are deemed credible and actionable if not convergent.

Objective: The open science movement seeks to make research more transparent, and to that end, researchers are increasingly expected or required to archive their data in national repositories. In qualitative trauma research, data sharing could compromise participants’ safety, privacy, and confidentiality because narrative data can be more difficult to de-identify fully. There is little guidance in the traumatology literature regarding how to discuss data-sharing requirements with participants during the informed consent process. Within a larger research project in which we interviewed assault survivors, we developed and evaluated a protocol for informed consent for qualitative data sharing and engaging participants in data de-identification. Method: We conducted qualitative interviews with N = 32 adult sexual assault survivors regarding (a) how to conduct informed consent for data sharing, (b) whether participants should have input on sharing their data, and (c) whether they wanted to redact information from their transcripts prior to archiving. Results: No potential participants declined participation after learning about the archiving mandate. Survivors indicated that they wanted input on archiving because the interview is their story of trauma and abuse and it would be disempowering not to have control over how this information was shared and disseminated. Survivors also wanted input on this process to help guard their privacy, confidentiality, and safety. None of the participants elected to redact substantive data prior to archiving. Conclusions: Engaging participants in the archiving process is a feasible practice that is important and empowering for trauma survivors.

Introduction: Most sexual assaults that are reported to the criminal justice system will not be prosecuted. Researchers and policymakers have expressed concern that this long-standing practice allows offenders to commit additional sexual assaults. Determining whether reported sex offenders commit other sexual assaults requires establishing reliable linkages between two (or more) cases. Typically, criminal history records are used to identify repeat sexual offenders, but biological evidence in sexual assault kits (SAKs; also termed rape kits) provides an another way to study how often reported sexual offenders commit additional sexual assaults by linking DNA across multiple cases to the same perpetrator. Method: This study examined the forensic DNA testing results from a large sample of SAKs from Detroit, Michigan (N = 7,287). We assessed how many SAKs yielded a DNA match to a reference sample in the federal criminal database CODIS (Combined DNA Index System). We then ascertained whether the matching case was related to another sexual assault incident documented by state criminal history records. Results: Approximately one third (35.7%) of the unique perpetrators in this sample had two or more sexual assaults linked via DNA, which is higher than what is typically documented in recidivism studies using court records (8–15%). Three case studies are presented that highlight how forensic DNA evidence can link multiple sexual assaults to the same perpetrator. Conclusion: Forensic DNA testing of SAKs reveals a more complete picture of the scope of offenders’ sexual perpetration behaviors than what is documented in criminal history records alone.

More than 80,000 prisoners each year are sexually victimized during incarceration, but only about 8% report victimization to correctional authorities. Complicating reporting is the fact that half of the perpetrators are staff members. Given the restrictive and highly regulated prison environment, studies that examine reporting behaviors are difficult to conduct and to date information available relied on those who have reported or hypothetical victimization studies. This study uses an ecological framework and archival data from a class action lawsuit of sexual misconduct to determine predictors of reporting. Relying on a subsample of 179 women, chosen because they have all experienced at least 1 penetration offense, we use bivariate and multivariable mixed effects logistic regression analyses to examine individual, assault, and context-level predictors of reporting on 397 incidents of staff sexual misconduct. The final model revealed that that 6 predictors (age at time of assault, physical injury, multiple incidents, perpetrator with multiple victims, the year the abuse began, and the number of years women have left on their sentence) account for 58% of the variance in reporting. Disclosure to inmate peers and/or family and friends was significant in the bivariate results. These findings indicate the need for stronger and more systematic implementation of Prison Rape Elimination Act guidelines and remedies that create and enforce sanctions, including termination, for staff violating policy and state law. (PsycINFO Database Record